He keeps saying that, but fails to understand that British fish are no longer common EU resources.
Did Mr Grayling remember to tell the fish wehn they cross the borders?* Or arrange to issue them with blue passports?
*I won't even ask about the Irish Sea.
Will we have to sort out a new agreement with Iceland, the Faros and Norway? Or don't we fish the waters any more?
Coincidentally I've been sorting through some old books on the Royal Navy. Some photos of the Cod Wars - sending frigates in to play dodgems with Icelandic gunboats with ice-reinforced bows, and not always coming off the better, because British fishermen had the right to fish in other folks' waters. One doesn't hear much about that naval campaign these days. I certainly sympathise with the sailors sent to those waters!
The Cod War was at a time when I hear things on the TV news but didn't understand them. I thought that the Cod War was an actual war. Even more embarrasing Ryvita ran a campaign about fighting the "Inch War", which I also thought it was a real war.
He keeps saying that, but fails to understand that British fish are no longer common EU resources. The U.K. is asking for simply a similar deal to those already done with Canada and Japan.
Who could sell them; the UK Government or the fishermen?
The fishermen, which is one thing I don't understand - what happens when the current system ends?
If the current system ends then the rights lapse. A new system will need to be created to issue new rights. Depending upon how the rights were framed there may or may not be compensation for this and the possibility for rights lapsing has always existed.
This for instance happened when the EU abolished its milk quotas - the value of the quotas that were purchased was simply lost when the scheme lapsed and farmers had to write off the value of the milk quotas they had paid for, with no compensation given I believe.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on 23 June, Sir Keir told Mr Johnson: “On schools, I do think that it is safe for some children to return. I completely support that; the question is how quickly we can get all children back to school safely, the sooner the better.”
And in the event of no deal Barnier will forever be the EU negotiator who lost the UK to Europe
Not the legacy he would have wanted
The UK is already lost to Europe. Barnier's job is to get the best deal he can without threatening the integrity of the Single Market. Whether such a deal is possible is largely in the hands of the UK.
"No deal is better than a bad deal", as someone once put it.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on 23 June, Sir Keir told Mr Johnson: “On schools, I do think that it is safe for some children to return. I completely support that; the question is how quickly we can get all children back to school safely, the sooner the better.”
Of course if politicians don't perform U-turns they get accused of being "inflexible" and of "not listening".
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
Wester Ross is 600+ square miles in area. I fear that the GRU assassins may have had their work cut out for them, particularly as there would be no shortage of fair skinned Old Etonians kicking about the place at that time of the year.
You don't need to be a trained assassin to constitute a 'security threat' - what about an egg thrower who then gets taken down by the security detail and appears all over the papers with a fat lip and a black eye and tales of Westminster brutality? Just as necessary to avoid. Blackford was happy to participate in the high jinks because he didn't want Boris in 'his' country.
Does rather suggest some of the righteous indignation directed Corbyn’s way was somewhat fabricated.
Ditto with antisemitism. It does not in any way mitigate the horror of it finding a comfortable place to hang out in parts of the Labour Party but there is no question that for many of those weaponizing it, antisemitism in the Labour Party was where their animated distress over racism of any sort started and ended.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
We didn't get a say, not exactly. The method for creating the CFP stocks by nation which majorly deflates UK stocks was determined prior to us joining the EEC so it was part of the acquis communitaire when we joined.
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on 23 June, Sir Keir told Mr Johnson: “On schools, I do think that it is safe for some children to return. I completely support that; the question is how quickly we can get all children back to school safely, the sooner the better.”
Of course if politicians don't perform U-turns they get accused of being "inflexible" and of "not listening".
No one can deny Johnson is 'flexible'. Which ever way the wind blows...
At Prime Minister’s Questions on 23 June, Sir Keir told Mr Johnson: “On schools, I do think that it is safe for some children to return. I completely support that; the question is how quickly we can get all children back to school safely, the sooner the better.”
Of course if politicians don't perform U-turns they get accused of being "inflexible" and of "not listening".
No one can deny Johnson is 'flexible'. Which ever way the wind blows...
No he's Mr Muscles Johnson, so say PB Tories, all muscle underneath the fat am I right?
If Trump does win in the EC, but loses the national vote by 2-3%, how sustainable is this? In a national vote for a national president, with effectively a 2 party system, that the party that keeps getting millions fewer votes keeps winning?
