I notice that neither resident PB fishing expert Big_G nor anyone else has yet popped up to assert that the impounded British boat was fishing legally?
I said that yesterday? Or was it the day before. Or rather I said that if it was fishing illegally then the French reaction is perfectly valid. The French have said that although it originally had a licence to fish those waters, it had been withdrawn several weeks ago. I assume (though I don't know) for breaching the terms of the licence. If that is the case as they claim then I see absolutely no reason for the British do anything other than accept it.
Have we heard anything yet from Admiral of the Blue HYUFD?
AND to which of his blind eyes is his telescope raised?
He's in the garage building a landing craft. Normandy awaits.
HY is going to end up like our Harold of old, having to despatch his troops to so many battles in different directions that they arrive exhausted to the field.
With the exception of being one-eyed from the start.
I notice that neither resident PB fishing expert Big_G nor anyone else has yet popped up to assert that the impounded British boat was fishing legally?
@IanB2 Nooooo, we will have another lot of experts explaining how the evil French have done this illegitimately with no evidence one way or another.
And by me posting that it really doesn't mean I actually believe they haven't done it illegitimately, because I hate Britain so much. It is because I have no f-ing idea just like everyone else.
FWIW, I think the fishing licences dispute will be solved. The question is whether Jersey folds now or folds later.
The Northern Ireland Protocol is much more problematic. You take trade remedies, Article 16, punitive tariffs etc, because you want to achieve a particular outcome. Thing is, the EU will never agree removing the ECJ from the Protocol or an effective internal border within the Single Market. So you take the destructive remedies as does the other side, but you don't achieve your objectives, so it becomes attrition.
Video on trade wars here. If the UK goes for a limited technical safeguard approach to Article 16 addressing the implementation of the Protocol, the EU's response will likely also be technical. But if the UK triggers A16 to fundamentally change the Protocol as David Frost's rhetoric suggests, it will escalate very fast. The video is quite long but most interesting part about half way through
Amazing. So you think the EU will win on fishing, and then again on NI? I’d never have expected that from you
I think France will win against Jersey on fishing licences and no-one will win on the Northern Ireland Protocol.
And add. Northern Ireland will massively lose.
MaxPB psychoanalyses you accurately below, so I won’t pursue that
As for Jersey, the UKG can’t concede now, not after that letter from Castex. Tory MPs are all over Twitter, denouncing it. I imagine some face-saving fudge will be found for everyone, probably involving money - AFTER the French election
I don't see a compromise, the French don't have very much they can do because the TCA is extremely detailed on fishing at the behest of the French. Macron signed up to the deal but he's got no A16 like Boris has got with the NI stuff. Aiui the appetite within the EU for a trade fight with the UK is zero, maybe even lower than zero as loads of countries would like to ease border pedantry issues and upgrade the TCA to include some elements of customs pre-clearance in it as that may also unlock a new long term solution for NI that negates the need for any goods border anywhere.
Now that the main deal is done a lot of the heat has gone out of it and the bitterness is slowly going away too other than in France who still hold on to it out of sheer insecurity that they may be being completely left behind.
I suspect the UK and French governments will chuck a bit of cash at the angry boats, for "perceived injustice", allowing France to save face, while the British maintain the letter and spirit of the fishing Treaty and fishing laws, which we must
I don't believe many if any of the unawarded licenses will be granted, but all this will happen after the French elex
Just a guess. Agree France is displaying remarkable insecurity. This kind of stuff won't help:
"I should add Poland this autumn consolidating new military posture with dramatic increase in size of its army and active integration with Nordics+US/UK militaries"
I notice that neither resident PB fishing expert Big_G nor anyone else has yet popped up to assert that the impounded British boat was fishing legally?
I have no idea about that but that does not alter the fact that Jersey is enforcing an EU treaty that you of all people should support
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?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
So you're sceptical of anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion? Fair enough, and at least you're being honest ...
There's another side to this. The licences are valuable - which is why not getting one when you're legally due would be so problematic. But this also means there is a large incentive for people to try it on with the system. Perhaps no-one is trying it on; perhaps everyone complaining about 'lost log books' are. we don't know. But when there's a big incentive for fraud, it's reasonable to be suspicious.
Which is why applications should not just be waved through.
I still don't understand why 'professional' fishermen would not have known to use the processes, or not keep adequate records.
But I'd hope we'd both agree on one thing: threatening to cut off Jersey's power supply is crass and stupid. especially as it is easily within their capability, or that of a malicious actor amongst the fishermen and their friends.
100% agree the threats are out of order. But your 1st sentence - No. That's not it at all. It's like this. I am not across the detail of the fishing dispute therefore I need to take in info & opinion from those who are. I need sources. I also need to assess the quality of my sources and part of this is how badly biased they are. What I look for in a good source is the ability to see where something they'd like to be untrue is true (or vice versa). So, eg, a Leaver who accepts that Johnson/Frost are behaving in bad faith over the NI protocol. Or a Remainer who accepts that trying to get a 2nd EU referendum before implementing the 1st was undemocratic and wrong. Now, ok, they are both my views but that's by the by. I could have given egs which weren't. The generic point is, it's about how much weight to give to a person's opinion on this fishing dispute and that's a mixture of how much they seem to know about it and what their bias is. Both are relevant. You go through this process too, I bet. It's best practice. I'm just making it visible. I'm showing my workings.
