Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Last stop before the midterms: Virginia 2021 – politicalbetting.com

135678

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,260
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    My own even-handed position on this is that one must hate a French fisherman as one does the devil.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/

    And you have replaced your boat in the last 5 years?
    And threw away your logbook? How foolish!

    Under the previous treaty French boats should have kept logs of where they fished - not doing so was a prosecutable offence.

    Under the new treaty to qualify for a licence they have to produce this log book - many have, and been awarded licences.

    So the question arises, who are this minority who don't have log books, and why not?

    Want a licence - produce a log book, or face prosecution under the old treaty.
    I assumed a log book went with the boat. It is one of the reasons being given.
    The log book that was legally required to fish.... sounds like someone transferring the rights to fish, along with the boat.

    Except that the rights to fish, in such a case the rights to fish would be with the new owner of the boat?

    Surely, if you merely trade in the old boat for new one, you would need the keep the log books for the old one for X years, given the way that bureaucracies work?
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As you may know my Scottish family are fisherfolk and I take an interest in these matters

    Boris and the UK are not the issue here, it is Jersey's refusal to grant licences to French fishing boats who cannot provide the evidence they have fished in the waters as required within the treaty between the UK-EU-Jersey

    Jersey has granted temporary licences to some of these boats pending the documentation, but it appears upto 40 boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters cannot provide the evidence

    Jersey are following the treaty and apparently there are French boats actively and legally fishing in Jersey waters who do not want any unauthorised French boats either diluting their catch

    Ultimately Macron is politically posturing for next year
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As predictable as you will back the non-UK etc side in an argument.
    I can't see how "Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons" is taking his side.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    MrEd said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    If they want a renegotiation they should come out and say so, instead they're trying to claim they want the deal enforced while throwing a strop about the deal being enforced.

    They are a sovereign country and can do what they like so "should' doesn't come into it. They aren't bound by your personal and abstract notion of what constitutes appropriate behaviour.
    Fair point but what is most annoying about them is they act as they do and then they whinge when someone else does it to them. They are rapidly becoming the professional victims of at least Europe.
    France, the Red Bull Racing of European politics.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,847
    Mr. F, to be fair, it's entirely possible to see Satan as Prometheus, gifting mankind knowledge and fighting against a stronger foe to do so.

    The French fisherman has no such defence or moral compass.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    My own even-handed position on this is that one must hate a French fisherman as one does the devil.
    What did poor Lucifer do wrong, to deserve being lumped in with the French fisherman?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,014

    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/

    I don't think the poundshop Brexiteers that run Jersey are cognisant that their island is a tiny dot just off the French coast, as far as the French government is concerned, and that they care far more about one Breton rust bucket fishing boat than the whole of that island. Logbooks or no, Breton fisher folk used to be able to fish off the Channel Islands and now they can't. The French government means to go back to the previous state of affairs. The French are not being reasonable about it. They are simply using the levers that come from being overwhelmingly bigger.

    For once Johnson isn't the problem here.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As predictable as you will back the non-UK etc side in an argument.
    I can't see how "Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons" is taking his side.
    You have equated Macron and Johnson as both showboating which suggests their actions and motives are equivalent. I have no doubt johnson showboats but in this case there have been plenty of reasons given why the French position is wrong when it comes to the demand for documentation etc.
  • kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kle4 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Its quite clear that the issue in the Jersey/France dispute is entirely due to a small proportion of French boats not having the proof they're required to have to get the licence. Either because they're not entitled to one and are trying it on, or would have been but were cooking the books thus destroyed their own evidence.

    Its quite amusing then seeing certain types on this site and elsewhere trying to "both sides" this, or saying essentially "I don't know how, but I just know Boris is to blame".

    Some people have just closed their minds to evidence and are acting as delusional as Trump trying to both sides the white supremacist violence.

    To some it will always be Boris and the UK's fault and they just cannot see any flaw in Macron or the EU as it does not suit their purpose

    It is time to recognise that Jersey is only following rules that in every other case the EU are meticulous in following and enforcing themselves

    Macron is acting as a hypocrite because he has an election to win next year

    It is politics and not very edifying to watch
    France has decided the current agreement doesn't work and are taking a maximal position in order to force a renegotiation. "🤷"
    Perhaps that is so. But I very much seem to recall people condemning thay kind of behaviour as unreasonable. Only people who didn't think it unreasonable could possibly defend the French taking the same stance without looking utterly ridiculous with the double standards.

    Either its ok or it isn't, it cannot be so dependent on the side.
    Spot on. There are far too many people who look at who is doing the action first, rather than the action itself, before they condemn.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    The view from Jersey:

    In order to obtain a Jersey fishing licence, French vessels must prove that they fished in Island waters for a minimum of ten days in 2017, 2018 or 2019.