Add to that the gerrymandered House and Senate, and the highly political judiciary stuffed with increasingly out of touch with majority opinion ultra-conservative judges - isn't it a recipe for the disenfranchised majority getting extremely pissed off?
I agree with you, but have one pedantic point. The senate cannot be gerrymandered, unless state boundaries are redrawn, or significant populations are moved accross state borders. You can complain that Hawaii and Texas both having 2 senators is unfair, but that is not gerrymandering.
The constituency boundaries in the House though, are a disgrace.
Jungle primaries comes pretty close
California Democrats legislate that the top 2 candidates in a primary are the only ones eligible to run for senator
Hmmm: that means that it’s always only 2 Democrats that get to stand
You can vote for anyone you like so long as they are a Democrat
Ah, are Republicans banned from standing in the jungle primaries then?
That sounds pretty serious.
Only the top 2 candidates are allowed to stand in the election
So (I think) in every election it has been 2 democrats running against each other.
It’s introducing a hurdle which is deliberately designed to discriminate against a smaller but meaningful party.
It basically prevents the splits in the Democrat voting base resulting in the GOP ever having the chance to win the senate seat
So is this a run-off election where every voter gets a free choice from all candidates in the first round, and the top two go through to round two? Or is the first round run like the usual US primaries with only registered voters voting choosing from Dem candidates and only Republican Voters choosing from GOP candidates, and if second place Dem gets more votes than the top GOP candidate then both Dems go through to the "second round"?
If it's the first, I don't really see anything wrong, if it's the second that's bad. It does mean that there is an insentive to vote in the primaries though, and if the Republicans could get a succesful "Register as a Republican Voter" campaign, it might nullify the Dem advantage.
That said there is so much wrong in US democracy, that this is not so high up on the list.
It’s a non partisan blanket primary. But because it falls outside the standard election period (it’s in June) it heavily advantages the incumbents.
It also eliminates third party candidates - benefiting the Democrats because greens/socialists tend to vote democrat while libertarians don’t vote for anyone
It’s no wonder that the Dems tried so hard to get it passed over 20 years. The Goverornator finally did a squalid little deal to support it in return for getting His budget passed
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
We didn't get a say, not exactly. The method for creating the CFP stocks by nation which majorly deflates UK stocks was determined prior to us joining the EEC so it was part of the acquis communitaire when we joined.
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
But as I mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as "our" stocks. Because fish are mobile, it makes no sense to try to split them into "our" and "their" stocks. If, say, we decided to empty our waters of fish, it would also devastate stocks in other waters, and vice versa. That's why some sort of common fisheries policy is essential.
It's taken me a very long time to make this connection: weren't the 2011 England riots basically an early (British) version of BLM?
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on 23 June, Sir Keir told Mr Johnson: “On schools, I do think that it is safe for some children to return. I completely support that; the question is how quickly we can get all children back to school safely, the sooner the better.”
Of course if politicians don't perform U-turns they get accused of being "inflexible" and of "not listening".
No one can deny Johnson is 'flexible'. Which ever way the wind blows...
No he's Mr Muscles Johnson, so say PB Tories, all muscle underneath the fat am I right?
For him to now be crying he had nothing to do with security implications is a bit of a stretch isn't it?
He got carried away and didn't think about the security implications perhaps. An apology would be more appropriate than doubling down or implying it was all Torcuil and nothing to do with him.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
We didn't get a say, not exactly. The method for creating the CFP stocks by nation which majorly deflates UK stocks was determined prior to us joining the EEC so it was part of the acquis communitaire when we joined.
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
But as I mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as "our" stocks. Because fish are mobile, it makes no sense to try to split them into "our" and "their" stocks. If, say, we decided to empty our waters of fish, it would also devastate stocks in other waters, and vice versa. That's why some sort of common fisheries policy is essential.
You're wrong.
International law is very clear on fish stocks. They are "our" stocks.
There is a reason the EU has to make annual agreements with out non-EU nations outside the CFP like Norway which is exactly what the UK is asking for ourselves. That we be treated as any other sovereign non-EU country is. The EU aren't happy with that as they know they get much more than their share via the CFP which they could foist on us via the acquis communitaire and which Norway dodged by not joining . . . but tough.