Spot the odd one out: With the caveat that the French love being performatively miserable to pollsters,... this graph explains quite a lot of the current UK/France kerfuffles, which I expect to continue for decades. The French think that Britain got a sweetheart deal from the EU on Brexit.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
It's his debut ffs..
I noted that in my edit. I still think it's faintly tragic. TONGA
Also, he's playing for SCOTLAND, who have never won anything, in any sport. I can't see how playing for Scotland could ever be that exciting or memorable, even for a Scot
I notice that neither resident PB fishing expert Big_G nor anyone else has yet popped up to assert that the impounded British boat was fishing legally?
I have no idea about that but that does not alter the fact that Jersey is enforcing an EU treaty that you of all people should support
From expert to ignorant in a single post.
And there was me thinking that you had your finger on the pulse of our fish...
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
Edit: it is his debut, so maybe. But still. Hmm
The commentator, who is also Scottish, which may explain his absurd hyperbole. For him it is a moment, like a gentleman from Nuneaton watching a young Nuneaton lad make his debut as linesman in Nuneaton versus Mold
Boyan Slat and team seem to have finally cracked the tech to clean the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. All this whinging about 40 boats, how about this week these countries do something useful and fully fund that effort, agree to legislate away single use plastic and agree an international ban on deep water fishing, which serve as the key breeding grounds for many species. Do all that and there will be a plentiful bounty of healthy seafood to go round.
Single use plastics have their place, particularly in health care. I have had things inserted into me by nurses that I really wouldn’t want to have been used on someone else first (or worse made of something non-flexible so that it could be sterilised between use).
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
Edit: it is his debut, so maybe. But still. Hmm
The commentator, who is also Scottish, which may explain his absurd hyperbole. For him it is a moment, like a gentleman from Nuneaton watching a young Nuneaton lad make his debut as linesman in Nuneaton versus Mold
Now Now Leon , not like you to be grumpy and negative of life! For the young lad in question a first international try in the sport he has probably been playing since about 6 is surely " a moment in his lifetime"
I notice that neither resident PB fishing expert Big_G nor anyone else has yet popped up to assert that the impounded British boat was fishing legally?
I have no idea about that but that does not alter the fact that Jersey is enforcing an EU treaty that you of all people should support
From expert to ignorant in a single post.
And there was me thinking that you had your finger on the pulse of our fish...
Why are you so rude , it is not necessary
I am aware of the Jersey France dispute, but I have no indication as to whether the British boat had the licence.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
Edit: it is his debut, so maybe. But still. Hmm
The commentator, who is also Scottish, which may explain his absurd hyperbole. For him it is a moment, like a gentleman from Nuneaton watching a young Nuneaton lad make his debut as linesman in Nuneaton versus Mold
NowNow Leon , not like you to be grumpy and negative of life! For the young lad in question a first international try in the sport he has probably been playing since about 6 is surely " a moment in his lifetime"
I get that, but he's playing for SCOTLAND, which is barely a country. Indeed it isn't a country, it's a region of the UK, which eagerly voted to stay in the UK a few years ago, like Mayotte voting to become a French departement
It's like saying serving the tea at a Glamorgan cricket match is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Porthcawl lass
I see Boris has walked us into a war with France. Idiot. Pointless geostrategic narcissism that harms both of our countries interests.
The French are our natural allies on so many fronts.
I see his strategy for winning the right over to global warming action has suddenly been completed, according to what he's said today.
Climate change-related breakdown will be like the fall of the Roman Empire, but only because it will cause uncontrolled immigration, and his amusing but knowingly inflammatory and completely ahistorical nonsense today that "the Roman Empire fell as a result of uncontrolled immigration".
There's a certain political savvy in combining the climate crisis with immigration fears, but what a grimly and dangerously opportunistic politician the man is underneath the bonhomie.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
Edit: it is his debut, so maybe. But still. Hmm
The commentator, who is also Scottish, which may explain his absurd hyperbole. For him it is a moment, like a gentleman from Nuneaton watching a young Nuneaton lad make his debut as linesman in Nuneaton versus Mold
NowNow Leon , not like you to be grumpy and negative of life! For the young lad in question a first international try in the sport he has probably been playing since about 6 is surely " a moment in his lifetime"
I get that, but he's playing for SCOTLAND, which is barely a country. Indeed it isn't a country, it's a region of the UK, which eagerly voted to stay in the UK a few years ago, like Mayotte voting to become a French departement
It's like saying serving the tea at a Glamorgan cricket match is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Porthcawl lass
Genuinely bewildered. Am I missing something?!
Well think back to your first book publication - Did you get any grumpy people saying " well it is not exactly The Di Vinci Code is it!" - no of course not - achievement in life are relative to the individual and even to a nation!
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.
To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
Why do you persist in this lie that anyone is behaving badly in tearing up an agreement when they are not tearing up an agreement?
Are you too silly to understand Articles 13 and 16 are a part of the agreement? So Frost and Johnson are operating within it?
Or are you too dishonest that you'd rather go with Trumpian Alternative Facts?
A16 is for emergencies and there isn't one. But look, rather than tumbling around with a Brexit ultra like you to no great effect I'd like to say something nice. Absolutely no sign yet of you lapsing into "frogs" on this thread, despite it being all about the ghastly French and therefore presumably quite a struggle to stay respectable. Hats off, and I mean it.
Article 16 mentions nothing of emergencies, in fact it talks about the opposite with situations that are "liable to persist".