    Jersey’s government says that, according to the terms of the Brexit deal, they can only accept evidence of this in the form of logbook data – something vessels should have been compiling when they fished in local waters under the old Granville Bay Treaty.


    https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/10/29/confrontation-on-the-horizon-in-fishing-row/

    And you have replaced your boat in the last 5 years?
    And threw away your logbook? How foolish!

    Under the previous treaty French boats should have kept logs of where they fished - not doing so was a prosecutable offence.

    Under the new treaty to qualify for a licence they have to produce this log book - many have, and been awarded licences.

    So the question arises, who are this minority who don't have log books, and why not?

    Want a licence - produce a log book, or face prosecution under the old treaty.
    I assumed a log book went with the boat. It is one of the reasons being given.
    The log book that was legally required to fish.... sounds like someone transferring the rights to fish, along with the boat.

    Except that the rights to fish, in such a case the rights to fish would be with the new owner of the boat?

    Surely, if you merely trade in the old boat for new one, you would need the keep the log books for the old one for X years, given the way that bureaucracies work?
    To be honest I have no idea, as is the case with all these people pontificating about the evil French, but at least I admit it rather than deciding who is to blame.

    However I would not assume the log book is a right to fish. I assume, but don't know, that it is a log for the boat so naturally goes with the boat. If a fisherman is simply renewing his boat (rather than retiring) then he probably intends to fish the same waters and would want to keep that right as otherwise nobody could renew their boat.

    I mean none of us know and I hate this business of we are always right and someone else is always wrong, regardless of the lack of the facts.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    kinabalu said:


    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?

    Isn't that right enshrined in the treaty? ;)
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    MaxPB said:

    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.

    That was the point the Norwegian government made in their survey of Norwegian relations with the EU. As the smaller counterparty, protection is more important than freedom to act. The ECJ provides that protection to some extent because its job is to apply the law in an objective way. Absent the ECJ you are leaving it up to the whim of the more powerful party and they certainly won't be taking your interest into account.
    "Objective" you're delusional.
    I’ve followed ECJ (CJEU) decisions on tax for a couple of decades as they affect many of my clients. In a large number of cases the court has ruled in favour of the taxpayer and contrary to the member state or, in some cases, the preferences of the EC & European Parliament. It’s often been a source of embarrassment and annoyance to member states.

    Our own Supreme Court has demonstrated similar independence, much to the annoyance of the current government.

    Either you believe in the separation of powers of the judiciary and executive, or you don’t - and assume that the judiciary is simply a mouthpiece of the regime. My experience with the CJEU is that it is a very good example of an independent body. Like our own courts, and indeed like various courts of arbitration.

    Assuming all courts are biased is I think very much partisan US-style thinking, and a form of projection.
  • kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    What has that to do with a dispute between Jersey and France
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    edited October 2021
    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As you may know my Scottish family are fisherfolk and I take an interest in these matters

    Boris and the UK are not the issue here, it is Jersey's refusal to grant licences to French fishing boats who cannot provide the evidence they have fished in the waters as required within the treaty between the UK-EU-Jersey

    Jersey has granted temporary licences to some of these boats pending the documentation, but it appears upto 40 boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters cannot provide the evidence

    Jersey are following the treaty and apparently there are French boats actively and legally fishing in Jersey waters who do not want any unauthorised French boats either diluting their catch

    Ultimately Macron is politically posturing for next year
    I’ve not been following this in any detail, largely because I’ve been trying to untwist some complicated Family History threads, but also because I don’t trust the major players to play by the normal rules… both our and the French governments. However fisherfolk are the aquatic equivalents of farmers, all of whom have a permanent sense of grievance where ‘The Authorities are concerned.
    So I’m certain that the last thing anyone should do is get super-excited about this, but I’m equally certain that that’s exactly what people will do.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    John Roberts
    @john_actuary
    ·
    5h
    [Hospitalisations] should start to fall soon, as the benefit of the booster takes effect in the Over 80s first. But that's the point - we could accelerate that fall by around a month - even more if we jab people promptly at 5 months, rather than only book them in at 6.

    ===

    Why are we not pushing on with this?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,678
    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    Which of the cited facts do you dispute?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    edited October 2021
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
  • kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623

    John Roberts
    @john_actuary
    ·
    5h
    [Hospitalisations] should start to fall soon, as the benefit of the booster takes effect in the Over 80s first. But that's the point - we could accelerate that fall by around a month - even more if we jab people promptly at 5 months, rather than only book them in at 6.

    ===

    Why are we not pushing on with this?