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
Wester Ross is 600+ square miles in area. I fear that the GRU assassins may have had their work cut out for them, particularly as there would be no shortage of fair skinned Old Etonians kicking about the place at that time of the year.
You don't need to be a trained assassin to constitute a 'security threat' - what about an egg thrower who then gets taken down by the security detail and appears all over the papers with a fat lip and a black eye and tales of Westminster brutality? Just as necessary to avoid. Blackford was happy to participate in the high jinks because he didn't want Boris in 'his' country.
Aiui BJ booked the house for 3 days, and lo and behold, left after 3 days. Aside from the entertaining notion that Blackford conspired with the Mail to reveal the location, what's your hypothetical timeline for panicked burly blokes with earpieces bundling Moby Dick (or whatever pishy code name they have for BJ) into a Range Rover Sentinel and whipping him off to safety?
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
We didn't get a say, not exactly. The method for creating the CFP stocks by nation which majorly deflates UK stocks was determined prior to us joining the EEC so it was part of the acquis communitaire when we joined.
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
But as I mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as "our" stocks. Because fish are mobile, it makes no sense to try to split them into "our" and "their" stocks. If, say, we decided to empty our waters of fish, it would also devastate stocks in other waters, and vice versa. That's why some sort of common fisheries policy is essential.
Indeed, for some though not all species I assume. Hence my inquiry earlier if Mr Grayling was in charge of issuing the "British" fish with little blue passports for when they migrate. Never mind whether the future quota to catch them is sold yet again to the furriners.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
We didn't get a say, not exactly. The method for creating the CFP stocks by nation which majorly deflates UK stocks was determined prior to us joining the EEC so it was part of the acquis communitaire when we joined.
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
But as I mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as "our" stocks. Because fish are mobile, it makes no sense to try to split them into "our" and "their" stocks. If, say, we decided to empty our waters of fish, it would also devastate stocks in other waters, and vice versa. That's why some sort of common fisheries policy is essential.
The difference between “a” and “the” is very important here
I can't say that I miss the excruciating holiday photos that we used to get from the PM of the day each summer, but it was a staple story of August to see where they were holidaying and have people judging them for going abroad/commiserating with their spouse for being forced to holiday within the UK.
What's so different about Johnson that it's suddenly become an issue of national security?
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
It's taken me a very long time to make this connection: weren't the 2011 England riots basically an early (British) version of BLM?
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
Part of a long and venerable history. 1981 Brixton was precipitated by heavy handed policing, but plenty of others too.
I can't say that I miss the excruciating holiday photos that we used to get from the PM of the day each summer, but it was a staple story of August to see where they were holidaying and have people judging them for going abroad/commiserating with their spouse for being forced to holiday within the UK.
What's so different about Johnson that it's suddenly become an issue of national security?
As I recall, Mr Cameron's idea of a Scottish holiday was huntin, shootin and fishin on the in-laws' not so small patch of Jura.
That's not all Boris said, what was the next part that Boris said about what a certain Mr Blackford said in reply about midges?
Did it reveal what the justification was for suggesting Blackford was involved in endangering BJ's safety?
Yes.
Which was?
You'll have to watch the clip sorry, I don't have the transcript or a link.
Gaurn feed makes it clear (a) a lot of shite and (b) the security risks were to Mr Blackford. "12:43 PMQs is over, but the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, allows a point of order.
It’s from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster. He says in August the Sun quoted a No 10 source blaming Blackford for revealing the location of the PM’s holiday in Scotland. He says this was a political smear. He says he did not reveal where the PM was staying, and was not aware of it. He says this has resulted in Blackford himself, and his family, facing security threats. He says Johnson’s face in the chamber suggests he does not take this seriously, but it is a serious matter.
Johnson says he had a wonderful staycation in Blackford’s constituency. He says he is happy to accept the assurances Blackford gives. But he quotes a tweet from the Daily Record journalist Torcuil Crichton, which he seems to imply undermines what Blackford was saying.
Here is the tweet. It does not at all prove what Johnson implies that it does (that Crichton heard about where Johnson was camping from Blackford).
[tweet here] Hoyle says he is very concerned about the security implications."
Mr Johnson does not seem on top of the detail, no?