Serious unforeseen situations that can't be rectified within the agreement. This doesn't sound like the opposite of emergencies. Regardless, we don't have one. The NI problems need to be resolved without using the nuclear option - and they will be imo. Johnson won't be invoking A16, just as Macron won't be cutting off the power to Jersey. There are strong similarities to their behaviour. Bad faith grandstanding. This is actually what I'm seeking to highlight. Not to excuse Macron, but to get a clearer and fuller picture of how it is now, post Brexit, with us and France and the EU. You carry on with 'Us good, French bad' if you want, but you can't blame a person for trying to widen the lens.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
Edit: it is his debut, so maybe. But still. Hmm
The commentator, who is also Scottish, which may explain his absurd hyperbole. For him it is a moment, like a gentleman from Nuneaton watching a young Nuneaton lad make his debut as linesman in Nuneaton versus Mold
You, the Johnathan Pearce of this site. You're talking about hyperbola? You, Britney Spears without the tits? HA
Hyperbole, one presumes ... unless Leon is in two separate personas at the same time, which is perfectly possible as any fule kno.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
Edit: it is his debut, so maybe. But still. Hmm
The commentator, who is also Scottish, which may explain his absurd hyperbole. For him it is a moment, like a gentleman from Nuneaton watching a young Nuneaton lad make his debut as linesman in Nuneaton versus Mold
NowNow Leon , not like you to be grumpy and negative of life! For the young lad in question a first international try in the sport he has probably been playing since about 6 is surely " a moment in his lifetime"
I get that, but he's playing for SCOTLAND, which is barely a country. Indeed it isn't a country, it's a region of the UK, which eagerly voted to stay in the UK a few years ago, like Mayotte voting to become a French departement
It's like saying serving the tea at a Glamorgan cricket match is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Porthcawl lass
Genuinely bewildered. Am I missing something?!
Well think back to your first book publication - Did you get any grumpy people saying " well it is not exactly The Di Vinci Code is it!" - no of course not - achievement in life are relative to the individual and even to a nation!
What's this about books??!
I remember knapping my first butt plug, and then hearing it had been inserted into a moderately well known presenter on CBEEBIES
I guess that's about the same as scoring a try for Scotland?
If so, then OK, there is something to celebrate, sort of
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.
To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
Why do you persist in this lie that anyone is behaving badly in tearing up an agreement when they are not tearing up an agreement?
Are you too silly to understand Articles 13 and 16 are a part of the agreement? So Frost and Johnson are operating within it?
Or are you too dishonest that you'd rather go with Trumpian Alternative Facts?
A16 is for emergencies and there isn't one. But look, rather than tumbling around with a Brexit ultra like you to no great effect I'd like to say something nice. Absolutely no sign yet of you lapsing into "frogs" on this thread, despite it being all about the ghastly French and therefore presumably quite a struggle to stay respectable. Hats off, and I mean it.
Article 16 mentions nothing of emergencies, in fact it talks about the opposite with situations that are "liable to persist".
Serious unforeseen situations that can't be rectified within the agreement. This doesn't sound like the opposite of emergencies. Regardless, we don't have one. The NI problems need to be resolved without using the nuclear option - and they will be imo. Johnson won't be invoking A16, just as Macron won't be cutting off the power to Jersey. There are strong similarities to their behaviour. Bad faith grandstanding. This is actually what I'm seeking to highlight. Not to excuse Macron, but to get a clearer and fuller picture of how it is now, post Brexit, with us and France and the EU. You carry on with 'Us good, French bad' if you want, but you can't blame a person for trying to widen the lens.
Article 16 doesn't say anything about unforeseen situations.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
One wonders what the PBTories would be saying if they made it Scots Wha Hae. At least the Scots won in that fixture, unlike Flower of Scotland! Though I prefer A Man's a Man.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
It's his debut ffs..
I noted that in my edit. I still think it's faintly tragic. TONGA
Also, he's playing for SCOTLAND, who have never won anything, in any sport. I can't see how playing for Scotland could ever be that exciting or memorable, even for a Scot
Andy Murray was of course British when he won Wimbledon (twice)
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.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
One wonders what the PBTories would be saying if they made it Scots Wha Hae. At least the Scots won in that fixture, unlike Flower of Scotland! Though I prefer A Man's a Man.
That last one would get you into a lot of trouble if you said it today...
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
One wonders what the PBTories would be saying if they made it Scots Wha Hae. At least the Scots won in that fixture, unlike Flower of Scotland! Though I prefer A Man's a Man.
That last one would get you into a lot of trouble if you said it today...
It almost got Burns the noose when he wrote it. Admittedly for different bits (so to speak). He had to write some very different stuff to get off the hook pronto.
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?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
So you're sceptical of anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion? Fair enough, and at least you're being honest ...
There's another side to this. The licences are valuable - which is why not getting one when you're legally due would be so problematic. But this also means there is a large incentive for people to try it on with the system. Perhaps no-one is trying it on; perhaps everyone complaining about 'lost log books' are. we don't know. But when there's a big incentive for fraud, it's reasonable to be suspicious.
Which is why applications should not just be waved through.
I still don't understand why 'professional' fishermen would not have known to use the processes, or not keep adequate records.
But I'd hope we'd both agree on one thing: threatening to cut off Jersey's power supply is crass and stupid. especially as it is easily within their capability, or that of a malicious actor amongst the fishermen and their friends.