    I really don’t understand. We have the supplies. There seems to be no sense of urgency. As someone in his 40s who had AZ I also don’t know why they’re not boosting 40-50 year olds with Pfizer too.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    kinabalu said:

    TimS said:

    We’re getting binary again on a topic, this time China vs the west and emissions. That’s not the right way to see it, albeit I can see it’s convenient to either Tice types or West hating far lefties.

    The choice is not either China reduces emissions or we do. If China is slow to act - which, as commented above, compared with India or Brazil for example it is not - then the West is not “picking up the slack”. For a start the West is a useless term when it comes to climate change because of how much worse the US and Australia are than Europe or Japan. They are not the same bloc when it comes to emissions.

    Everyone needs to cut emissions, and fast. China needs to cut them a huge amount. So does the US. The poorer developing world need to develop in a greener way, but they will self evidently need help getting there. Australia and the Gulf states have absolutely no excuse. And we in Europe need to cut too, to do our bit. We have the technology and the business opportunity to do quite a lot.

    To return to the traffic cop analogy. The police should be catching rapists and murderers, and they should also be policing speeding and drink driving.

    Great post, and I'd add something. I see shades of previous debates on things like 'white privilege' and 'positive discrimination'. No acceptance whatsoever of any moral obligation on the present arising from the past. The past is all very vivid and pertinent when celebrating 'our great history', yet it mysteriously becomes an irrelevance when it comes to the question of whether it should drive actions and behaviour today that we find a little bit onerous and unpalatable.
    But that’s where we probably differ. I don’t think it’s helpful to introduce too much of a moral dimension to a scientific and technical challenge like this. It risks turning it into culture war when it’s not, it’s physics. If we want to achieve net zero globally, we can’t afford to turn climate change into a partisan issue.
    That's definitely a point. It has to be about whatever works best. The left/right (in the west) partisan angle seems to come more from disagreement about solutions. In particular, on the right, a suspicion/dislike of anything too collectivist, or of ceding power beyond the nation state, or of measures which make demands on or add costs to our lifestyle. But I'm actually heartened by the degree of consensus.

    1. The planet is warming.
    2. Human activity is to a great extent causing it.
    3. Action is needed urgently to address this.
    4. If it isn't taken, there will be terrible consequences.

    The vast majority of politicians accept this, I think.

    Course, one who doesn't is the betting favourite for next US president. So fingers crossed there.
    A rising global population combined with an imperative to reduce resource consumption isn't a recipe for a stable world. People often talk as if everyone just needs to "do their bit", but this underestimates the scale of the problem.
    There's certainly some underestimating of the problem. More complacency than fearmongering, I'd say. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be too little too late. I don't feel the climate emergency emotionally, it doesn't get me as fired up as certain other issues, but that's just a personal flaw. Not caring as much as I should about what comes after the tiny specks of utter irrelevance that is me and mine are gone.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    The logbook of your commercial fishing activities is legally required and not the same thing as the log book of your car despite them having a similar name.

    When operating a business its standard practice in many businesses to be legally required to maintain your paperwork for seven years. Telling HMRC for instance that you have lost your paperwork from two years ago isn't going to go down very well if you have an inspection.

    If they've been commercially fishing they would be required to maintain records that they should have available.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,393
    "Will magic defeat America’s elites?
    A former Grand Archdruid on the power of political spells
    BY JOHN MICHAEL GREER"

    https://unherd.com/2021/10/will-magic-defeat-americas-elites
  • TresTres Posts: 1,513

    John Roberts
    @john_actuary
    ·
    5h
    [Hospitalisations] should start to fall soon, as the benefit of the booster takes effect in the Over 80s first. But that's the point - we could accelerate that fall by around a month - even more if we jab people promptly at 5 months, rather than only book them in at 6.

    ===

    Why are we not pushing on with this?

    our kakistocratic government is only capable of focussing on one issue at a time
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    And I listened to the French representative as well. Both made compelling arguments and I don't know who was correct.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    People are allowed to comment on things that they aren't directly involved in.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    It's not a car. Why are you applying the rules of selling a car to selling a fishing boat.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,678
    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    Because its related to the BREXIT agreement between the UK & the EU.

    Before, when Jersey sorted out treaty details with the relevant depts in France all went reasonably smoothly - now Paris, London and Brussels are involved its gone to hell in a handcart...
  • kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    No we are not. We are threatening to exercise our rights within the Protocol that we are perfectly entitled to do, as written down in the Protocol. Following the processes written in the Protocol.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    edited October 2021
    RobD said:

    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    People are allowed to comment on things that they aren't directly involved in.
    Commenting is different from being involved.