Johnson was complaining that Blackford retweeted the Torcuil Crichton tweet and implied strongly that Crichton was referring to Johnson in his tweet [fair-skinned and from Eton].
In this case Johnson has the greater complaint than Blackford IMO.
EDIT. The Guardian corrected the take quoted above
Wester Ross is 600+ square miles in area. I fear that the GRU assassins may have had their work cut out for them, particularly as there would be no shortage of fair skinned Old Etonians kicking about the place at that time of the year.
You don't need to be a trained assassin to constitute a 'security threat' - what about an egg thrower who then gets taken down by the security detail and appears all over the papers with a fat lip and a black eye and tales of Westminster brutality? Just as necessary to avoid. Blackford was happy to participate in the high jinks because he didn't want Boris in 'his' country.
Aiui BJ booked the house for 3 days, and lo and behold, left after 3 days. Aside from the entertaining notion that Blackford conspired with the Mail to reveal the location, what's your hypothetical timeline for panicked burly blokes with earpieces bundling Moby Dick (or whatever pishy code name they have for BJ) into a Range Rover Sentinel and whipping him off to safety?
Who's suggesting he 'conspired with the Mail'? I like a bit of rhetorical flourish as much as anyone, but you're basically throwing a lot of straw men around to cover the fact that Blackford knew Boris was staying in his constituency, and chose to hint strongly as much on social media before his whereabouts was known. What you or I might have done in the same circumstances is just kept it buttoned - or perhaps not?
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
We didn't get a say, not exactly. The method for creating the CFP stocks by nation which majorly deflates UK stocks was determined prior to us joining the EEC so it was part of the acquis communitaire when we joined.
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
But as I mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as "our" stocks. Because fish are mobile, it makes no sense to try to split them into "our" and "their" stocks. If, say, we decided to empty our waters of fish, it would also devastate stocks in other waters, and vice versa. That's why some sort of common fisheries policy is essential.
Indeed, for some though not all species I assume. Hence my inquiry earlier if Mr Grayling was in charge of issuing the "British" fish with little blue passports for when they migrate. Never mind whether the future quota to catch them is sold yet again to the furriners.
Fish do migrate but there are international laws to govern this already.
If a school of fish swims from British to Norwegian waters and back then those fish if caught in Norwegian waters are governed by Norwegian law and are outside the remit of the CFP. Those same fish if caught in British waters are currently classed essentially as being caught in EU waters and under the remit of the CFP.
If that school of fish swims regularly between Britain and Norway without going into EU waters then why should it be outside of the CFP when in Norwegian waters but inside the CFP when in British ones? The UK is not in the EU anymore.
To manage fish stocks the EU negotiates regularly with Norway to manage stock levels. The EU should do the same with us, as an independent, sovereign, coastal nations - what is wrong with that?
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
I probably haven't been paying sufficient attention, but has anyone come up with a valid theory on why the 2016 POTUS betting market was a terrible predictor of the result but the 2020 is a good one?
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
I think Boris will annouce Oxfords vaccine around the same time. I will be astonished now if the vaccination programme in the UK does not begin before Christmas. Hancock hinted at that yesterday.
I probably haven't been paying sufficient attention, but has anyone come up with a valid theory on why the 2016 POTUS betting market was a terrible predictor of the result but the 2020 is a good one?
Becaus the Trump enthusiasts are siezing anything to try to convince us that their man will win again.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
We didn't get a say, not exactly. The method for creating the CFP stocks by nation which majorly deflates UK stocks was determined prior to us joining the EEC so it was part of the acquis communitaire when we joined.
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
But as I mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as "our" stocks. Because fish are mobile, it makes no sense to try to split them into "our" and "their" stocks. If, say, we decided to empty our waters of fish, it would also devastate stocks in other waters, and vice versa. That's why some sort of common fisheries policy is essential.
Indeed, for some though not all species I assume. Hence my inquiry earlier if Mr Grayling was in charge of issuing the "British" fish with little blue passports for when they migrate. Never mind whether the future quota to catch them is sold yet again to the furriners.
Fish do migrate but there are international laws to govern this already.
If a school of fish swims from British to Norwegian waters and back then those fish if caught in Norwegian waters are governed by Norwegian law and are outside the remit of the CFP. Those same fish if caught in British waters are currently classed essentially as being caught in EU waters and under the remit of the CFP.