100% agree the threats are out of order. But your 1st sentence - No. That's not it at all. It's like this. I am not across the detail of the fishing dispute therefore I need to take in info & opinion from those who are. I need sources. I also need to assess the quality of my sources and part of this is how badly biased they are. What I look for in a good source is the ability to see where something they'd like to be untrue is true (or vice versa). So, eg, a Leaver who accepts that Johnson/Frost are behaving in bad faith over the NI protocol. Or a Remainer who accepts that trying to get a 2nd EU referendum before implementing the 1st was undemocratic and wrong. Now, ok, they are both my views but that's by the by. I could have given egs which weren't. The generic point is, it's about how much weight to give to a person's opinion on this fishing dispute and that's a mixture of how much they seem to know about it and what their bias is. Both are relevant. You go through this process too, I bet. It's best practice. I'm just making it visible. I'm showing my workings.
I understand why it helps you to understand any potential bias I might have before accepting my views on French fishgate however because you ask Re one potential issue that will indicate to you a bias I might have, it doesn’t give the whole picture.
My family are Algerian and were treated appallingly by the French and so I have a natural bias against the French however I am a remainer who hopes that fishgate develops into a trade war which will show up Brexit for the farce it is and so the next government returns to the arms of the EU.
'Charlie [Reid] said: "It's interesting - Sunshine On Leith has become one of the funeral songs in Scotland. I don't think it beats Angels by Robbie, but a lot of funerals play Sunshine on Leith."'
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.
To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
Why do you persist in this lie that anyone is behaving badly in tearing up an agreement when they are not tearing up an agreement?
Are you too silly to understand Articles 13 and 16 are a part of the agreement? So Frost and Johnson are operating within it?
Or are you too dishonest that you'd rather go with Trumpian Alternative Facts?
A16 is for emergencies and there isn't one. But look, rather than tumbling around with a Brexit ultra like you to no great effect I'd like to say something nice. Absolutely no sign yet of you lapsing into "frogs" on this thread, despite it being all about the ghastly French and therefore presumably quite a struggle to stay respectable. Hats off, and I mean it.
Article 16 mentions nothing of emergencies, in fact it talks about the opposite with situations that are "liable to persist".
Serious unforeseen situations that can't be rectified within the agreement. This doesn't sound like the opposite of emergencies. Regardless, we don't have one. The NI problems need to be resolved without using the nuclear option - and they will be imo. Johnson won't be invoking A16, just as Macron won't be cutting off the power to Jersey. There are strong similarities to their behaviour. Bad faith grandstanding. This is actually what I'm seeking to highlight. Not to excuse Macron, but to get a clearer and fuller picture of how it is now, post Brexit, with us and France and the EU. You carry on with 'Us good, French bad' if you want, but you can't blame a person for trying to widen the lens.
OK Sean Spicer.
Try again. The Protocol mentions nothing of emergencies, and it doesn't mention unforeseen circumstances either. Try and learn what the actual provisions are.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
'Charlie [Reid] said: "It's interesting - Sunshine On Leith has become one of the funeral songs in Scotland. I don't think it beats Angels by Robbie, but a lot of funerals play Sunshine on Leith."'
Isn't it somewhat synonymous with the Hibbees now?
The fact that the EU has to "demonstrate damage" from Brexit, shows there is no net damage unless the EU makes things artificially harder - and at cost to themselves.
Hopefully wiser heads will prevail and Germany won't be hoodwinked into damaging relations in order to protect French fishermen who don't have logs because they have been illegally fishing over quota.
'Charlie [Reid] said: "It's interesting - Sunshine On Leith has become one of the funeral songs in Scotland. I don't think it beats Angels by Robbie, but a lot of funerals play Sunshine on Leith."'
Isn't it somewhat synonymous with the Hibbees now?
Not familiar with that side of cultural life, but yes, Easter Road is a lot closer to Leith than Tynecastle.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
It's his debut ffs..
I noted that in my edit. I still think it's faintly tragic. TONGA
Also, he's playing for SCOTLAND, who have never won anything, in any sport. I can't see how playing for Scotland could ever be that exciting or memorable, even for a Scot
Why the fuck are watching it then? I can only think you're hoping for a humiliating Scotland defeat for whatever screwed up reasons.
Savanta Com Res did a VI poll the other day with a 3pt Con lead, and tweeted some Net Leader Ratings, that had Sir Keir leading (-6 to -8 I think). I looked at the tables and they don't have the leader ratings on them, has anyone seen them?
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
The Canadians got Oh Canada. They could've had I'm a Lumberjack and I'm OK.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
'Charlie [Reid] said: "It's interesting - Sunshine On Leith has become one of the funeral songs in Scotland. I don't think it beats Angels by Robbie, but a lot of funerals play Sunshine on Leith."'
It's a magical song. I believe Theuniondivvie first alerted me to its popularity when he posted this vid of Hibs fans singing it. Lovely, just lovely
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
The French did alright with theirs though.
Edit: and don’t forget the old USSR.
or East Germany
I don’t know that one. I’ll admit the best versions of the ones I mentioned are both from films...
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
It's his debut ffs..
I noted that in my edit. I still think it's faintly tragic. TONGA
Also, he's playing for SCOTLAND, who have never won anything, in any sport. I can't see how playing for Scotland could ever be that exciting or memorable, even for a Scot
Why the fuck are watching it then? I can only think you're hoping for a humiliating Scotland defeat for whatever screwed up reasons.
Edit: poor, dashed hopes.