    If the CIs are to be treated as part of the UK the locals ought to pay the same taxes as the rest of us. If they aren't then they should fend for themselves.

    I suppose however we do have NI as well, as yet another anomaly [edit: Nothern Ireland, I mean].
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    Which of the cited facts do you dispute?
    That response makes no sense whatsoever in relation to the post I made.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As you may know my Scottish family are fisherfolk and I take an interest in these matters

    Boris and the UK are not the issue here, it is Jersey's refusal to grant licences to French fishing boats who cannot provide the evidence they have fished in the waters as required within the treaty between the UK-EU-Jersey

    Jersey has granted temporary licences to some of these boats pending the documentation, but it appears upto 40 boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters cannot provide the evidence

    Jersey are following the treaty and apparently there are French boats actively and legally fishing in Jersey waters who do not want any unauthorised French boats either diluting their catch

    Ultimately Macron is politically posturing for next year
    I’ve not been following this in any detail, largely because I’ve been trying to untwist some complicated Family History threads, but also because I don’t trust the major players to play by the normal rules… both our and the French governments. However fisherfolk are the aquatic equivalents of farmers, all of whom have a permanent sense of grievance where ‘The Authorities are concerned.
    So I’m certain that the last thing anyone should do is get super-excited about this, but I’m equally certain that that’s exactly what people will do.
    The problem is that Macron is escalating an issue with Jersey for political purposes and it has the danger of becoming a much broader dispute to suit his agenda
  • kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    And I listened to the French representative as well. Both made compelling arguments and I don't know who was correct.
    I have listened to all sides and I can say with certainty Jersey are correct
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Given the log book has to be maintained at all times, I suspect there is a very strong requirement to do so.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    kinabalu said:

    I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do.

    This is the best summary of this discussion so far.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    But there is a legal requirement to maintain records on where you've been fishing. Records that Jersey are now supposed to receive.

    If you haven't got those records, you either haven't been legally fishing in Jersey's waters, or you were but didn't maintain your records as you're legally obliged to do.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Commenting is different from being involved.

    If the CIs are to be treated as part of the UK the locals ought to pay the same taxes as the rest of us. If they aren't then they should fend for themselves.

    I suppose however we do have NI as well, as yet another anomaly [edit: Nothern Ireland, I mean].
    But there is a legal requirement to maintain records on where you've been fishing. Records that Jersey are now supposed to receive.

    If you haven't got those records, you either haven't been legally fishing in Jersey's waters, or you were but didn't maintain your records as you're legally obliged to do.

    What is confusing me is that regulation which was quoted earlier - which exempted the smaller boats from keeping such records. Of course, it may be the larger boats that are the problem.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.
  • Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    Because it is part of the UK-EU treaty as relating to Jersey

    I am surprised you even asked that question
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    Because it is part of the UK-EU treaty as relating to Jersey

    I am surprised you even asked that question
    Because you saaid it was Jersey only on this side.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    Because it is part of the UK-EU treaty as relating to Jersey

    I am surprised you even asked that question
    Because you saaid it was Jersey only on this side.
    It does not change the fact it is Jersey who are complying with the treaty
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    edited October 2021
    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    We're talking fishermen here not insurance clerks. They deal in the spoken word only. Shanties and the like. Hence the totemic - and completely out of proportion - significance of this sector to both us and France. It's primordial and deep. Not for me, it has to be said, but I do recognize the feelings of others. Here comes fish, there goes logic, is how it works.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    Because it is part of the UK-EU treaty as relating to Jersey

    I am surprised you even asked that question
    Because you saaid it was Jersey only on this side.
    Nope, he's said things like "a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey" and "Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey".
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
    I'm not talking about tax records (for which I believe it is now 5 years) I am talking about records for which there is no requirement to be kept. See my post 'And if there is no requirement to do so?'

    If you are not required to keep a record it is unreasonable to then expect someone to have done so just because it may be prudent to do so.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    kinabalu said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    We're talking fishermen here not insurance clerks. They deal in the spoken word only. Shanties and the like. Hence the totemic - and completely out of proportion - significance of this sector to both us and France. It's primordial and deep. Not for me, it has to be said, but I do recognize the feelings of others. Here comes fish, there goes logic, is how it goes.
    They have to record a lot of information these days, probably a lot to do with the various quotas in place for some (all?) species.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,923
    edited October 2021
    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    I'm surprised you aren't being accused of Treason by some elements on here...

    edit: "being a traitor"
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,764
    This is nearly as much fun as when certain inmates had less than 20 minutes to become wiki-fuelled experts on nuclear attack submarines.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,847
    Mr. kjh, what was the compelling French case?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    Because it is part of the UK-EU treaty as relating to Jersey

    I am surprised you even asked that question
    I think it was a very relevant question. You have rather made the opposite point to which you were making before.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,717
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    a) Yes, it may.
    b) Yes.
    c) No, but it's a common-sense move to. The boat is an essential tool of your business. In addition, as the logbook records catches as well (AIUI), it will be vital for other purposes, such as taxation. ("How much did you catch?")