If that school of fish swims regularly between Britain and Norway without going into EU waters then why should it be outside of the CFP when in Norwegian waters but inside the CFP when in British ones? The UK is not in the EU anymore.
To manage fish stocks the EU negotiates regularly with Norway to manage stock levels. The EU should do the same with us, as an independent, sovereign, coastal nations - what is wrong with that?
Fine, I agree, it's what is needed.
So long as we don't go back to the overfishing of the old days. Fishermen are basically looting the common and have to be kept a sharp eye on. I don't know that the UK Gmt would want to do that for its Brexiter cronies.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
Unless the Dems can organise pay-back for Carter, when the Iranian hostage release was held back until after the election.....
In the same time that Trump's implied chance of winning has moved from 35% to 50% his implied chance of winning the popular votes has moved from 18% to 20%
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
We didn't get a say, not exactly. The method for creating the CFP stocks by nation which majorly deflates UK stocks was determined prior to us joining the EEC so it was part of the acquis communitaire when we joined.
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
But as I mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as "our" stocks. Because fish are mobile, it makes no sense to try to split them into "our" and "their" stocks. If, say, we decided to empty our waters of fish, it would also devastate stocks in other waters, and vice versa. That's why some sort of common fisheries policy is essential.
Indeed, for some though not all species I assume. Hence my inquiry earlier if Mr Grayling was in charge of issuing the "British" fish with little blue passports for when they migrate. Never mind whether the future quota to catch them is sold yet again to the furriners.
Fish do migrate but there are international laws to govern this already.
If a school of fish swims from British to Norwegian waters and back then those fish if caught in Norwegian waters are governed by Norwegian law and are outside the remit of the CFP. Those same fish if caught in British waters are currently classed essentially as being caught in EU waters and under the remit of the CFP.
If that school of fish swims regularly between Britain and Norway without going into EU waters then why should it be outside of the CFP when in Norwegian waters but inside the CFP when in British ones? The UK is not in the EU anymore.
To manage fish stocks the EU negotiates regularly with Norway to manage stock levels. The EU should do the same with us, as an independent, sovereign, coastal nations - what is wrong with that?
Fine, I agree, it's what is needed.
So long as we don't go back to the overfishing of the old days. Fishermen are basically looting the common and have to be kept a sharp eye on. I don't know that the UK Gmt would want to do that for its Brexiter cronies.
It ought ( stress ought) to be a once in a lifetime chance to create a really green sustainable industry that could be an example to the world.
Now we shall see of course, but the opportunity is there if we can really substantially free ourselves of the CFP.
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
I think Boris will annouce Oxfords vaccine around the same time. I will be astonished now if the vaccination programme in the UK does not begin before Christmas. Hancock hinted at that yesterday.
Before Christmas and by 1 November are two very different timelines. I've been expecting an announcement mid-November at the earliest plausibly and I can understand Trump's frustration with that and wanting to push it forwards but that is inappropriate if the science isn't done yet.
If the science is ready by 1 November so be it, if it isn't I can't see our government jumping the gun.
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
I think Boris will annouce Oxfords vaccine around the same time. I will be astonished now if the vaccination programme in the UK does not begin before Christmas. Hancock hinted at that yesterday.
From what I understood, if the Oxford vaccine works well, it will be obvious by sometime in September.
If it works a bit, then it would take longer for that to emerge from the statistical noise - October/November perhaps.
So, the more time that passes without an announcement of success, the worse the likely outcome. But not time to worry yet.
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
Trump's vaccine does not need to work. Roll it out quickly mid October and say you need a second shot after 3 weeks, which is the week of the election. Any decent evaluation of whether it works won't be until Cristmas at least.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
I can't say that I miss the excruciating holiday photos that we used to get from the PM of the day each summer, but it was a staple story of August to see where they were holidaying and have people judging them for going abroad/commiserating with their spouse for being forced to holiday within the UK.
What's so different about Johnson that it's suddenly become an issue of national security?
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
Is that actually true? What about British quota legitimately bought? Or a Spanish boat registered in Scotland?
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
I think Boris will annouce Oxfords vaccine around the same time. I will be astonished now if the vaccination programme in the UK does not begin before Christmas. Hancock hinted at that yesterday.