Come now, we've had dozens of PBers disquisiting learnedly on a spat over a few partans off a few rocks in what if history were rational and logical should be 100% French waters by any sane interpretation, mediaeval times onwards. Watching the Tongan team is nothing by comparison.
'Charlie [Reid] said: "It's interesting - Sunshine On Leith has become one of the funeral songs in Scotland. I don't think it beats Angels by Robbie, but a lot of funerals play Sunshine on Leith."'
It's a magical song. I believe Theuniondivvie first alerted me to its popularity when he posted this vid of Hibs fans singing it. Lovely, just lovely
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
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?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettifogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask you, @kinabalu (if the quotes are still or order ), to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood (and potentially deny others a livelihood), and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe scoring a try against TONGA, in a half-filled Murrayfield, is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Scottish rugby player
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
It's his debut ffs..
I noted that in my edit. I still think it's faintly tragic. TONGA
Also, he's playing for SCOTLAND, who have never won anything, in any sport. I can't see how playing for Scotland could ever be that exciting or memorable, even for a Scot
Why the fuck are watching it then? I can only think you're hoping for a humiliating Scotland defeat for whatever screwed up reasons.
Edit: poor, dashed hopes.
It hasn't occurred to you that I am just trying to wind you up, and succeeding?
I'm watching the cricket you idiot, I turned over after 10 minutes, when it became clear it would be yet another boring walkover by a tier 1 team against tier 2
To be serious, rugby has a real problem with finding competitive new nations. Arguably it is getting WORSE, as Italy decline from not being very good at all, to being terrible
Japan is maybe the only bright hope, but we need to fold them into the calendar
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?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
In all seriousness, it's because you and I don't have as strong a sense of 'my country right or wrong' as many and perhaps most others on here. Your exchange a while back with Casino Royale on this exact thing was very interesting.
Or you are not actually engaging with the points people opposing your view are making?
Because I don't know much about the issue. I'm playing the man not the ball, but I've explained why to (I trust) everyone's satisfaction.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
The French did alright with theirs though.
Edit: and don’t forget the old USSR.
Oh yes. The old Soviet national anthem is simply the best one going (or not as the case may now be). So good that even the British spies sang it at their Christmas party
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?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
'Charlie [Reid] said: "It's interesting - Sunshine On Leith has become one of the funeral songs in Scotland. I don't think it beats Angels by Robbie, but a lot of funerals play Sunshine on Leith."'
Isn't it somewhat synonymous with the Hibbees now?
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
The French did alright with theirs though.
Edit: and don’t forget the old USSR.
or East Germany
I don’t know that one. I’ll admit the best versions of the ones I mentioned are both from films...
Mr. kjh, no worries. It's usually useful to contemplate the possibility that one might be wrong, and that both sides may have something worth listening to.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
The French did alright with theirs though.
Edit: and don’t forget the old USSR.
Oh yes. The old Soviet national anthem is simply the best one going (or not as the case may now be). So good that even the British spies sang it at their Christmas party
Isn't it so good that Russia re-adopted it? Shout out for the Italian one too.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
The French did alright with theirs though.
Edit: and don’t forget the old USSR.
Oh yes. The old Soviet national anthem is simply the best one going (or not as the case may now be). So good that even the British spies sang it at their Christmas party
Isn't it so good that Russia re-adopted it? Shout out for the Italian one too.
The Italian one is superb. Same words sung to two different tunes, barely scanning with either.
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?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
The French did alright with theirs though.
Edit: and don’t forget the old USSR.
Oh yes. The old Soviet national anthem is simply the best one going (or not as the case may now be). So good that even the British spies sang it at their Christmas party
Isn't it so good that Russia re-adopted it? Shout out for the Italian one too.
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.
To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
If you had asked “do you think it’s wrong for Boris to rip up the NI protocol without any legal right or clauses that allow cancellation” then I would say it was wrong.
If you ask “do you think it is wrong for Boris to exercise a legally applicable clause in the NI protocol in lines with the agreement signed and agreed by both parties in the same legal right that UVDL did” then I would say it is ok. It doesn’t mean I want him to do it or it is wise to do so but there is a major difference between not abiding by the terms of a treaty and using a mechanism within the treaty.
You use the phrase “tear up” when you could equally, if balance was your thing, say “activate a clause”.
if the French govt think that jersey has broken the terms of the treaty then there are legal measures they can enact, or rather the EU would enact as the injured party as signatory to the treaty.
The fact that they are not simply enacting the legal measures and resorting to unilateral threats (when the treaty is between the EU - acting on behalf of all members - and Jersey) suggests that they know that they cannot win through a legal route.
However as I have very little intellectual integrity I bow to your greater wisdom and knowledge on political matters, intellectual heft and the situation on the ground in the place I live.
Oh ffs, dancing on a pin there. I'm simply asking you to agree that Johnson is acting in bad faith on the Protocol. A 'yes' (which is just so totally and obviously the case) unlocks for me the gates to your posts on the fishing dispute. Which I'm keen to see happen because they look quite solid, especially now I find out you live in Jersey. So it'd be good for both of us. Just write and say Johnson - or even call him "Boris" if you want - is acting in bad faith on NI and bingo, I can lap up your knowledge and expertise on this other matter. I sense you're close to saying it and it's only that I'm asking which is stopping you.
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.
...To the guillotine!!!!
...tis a far far better thing I do now...etc...
I think @MaxPB lost it big time with that post or he thinks I'm someone else (I hope the latter). Goodness knows where the NI reference came from and anyone familiar with my posts knows how much I am someone who is not a fan of rules generally.