    Fishermen are supposed to be professionals, and the ship is a primary tool of that business. There have been oodles of legislation about fishing for decades, and just because you sell your boat, you cannot guarantee you won't get questions about that business in a year or two. The log book records information about your trips and catches.

    Unless you want to obfuscate your business and hide what you've been doing. You cannot be done for falsifying records if you cannot find the records any more ...

    (In addition, there are such a thing as electronic log books.)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    edited October 2021
    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    Who has threatened to tear it up?

    I think the strongest thing UK has done is to suggest that the threshold for using Article 16 (no?) is being approached, which is a mechanism provided for in the NIP itself.

    Not that it's relevant, mind.
  • Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Commenting is different from being involved.

    If the CIs are to be treated as part of the UK the locals ought to pay the same taxes as the rest of us. If they aren't then they should fend for themselves.

    I suppose however we do have NI as well, as yet another anomaly [edit: Nothern Ireland, I mean].
    But there is a legal requirement to maintain records on where you've been fishing. Records that Jersey are now supposed to receive.

    If you haven't got those records, you either haven't been legally fishing in Jersey's waters, or you were but didn't maintain your records as you're legally obliged to do.
    What is confusing me is that regulation which was quoted earlier - which exempted the smaller boats from keeping such records. Of course, it may be the larger boats that are the problem.

    There are about 20 larger boats and 20 small ones who so far have not been able to provide the documentation set out in the treaty

    Some boats have been given a temporary licence but others say they have no GPS available

    The other aspect to this is that the French boats legally fishing are not happy that other French boat owners who cannot evidence the paperwork should be allowed to dilute their catch
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,923
    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
    I'm not talking about tax records (for which I believe it is now 5 years) I am talking about records for which there is no requirement to be kept. See my post 'And if there is no requirement to do so?'

    If you are not required to keep a record it is unreasonable to then expect someone to have done so just because it may be prudent to do so.
    It's very difficult in general to provide evidence from the past when you were never aware that you had to provide it in the future..if you see what I mean..

    :smile:
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    What has that to do with a dispute between Jersey and France
    It's a test of the intellectual integrity of the poster saying that France are behaving outrageously. If passed it allows me to give greater weight to their opinion. It's a totally fair enough thing for me to do imo.
  • This fishing spat is just a proxy war for the trade war to come. Apparently some spanners in our government think the deal they negotiated can be fixed by triggering Article 16 as if that is the end point. That it is the start point is beyond them.

    As and when our intransigence / ignorance pushes this into listing exactly what measures will be deployed, it will be painfully obvious who will come off worse from such a trade war. Chanting "sovereignty" won't help.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,014
    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.

    That was the point the Norwegian government made in their survey of Norwegian relations with the EU. As the smaller counterparty, protection is more important than freedom to act. The ECJ provides that protection to some extent because its job is to apply the law in an objective way. Absent the ECJ you are leaving it up to the whim of the more powerful party and they certainly won't be taking your interest into account.
    No, you have arbitration which is common in treaties. Rather than having a court stuffed with judges from one side of the agreement as the highest arbiter.
    You think arbitration will solve this kind of dispute?

    Let me refer you to the Boeing/Airbus dispute that has been under arbitration for 17 years, resulting in amongst other things the destruction of Scotch whisky sales in America due to countervailing tariffs. The current truce was arrived at through negotiation outside of arbitration and even so may not be permanent.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    edited October 2021
    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254
    Lazy, sleazy Tories En Marche!

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    39m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 39% (+2)
    LAB: 33% (-)
    GRN: 10% (-)
    LDEM: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 3% (-1)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 27 - 28 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 21 Oct
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:


    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?

    Isn't that right enshrined in the treaty? ;)
    We're not doing comedy on this one, Rob. Too important.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,107
    FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.

    That was the point the Norwegian government made in their survey of Norwegian relations with the EU. As the smaller counterparty, protection is more important than freedom to act. The ECJ provides that protection to some extent because its job is to apply the law in an objective way. Absent the ECJ you are leaving it up to the whim of the more powerful party and they certainly won't be taking your interest into account.
    No, you have arbitration which is common in treaties. Rather than having a court stuffed with judges from one side of the agreement as the highest arbiter.
    You think arbitration will solve this kind of dispute?