Before Christmas and by 1 November are two very different timelines. I've been expecting an announcement mid-November at the earliest plausibly and I can understand Trump's frustration with that and wanting to push it forwards but that is inappropriate if the science isn't done yet.
If the science is ready by 1 November so be it, if it isn't I can't see our government jumping the gun.
Any sensible government would delay the announcement till November 4
It's taken me a very long time to make this connection: weren't the 2011 England riots basically an early (British) version of BLM?
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
Similar yes, but also there's a difference in that the UK is not the USA. This issue is lasting in the USA not because it has effective leaders and branding but because the American cops keep harassing, beating up, shooting and killing black people. Again American is not like the UK.
If the cops stopped killing black people, the protests would stop too. The UK doesn't have the fuel to keep protests like these going, thank goodness.
If Trump does win in the EC, but loses the national vote by 2-3%, how sustainable is this? In a national vote for a national president, with effectively a 2 party system, that the party that keeps getting millions fewer votes keeps winning?
Add to that the gerrymandered House and Senate, and the highly political judiciary stuffed with increasingly out of touch with majority opinion ultra-conservative judges - isn't it a recipe for the disenfranchised majority getting extremely pissed off?
I agree with you, but have one pedantic point. The senate cannot be gerrymandered, unless state boundaries are redrawn, or significant populations are moved accross state borders. You can complain that Hawaii and Texas both having 2 senators is unfair, but that is not gerrymandering.
The constituency boundaries in the House though, are a disgrace.
Jungle primaries comes pretty close
California Democrats legislate that the top 2 candidates in a primary are the only ones eligible to run for senator
Hmmm: that means that it’s always only 2 Democrats that get to stand
You can vote for anyone you like so long as they are a Democrat
Ah, are Republicans banned from standing in the jungle primaries then?
That sounds pretty serious.
Only the top 2 candidates are allowed to stand in the election
So (I think) in every election it has been 2 democrats running against each other.
It’s introducing a hurdle which is deliberately designed to discriminate against a smaller but meaningful party.
It basically prevents the splits in the Democrat voting base resulting in the GOP ever having the chance to win the senate seat
So is this a run-off election where every voter gets a free choice from all candidates in the first round, and the top two go through to round two? Or is the first round run like the usual US primaries with only registered voters voting choosing from Dem candidates and only Republican Voters choosing from GOP candidates, and if second place Dem gets more votes than the top GOP candidate then both Dems go through to the "second round"?
If it's the first, I don't really see anything wrong, if it's the second that's bad. It does mean that there is an insentive to vote in the primaries though, and if the Republicans could get a succesful "Register as a Republican Voter" campaign, it might nullify the Dem advantage.
That said there is so much wrong in US democracy, that this is not so high up on the list.
It’s a non partisan blanket primary. But because it falls outside the standard election period (it’s in June) it heavily advantages the incumbents.
It also eliminates third party candidates - benefiting the Democrats because greens/socialists tend to vote democrat while libertarians don’t vote for anyone
It’s no wonder that the Dems tried so hard to get it passed over 20 years. The Goverornator finally did a squalid little deal to support it in return for getting His budget passed
I'm struggling to see how letting the 3rd (at best) most popular candidate in an election through to the next round is a good idea. I think the Republicans should attempt to be more popular rather than relying on procedural shenanigans.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
I think Boris will annouce Oxfords vaccine around the same time. I will be astonished now if the vaccination programme in the UK does not begin before Christmas. Hancock hinted at that yesterday.
From what I understood, if the Oxford vaccine works well, it will be obvious by sometime in September.
If it works a bit, then it would take longer for that to emerge from the statistical noise - October/November perhaps.
So, the more time that passes without an announcement of success, the worse the likely outcome. But not time to worry yet.
I believe that they have known it works for a few months.
I still think the Imperial one which will be ready early next year will be the one most people have as it is so easy to produce.
I can't say that I miss the excruciating holiday photos that we used to get from the PM of the day each summer, but it was a staple story of August to see where they were holidaying and have people judging them for going abroad/commiserating with their spouse for being forced to holiday within the UK.
What's so different about Johnson that it's suddenly become an issue of national security?
There have been multiple terrorist plots targetting the PM in recent years. It's not a good idea for smart alecs to disclose where the PM is staying.