YouGov have Sir Keir's approval rating at 20/60, a net minus 40 - that is an amazing outlier really. The next worst is IPSOS at -25 then Palnelbase at -16. ComRes, Survation and Opinium are -6 to -8
They (YouGov) have Boris 32/60 (-28) and the next worst is Opinium (-18), so they are out on their own with the negatives for both leaders
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.
To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
If you had asked “do you think it’s wrong for Boris to rip up the NI protocol without any legal right or clauses that allow cancellation” then I would say it was wrong.
If you ask “do you think it is wrong for Boris to exercise a legally applicable clause in the NI protocol in lines with the agreement signed and agreed by both parties in the same legal right that UVDL did” then I would say it is ok. It doesn’t mean I want him to do it or it is wise to do so but there is a major difference between not abiding by the terms of a treaty and using a mechanism within the treaty.
You use the phrase “tear up” when you could equally, if balance was your thing, say “activate a clause”.
if the French govt think that jersey has broken the terms of the treaty then there are legal measures they can enact, or rather the EU would enact as the injured party as signatory to the treaty.
The fact that they are not simply enacting the legal measures and resorting to unilateral threats (when the treaty is between the EU - acting on behalf of all members - and Jersey) suggests that they know that they cannot win through a legal route.
However as I have very little intellectual integrity I bow to your greater wisdom and knowledge on political matters, intellectual heft and the situation on the ground in the place I live.
Oh ffs, dancing on a pin there. I'm simply asking you to agree that Johnson is acting in bad faith on the Protocol. A 'yes' (which is just so totally and obviously the case) unlocks for me the gates to your posts on the fishing dispute. Which I'm keen to see happen because they look quite solid, especially now I find out you live in Jersey. So it'd be good for both of us. Just write and say Johnson - or even call him "Boris" if you want - is acting in bad faith on NI and bingo, I can lap up your knowledge and expertise on this other matter. I sense you're close to saying it and it's only that I'm asking which is stopping you.
There is no bad faith.
The Protocol was implemented. It has safeguard conditions, which have been met. So now they're seeking to use those provisions to get the Protocol replaced as was envisioned and using the process laid down . . . in the Protocol.
You are the one operating in bad faith trying to write off Article 13 altogether and rewrite Article 16 with conditions you have invented entirely in your own head rather than the ones that are actually there in writing.
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.
To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
If you had asked “do you think it’s wrong for Boris to rip up the NI protocol without any legal right or clauses that allow cancellation” then I would say it was wrong.
If you ask “do you think it is wrong for Boris to exercise a legally applicable clause in the NI protocol in lines with the agreement signed and agreed by both parties in the same legal right that UVDL did” then I would say it is ok. It doesn’t mean I want him to do it or it is wise to do so but there is a major difference between not abiding by the terms of a treaty and using a mechanism within the treaty.
You use the phrase “tear up” when you could equally, if balance was your thing, say “activate a clause”.
if the French govt think that jersey has broken the terms of the treaty then there are legal measures they can enact, or rather the EU would enact as the injured party as signatory to the treaty.
The fact that they are not simply enacting the legal measures and resorting to unilateral threats (when the treaty is between the EU - acting on behalf of all members - and Jersey) suggests that they know that they cannot win through a legal route.
However as I have very little intellectual integrity I bow to your greater wisdom and knowledge on political matters, intellectual heft and the situation on the ground in the place I live.
Oh ffs, dancing on a pin there. I'm simply asking you to agree that Johnson is acting in bad faith on the Protocol. A 'yes' (which is just so totally and obviously the case) unlocks for me the gates to your posts on the fishing dispute. Which I'm keen to see happen because they look quite solid, especially now I find out you live in Jersey. So it'd be good for both of us. Just write and say Johnson - or even call him "Boris" if you want - is acting in bad faith on NI and bingo, I can lap up your knowledge and expertise on this other matter. I sense you're close to saying it and it's only that I'm asking which is stopping you.
I’m so close to folding, I’m almost there. I want to make you happy but just not ready to take the plunge. Maybe a couple of drinks to take away the fear of submitting to you and letting you fill me with intellectual integrity……
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?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Clément Beaune is saying that unless Britain makes a "significant gesture" by Tuesday they will start preventing British boats from landing and implementing a go slow for processing British goods.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
The French did alright with theirs though.
Edit: and don’t forget the old USSR.
Oh yes. The old Soviet national anthem is simply the best one going (or not as the case may now be). So good that even the British spies sang it at their Christmas party
Isn't it so good that Russia re-adopted it? Shout out for the Italian one too.
The Italian one is superb. Same words sung to two different tunes, barely scanning with either.
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?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
So you're sceptical of anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion? Fair enough, and at least you're being honest ...
There's another side to this. The licences are valuable - which is why not getting one when you're legally due would be so problematic. But this also means there is a large incentive for people to try it on with the system. Perhaps no-one is trying it on; perhaps everyone complaining about 'lost log books' are. we don't know. But when there's a big incentive for fraud, it's reasonable to be suspicious.
Which is why applications should not just be waved through.
I still don't understand why 'professional' fishermen would not have known to use the processes, or not keep adequate records.
But I'd hope we'd both agree on one thing: threatening to cut off Jersey's power supply is crass and stupid. especially as it is easily within their capability, or that of a malicious actor amongst the fishermen and their friends.