    Let me refer you to the Boeing/Airbus dispute that has been under arbitration for 17 years, resulting in amongst other things the destruction of Scotch whisky sales in America due to countervailing tariffs. The current truce was arrived at through negotiation outside of arbitration and even so may not be permanent.
    So your solution to that dispute would be for it to be handled by the ECJ? I can see that going down well in the US.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,752
    Just popped in to see how the war on France is going on at fishinglicenceexperts.com.

    Think I'll return to watching Arsenal. Thank god they got rid of that French manager a while ago and now have a Spaniard, otherwise there'd be trouble.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    edited October 2021
    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    The areas over which PBers claim to have expertise are limitless, certainly not constrained by minor matters such as whether it's any of their fcuking business.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    Mr. kjh, what was the compelling French case?

    Not a clue really. It is just I don't assume that because they are French they don't have one.

    That is not quite true. The representative this morning on the Today programme said there were a handful of small boats that regularly fished the waters but couldn't provide the information required and I assume in the format needed. I would guess it is a case of not meeting the wording of the agreement rather than the intent as otherwise there is no case. And secondly there was an issue with a few boats that had been sold and the replacement boats could therefore not provide the evidence in the manner required and the experts on this site with sod all knowledge come up with all sorts of reasons why that can't be the case with damn all knowledge of the particular cases.

    The French may well be trying it on. I don't know, but neither does anyone else here.
  • kinabalu said:

    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:


    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?

    Isn't that right enshrined in the treaty? ;)
    We're not doing comedy on this one, Rob. Too important.
    It's no joke. Article 16 and Article 13 are legitimate parts of the Protocol. And as has been factually demonstrated the invocation criteria of Article 16 AS WRITTEN has been met in full.

    Invoking an Article within a treaty isn't tearing it up.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As predictable as you will back the non-UK etc side in an argument.
    I can't see how "Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons" is taking his side.
    You have equated Macron and Johnson as both showboating which suggests their actions and motives are equivalent. I have no doubt johnson showboats but in this case there have been plenty of reasons given why the French position is wrong when it comes to the demand for documentation etc.
    And plenty of hard and objective reasons why we are wrong when (eg) it comes to threatening to tear up the NI protocol.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.

    That was the point the Norwegian government made in their survey of Norwegian relations with the EU. As the smaller counterparty, protection is more important than freedom to act. The ECJ provides that protection to some extent because its job is to apply the law in an objective way. Absent the ECJ you are leaving it up to the whim of the more powerful party and they certainly won't be taking your interest into account.
    No, you have arbitration which is common in treaties. Rather than having a court stuffed with judges from one side of the agreement as the highest arbiter.
    You think arbitration will solve this kind of dispute?

    Let me refer you to the Boeing/Airbus dispute that has been under arbitration for 17 years, resulting in amongst other things the destruction of Scotch whisky sales in America due to countervailing tariffs. The current truce was arrived at through negotiation outside of arbitration and even so may not be permanent.
    A great example of an immediate Brexit dividend. The US dropped the Scotch Whisky tarrifs within days of the UK leaving the EU, as it was no longer party to the US-EU dispute.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As you may know my Scottish family are fisherfolk and I take an interest in these matters

    Boris and the UK are not the issue here, it is Jersey's refusal to grant licences to French fishing boats who cannot provide the evidence they have fished in the waters as required within the treaty between the UK-EU-Jersey

    Jersey has granted temporary licences to some of these boats pending the documentation, but it appears upto 40 boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters cannot provide the evidence

    Jersey are following the treaty and apparently there are French boats actively and legally fishing in Jersey waters who do not want any unauthorised French boats either diluting their catch

    Ultimately Macron is politically posturing for next year
    Happy to defer to you on Fish - but not on coming to an objective view on how bad Macron is compared to Johnson.
  • kinabalu said:

    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:


    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?

    Isn't that right enshrined in the treaty? ;)
    We're not doing comedy on this one, Rob. Too important.
    It's no joke. Article 16 and Article 13 are legitimate parts of the Protocol. And as has been factually demonstrated the invocation criteria of Article 16 AS WRITTEN has been met in full.

    Invoking an Article within a treaty isn't tearing it up.
    Whilst that's true, there is a choir of voices who advocate A16 like it is the end of the problem. A16 is a safety valve to suspend parts of the treaty whilst issues get fixed. It isn't a permanent fix by itself.

    What we do as the post-A16 fix is not an area where specific actionable proposals exists...
  • kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As predictable as you will back the non-UK etc side in an argument.
    I can't see how "Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons" is taking his side.
    You have equated Macron and Johnson as both showboating which suggests their actions and motives are equivalent. I have no doubt johnson showboats but in this case there have been plenty of reasons given why the French position is wrong when it comes to the demand for documentation etc.
    And plenty of hard and objective reasons why we are wrong when (eg) it comes to threatening to tear up the NI protocol.
    Who has threatened to tear up the protocol?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    @Sandpit I don't know. But the point is nobody else here does either, but they are willing to argue as if they do.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914
    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    My own even-handed position on this is that one must hate a French fisherman as one does the devil.
    Make love not war, Sean. It's trite but right.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
    I'm not talking about tax records (for which I believe it is now 5 years) I am talking about records for which there is no requirement to be kept. See my post 'And if there is no requirement to do so?'

    If you are not required to keep a record it is unreasonable to then expect someone to have done so just because it may be prudent to do so.
    It's very difficult in general to provide evidence from the past when you were never aware that you had to provide it in the future..if you see what I mean..

    :smile:
    Absolutely. A point I kept meaning to make. However I suspect that some smart arse would suggest that the fisherman should have anticipated that and kept abreast of all the treaties.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As you may know my Scottish family are fisherfolk and I take an interest in these matters

    Boris and the UK are not the issue here, it is Jersey's refusal to grant licences to French fishing boats who cannot provide the evidence they have fished in the waters as required within the treaty between the UK-EU-Jersey

    Jersey has granted temporary licences to some of these boats pending the documentation, but it appears upto 40 boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters cannot provide the evidence

    Jersey are following the treaty and apparently there are French boats actively and legally fishing in Jersey waters who do not want any unauthorised French boats either diluting their catch

    Ultimately Macron is politically posturing for next year
    Happy to defer to you on Fish - but not on coming to an objective view on how bad Macron is compared to Johnson.
    It is the dispute over fish that Macron is using for political advantage as he needs the French fishing ports support next year

    Nothing to do with Boris v Macron
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,883
    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    Please accept my sincerest apologies Kinabalu for overlooking your test on my intellectual integrity - I was busy making mud pies in the garden whilst burning French flags and scorning garlic.

    I do not have the same level of intellectual integrity as you so am unable to answer your test with one word - I merely have the low level intellect to answer thus:

    Is there legal provision within the NI protocol for either side to “tear it up” or maybe just activate a clause that ends it? Think UVDL might know as she has more intellectual integrity than I have.

    Is one side Re the NI protocol insisting on ignoring the rules agreed (including the agreement within the treaty allowing either side to withdraw) to and threatening hostile action to the other side who are abiding to the rules as set out in the treaty?

    Is anyone saying that if the UK government do potentially at some unknown point in the future break a treaty with regards NI that this potential unknown event justifies the French government trying to bully a party to ignore the legal demands of a treaty to suit the French governments wishes?

    I look forward to your enlightenment.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    Dura_Ace said:

    This is nearly as much fun as when certain inmates had less than 20 minutes to become wiki-fuelled experts on nuclear attack submarines.

    The most sensible post for sometime
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,145
    edited October 2021
    Carnyx said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    I am sorry but this is not UK v as you say foreigners, but a fishing dispute between Jersey and France and the interpretation of a treaty signed by the UK-EU-Jersey
    Now come on BigG. This may be a dispute between France and Jersey, but the reality is that it isn't. If it were why would George Eustice be pontificating and why is so much time being wasted here. If it were then it would only be reported in the local papers in Normandy/Brittany and Jersey.
    With respect have you even listened to the Jersey ministers talking calmly and sensibly on our media and explaining the issue they have with these undocumented French boats

    Of course we are involved as it is the UK-EU treaty which includes Jersey that France is flouting, but Jersey have to be satisfied thee boats comply with the treaty requirements

    Remember these are French boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters, nothing to do with fishing in our coastal waters
    So why is UKG involved at all? None of our business. Not yours, not mine, not anyone on PB (unless of course they are French or Jersaise).
    That one's easy.

    Because the FTA is signed between the UK and the EU. The UK representing Jersey, and the EU representing France. At, I believe, the EU's insistence.

    France pivots between going through the EU and direct as it thinks it can benefit, and I think EuCo has now told Emmanuel to be less passionate twice. Someone should make a Jacques-Tati-alike film about it.

    And there are also UK waters involved (6-12 mile zone iirc), about which M Macaron is also kicking up a smaller strop. Presumably he feels man enough to deal with the Channel Islands.

    For avoidance of doubt the relevant fishing history periods for a UK license are 2012-2016, andd 2017-2019 for a Jersey one.