100% agree the threats are out of order. But your 1st sentence - No. That's not it at all. It's like this. I am not across the detail of the fishing dispute therefore I need to take in info & opinion from those who are. I need sources. I also need to assess the quality of my sources and part of this is how badly biased they are. What I look for in a good source is the ability to see where something they'd like to be untrue is true (or vice versa). So, eg, a Leaver who accepts that Johnson/Frost are behaving in bad faith over the NI protocol. Or a Remainer who accepts that trying to get a 2nd EU referendum before implementing the 1st was undemocratic and wrong. Now, ok, they are both my views but that's by the by. I could have given egs which weren't. The generic point is, it's about how much weight to give to a person's opinion on this fishing dispute and that's a mixture of how much they seem to know about it and what their bias is. Both are relevant. You go through this process too, I bet. It's best practice. I'm just making it visible. I'm showing my workings.
I understand why it helps you to understand any potential bias I might have before accepting my views on French fishgate however because you ask Re one potential issue that will indicate to you a bias I might have, it doesn’t give the whole picture.
My family are Algerian and were treated appallingly by the French and so I have a natural bias against the French however I am a remainer who hopes that fishgate develops into a trade war which will show up Brexit for the farce it is and so the next government returns to the arms of the EU.
It’s complicated weighting my biases isn’t it?
Yep, you've surprised me there. We're close now, we're very close. Soon I hope to be able to treat you as a 'solid source' on this fishing dispute. And btw, that carries over (potentially) onto other things too. PB eh? Bloody hell.
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
How did Scotland end up with this terrible dirge? It makes God Save the Queen look like Men of Harlech
They could have gone for Sunshine on Leith. Wonderful song
The First Big Weekend by Arab Strap.
There is a tendency for nations to choose dutiful, pompous dirges when they have superb popular melodies
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Advance Australia Fair is terrible, but still leaps ahead of the dirge that is GSTQ.
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda Who bloody killed her? Lying in the grass With her finger up her arse
The Fijian anthem when the men’s rugby sevens team sang it at the Olympics was just magnificent
God Save the Queen is OK. It has the advantage of being short, memorable, easy to sing, and modestly rousing - SEND HER VICTORIOUS
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
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?
This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
I think calling "papers, please" pettufogging is fascinating and revealing rhetoric.
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask @kinabalu to turn up at the local airport to pilot the next passenger flight out, and see if harrumphing about checks on "papers", rather than providing any, suffices for getting into the cockpit.
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood, and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
The French fishermen are in exactly the position of people who could not demonstrate lost earnings for COVID purposes because they had been working cash in hand. Hoist with their own
That's exactly right. If there were good arguments for the absence of records, the French would be making them. But there aren't so instead they are trying to turn this into an abstract argument about punishing perfidious Albion.
I wonder if the situation is something like this -
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing. - When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced. - A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
Quite clearly proper license enforcement. Just because something isn't enforced doesn't mean you should break the law. These French fishermen were selfishly fishing over quota, at the expense of everyone else, whether British, Dutch, Danish or others. It is notable that the Dutch and Danish are not complaining about a lack of licences, because they have a law abiding culture. The French are getting their just deserts.
Comments
The French are our natural allies on so many fronts.
And by me posting that it really doesn't mean I actually believe they haven't done it illegitimately, because I hate Britain so much. It is because I have no f-ing idea just like everyone else.
I don't believe many if any of the unawarded licenses will be granted, but all this will happen after the French elex
Just a guess. Agree France is displaying remarkable insecurity. This kind of stuff won't help:
"I should add Poland this autumn consolidating new military posture with dramatic increase in size of its army and active integration with Nordics+US/UK militaries"
https://twitter.com/Halsrethink/status/1454422335243669505?s=20
Poland is doubling the size of its army, and linking up with AUKUS via NATO. They want nothing to do with a French-led EU military
If it is, that shows somewhat diminished ambitions
Edit: it is his debut, so maybe. But still. Hmm
Meanwhile, England beat the Aussie tossers win the toss against the Aussies, and will chase the runs.
With the caveat that the French love being performatively miserable to pollsters,... this graph explains quite a lot of the current UK/France kerfuffles, which I expect to continue for decades. The French think that Britain got a sweetheart deal from the EU on Brexit.
https://twitter.com/thomasforth/status/1454443113947226122?s=20
Also, he's playing for SCOTLAND, who have never won anything, in any sport. I can't see how playing for Scotland could ever be that exciting or memorable, even for a Scot
And there was me thinking that you had your finger on the pulse of our fish...
I am aware of the Jersey France dispute, but I have no indication as to whether the British boat had the licence.
If it hasn't it has breached the law
It's like saying serving the tea at a Glamorgan cricket match is the "moment of a lifetime" for a Porthcawl lass
Genuinely bewildered. Am I missing something?!
Climate change-related breakdown will be like the fall of the Roman Empire, but only because it will cause uncontrolled immigration, and his amusing but knowingly inflammatory and completely ahistorical nonsense today that "the Roman Empire fell as a result of uncontrolled immigration".
There's a certain political savvy in combining the climate crisis with immigration fears, but what a grimly and dangerously opportunistic politician the man is underneath the bonhomie.
I remember knapping my first butt plug, and then hearing it had been inserted into a moderately well known presenter on CBEEBIES
I guess that's about the same as scoring a try for Scotland?
If so, then OK, there is something to celebrate, sort of
Scottish on the other occasions, of course.
...tis a far far better thing I do now...etc...
My family are Algerian and were treated appallingly by the French and so I have a natural bias against the French however I am a remainer who hopes that fishgate develops into a trade war which will show up Brexit for the farce it is and so the next government returns to the arms of the EU.
It’s complicated weighting my biases isn’t it?
I missed his wicket, but what a catch there for the second!
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1412401/The-Proclaimers-Sunshine-on-Leith-song-musical-film-meaning-500-Miles-funeral
'Charlie [Reid] said: "It's interesting - Sunshine On Leith has become one of the funeral songs in Scotland. I don't think it beats Angels by Robbie, but a lot of funerals play Sunshine on Leith."'
Try again. The Protocol mentions nothing of emergencies, and it doesn't mention unforeseen circumstances either. Try and learn what the actual provisions are.
How did Australia end up with Advance Australia Fair when they could have had Waltzing Matilda, which, when sung by 100,000 Aussies in a Melbourne stadium sends shivers down the spine. The official anthem, to be polite, does not
Ditto Ireland with that awful Ireland Ireland anthem, when they had Molly Malone in the wings
Edit: and don’t forget the old USSR.
The fact that the EU has to "demonstrate damage" from Brexit, shows there is no net damage unless the EU makes things artificially harder - and at cost to themselves.
Hopefully wiser heads will prevail and Germany won't be hoodwinked into damaging relations in order to protect French fishermen who don't have logs because they have been illegally fishing over quota.
Edit: poor, dashed hopes.
They could've had I'm a Lumberjack and I'm OK.
https://youtu.be/LeHkQYDoVJ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrI28-4Zi_E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc
The problem for me with Waltzing Matilda is as a teenager when down under, it was the dirty lyrics that got stuck in my head. Which kind of makes it hard to take seriously after that.
Waltzing Matilda
Who bloody killed her?
Lying in the grass
With her finger up her arse
So, then, we should not have to have an Insurance Certificate or an MOT Cert for our cars, and just be allowed to drive in them by asserting that we do have the paperwork?
I'm incline to ask you, @kinabalu (if the quotes are still or order
Licenses are important in this case, because it is a license to make a livelihood (and potentially deny others a livelihood), and it is in the ratified agreement that historic evidence of participation is required. It is notable that the local French fishermen based near Jersey are amongst those asserting that the ones not issued licenses do not have a history of participation.
That's all, really.
I'm watching the cricket you idiot, I turned over after 10 minutes, when it became clear it would be yet another boring walkover by a tier 1 team against tier 2
To be serious, rugby has a real problem with finding competitive new nations. Arguably it is getting WORSE, as Italy decline from not being very good at all, to being terrible
Japan is maybe the only bright hope, but we need to fold them into the calendar
36/45 Boris
31/37 Sir Keir
https://comresglobal.com/polls/savanta-comres-political-tracker-october-2021/
Is there an Opinium poll tonight?
Not a big fan of hit and giggle but no match where the Aussies are 15-3 is a bad match.
21-3 at the end of the Powerplay (6 overs). Run Rate 3.5 - that's like an old fashioned ODI.
21-4 😂😂😂😂🏏🏏🏏🏏
(From a Gorgie perspective)
No shortages last time, but they did admit to juggling some items.
21/4, are you WIndies in disguise?
Otherwise shelves full.
Mr. kjh, no worries. It's usually useful to contemplate the possibility that one might be wrong, and that both sides may have something worth listening to.
Shout out for the Italian one too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxzN4J0RVbc
Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to the batters...
They (YouGov) have Boris 32/60 (-28) and the next worst is Opinium (-18), so they are out on their own with the negatives for both leaders
The Protocol was implemented. It has safeguard conditions, which have been met. So now they're seeking to use those provisions to get the Protocol replaced as was envisioned and using the process laid down . . . in the Protocol.
You are the one operating in bad faith trying to write off Article 13 altogether and rewrite Article 16 with conditions you have invented entirely in your own head rather than the ones that are actually there in writing.
- Previously enforcement was a slack on small boats. They just did their thing.
- When Brexit came in, the new rules are actually being enforced.
- A number of people who didn't actually have the fishing rights, or had them and didn't exercise them are now being asked to sign up to formal licensing and have got a bit stuck.
I am reminded of the following - before Brexit, you could bring in pretty much unlimited amount of wine from France, as long as it was for personal use. Customs and Excise fought a long and losing battle to stop this.
Post Brexit, they introduced small personal allowances and enforced them.
Certain small UK wine dealers were used to drive a transit van over to see their mates in the various vineyards and coming back with multiple metric tons of high end wine. Which they could then sell at a keen price, with an increased profit.
This trade has now come to a screeching halt.
Unfair, or proper license enforcement? They were certainly abusing the "for personal use" provisions.
https://twitter.com/CBeaune/status/1454441755575824384
Bandiera Rossa
Bella ciao
And then there's all that opera stuff.
But it is no masterpiece. There are many better anthems
When you think of the songs we could have had, from Jerusalem to Land of Hope and Glory to Rule Britannia to Hey Jude to the very greatest song of all, Bohemian Rhapsody
Which I see has now been adopted as a kind of global anthem (helped by Green Day). Makes yer praaaad
America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdDimyd6cj4
Argentina:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfCcYxMhq5w
Canada:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A6Pp_kqTqE
There's a hundred of these, from Mexico to Croatia, Italy to Poland
But the best remains the famous one in Hyde Park
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZnBNuqqz5g
41/4 from the second ten would go down well!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lchdM7cAzKI