    HTH :smile:
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304

    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    I'm surprised you aren't being accused of Treason by some elements on here...

    edit: "being a traitor"
    Have I done enough to get an EU passport yet?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,717
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
    I'm not talking about tax records (for which I believe it is now 5 years) I am talking about records for which there is no requirement to be kept. See my post 'And if there is no requirement to do so?'

    If you are not required to keep a record it is unreasonable to then expect someone to have done so just because it may be prudent to do so.
    It's very difficult in general to provide evidence from the past when you were never aware that you had to provide it in the future..if you see what I mean..

    :smile:
    Absolutely. A point I kept meaning to make. However I suspect that some smart arse would suggest that the fisherman should have anticipated that and kept abreast of all the treaties.
    I'd be surprised if they didn't need to keep that data, as it records fundamental information about your business.

    Unless you wanted to obfuscate what you've been doing ...

    AFAICT, below is what Jersey want from logbooks. It all makes sense, from a business and marine conservation viewpoint:
    https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Industry and finance/ID Schedule 3 Under 10m Logbook Instructions 11.01.2019 DM.pdf
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    This is extremely desperate. You just can't admit that the "rules based organisation" you've supported for so long is now on the brink of condoning France breaking the rules they just signed up to. You've condemned Boris for doing so wrt NI and yet you can't do it for France who have knowingly breached the TCA and are now retrospectively asking for the EU to sign up to what is not their fight. Worse still France are now trying to impose France specific tariffs on the UK which not only breaks the rules of the TCA but the also breach EU treaties.

    You love the EU so much that you're willing to see your own country impoverished and to blame the "daily express" mentality rather than see what the French are trying to do which is break the rules and get away with it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    @Sandpit I don't know. But the point is nobody else here does either, but they are willing to argue as if they do.
    There should be clear rules which everyone has to play by, which were agreed in the case of fishing only a year ago. It appears that the French are talking primarily about punishing the British, rather than about making them follow the rules.

    When British European airlines went bust a couple of years ago, the single most valuable assets they held were not planes, but landing rights at Heathrow. The planes were either leased, old and worth scrap, or tiny little things worth a million or two. The Heathrow landing slots were auctioned by the administrators for tens of millions.
  • kjh said:

    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    I'm surprised you aren't being accused of Treason by some elements on here...

    edit: "being a traitor"
    Have I done enough to get an EU passport yet?
    A French one...?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,605
    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
    I'm not talking about tax records (for which I believe it is now 5 years) I am talking about records for which there is no requirement to be kept. See my post 'And if there is no requirement to do so?'

    If you are not required to keep a record it is unreasonable to then expect someone to have done so just because it may be prudent to do so.
    Isn't the issue that the French boats were exploiting a loophole that the TCA closed?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, what was the compelling French case?

    Not a clue really. It is just I don't assume that because they are French they don't have one.

    That is not quite true. The representative this morning on the Today programme said there were a handful of small boats that regularly fished the waters but couldn't provide the information required and I assume in the format needed. I would guess it is a case of not meeting the wording of the agreement rather than the intent as otherwise there is no case. And secondly there was an issue with a few boats that had been sold and the replacement boats could therefore not provide the evidence in the manner required and the experts on this site with sod all knowledge come up with all sorts of reasons why that can't be the case with damn all knowledge of the particular cases.

    The French may well be trying it on. I don't know, but neither does anyone else here.
    Cheers for the like @Morris_Dancer It has been the most sane exchange I have had this morning and hopefully I have made it clear that I don't necessarily believe the French are not at fault. I just don't know, unlike several here who are absolutely certain having seen only one side of the argument.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,014
    Lighthearted Covid anecdote:

    I was talking to a chap earlier in the week who said that he doesn't mind wearing a face mask because he doesn't like the way his chin looks.

    I have nothing to say on the fish debate.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,304
    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
    I'm not talking about tax records (for which I believe it is now 5 years) I am talking about records for which there is no requirement to be kept. See my post 'And if there is no requirement to do so?'

    If you are not required to keep a record it is unreasonable to then expect someone to have done so just because it may be prudent to do so.
    Isn't the issue that the French boats were exploiting a loophole that the TCA closed?
    I have not a clue, which @Dura_Ace put very well in his post has neither anyone else here on the whole topic.
  • kjh said:

    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    I'm surprised you aren't being accused of Treason by some elements on here...

    edit: "being a traitor"
    Have I done enough to get an EU passport yet?
    A French one...?
    We've all got French passports.

    My passport says "Dieu et mon droit" and "Honi soit qui mal y pense" on the front of it.

    Instead of focussing on the colour of the passport we should be getting rid of that.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,484
    The leaking of the Castex letter remains rather curious. It does not help France.
This discussion has been closed.