I can't say that I miss the excruciating holiday photos that we used to get from the PM of the day each summer, but it was a staple story of August to see where they were holidaying and have people judging them for going abroad/commiserating with their spouse for being forced to holiday within the UK.
What's so different about Johnson that it's suddenly become an issue of national security?
There have been multiple terrorist plots targetting the PM in recent years. It's not a good idea for smart alecs to disclose where the PM is staying.
I don't think I've ever seen an election where a poll comes out showing one candidate 15% ahead and yet it's neck-and-neck in the betting markets.
As I said yesterday, imagine if the poll had Trump 15 points ahead of Biden.
Here's the thing. Most polls in Ohio until recently had Biden ahead, but almost all the pundits have expected Trump to win Ohio the whole time. That sort of indicates that people expect the result to be better for Trump than the polls are indicating, even pro-Biden pundits.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
Are you referring to the US election here, Horse?
Yes, I mean there's a similar effect in that in GE19 here the odds were wrong/bad because some assumed 2017 would be repeated.
Perhaps the same is true here, people assume 2016 will be repeated.
I can't say that I miss the excruciating holiday photos that we used to get from the PM of the day each summer, but it was a staple story of August to see where they were holidaying and have people judging them for going abroad/commiserating with their spouse for being forced to holiday within the UK.
What's so different about Johnson that it's suddenly become an issue of national security?
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
Is that actually true? What about British quota legitimately bought? Or a Spanish boat registered in Scotland?
For as long as it was UK policy then there would be no reallocation of existing British quota. If the Spanish boat registered in Scotland has British quota it would keep it.
The EU though would lose their illegitimate quotas in our waters. Any Spanish, French etc fishermen with Spanish or French quotas fishing in our waters would lose it overnight. Hence why that document refers to "further opportunities" precisely because our existing quota is less than what our national quota should be.
Its important not to confuse national quotas with individuals quotas. Individual quotas under licence from the UK isn't the issue, the issue is the UK's quota to licence out is too low in the first place.
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
I think Boris will annouce Oxfords vaccine around the same time. I will be astonished now if the vaccination programme in the UK does not begin before Christmas. Hancock hinted at that yesterday.
From what I understood, if the Oxford vaccine works well, it will be obvious by sometime in September.
If it works a bit, then it would take longer for that to emerge from the statistical noise - October/November perhaps.
So, the more time that passes without an announcement of success, the worse the likely outcome. But not time to worry yet.
I heard something the other day that the reinfection cases — there are a few now — mean that testing will have to be extended. I don't know how significant the issue is, but it does apparently pose a problem.
If Trump does win in the EC, but loses the national vote by 2-3%, how sustainable is this? In a national vote for a national president, with effectively a 2 party system, that the party that keeps getting millions fewer votes keeps winning?
Add to that the gerrymandered House and Senate, and the highly political judiciary stuffed with increasingly out of touch with majority opinion ultra-conservative judges - isn't it a recipe for the disenfranchised majority getting extremely pissed off?
I agree with you, but have one pedantic point. The senate cannot be gerrymandered, unless state boundaries are redrawn, or significant populations are moved accross state borders. You can complain that Hawaii and Texas both having 2 senators is unfair, but that is not gerrymandering.
The constituency boundaries in the House though, are a disgrace.
Jungle primaries comes pretty close
California Democrats legislate that the top 2 candidates in a primary are the only ones eligible to run for senator
Hmmm: that means that it’s always only 2 Democrats that get to stand
You can vote for anyone you like so long as they are a Democrat
Ah, are Republicans banned from standing in the jungle primaries then?
That sounds pretty serious.
Only the top 2 candidates are allowed to stand in the election
So (I think) in every election it has been 2 democrats running against each other.
It’s introducing a hurdle which is deliberately designed to discriminate against a smaller but meaningful party.
It basically prevents the splits in the Democrat voting base resulting in the GOP ever having the chance to win the senate seat
So is this a run-off election where every voter gets a free choice from all candidates in the first round, and the top two go through to round two? Or is the first round run like the usual US primaries with only registered voters voting choosing from Dem candidates and only Republican Voters choosing from GOP candidates, and if second place Dem gets more votes than the top GOP candidate then both Dems go through to the "second round"?
If it's the first, I don't really see anything wrong, if it's the second that's bad. It does mean that there is an insentive to vote in the primaries though, and if the Republicans could get a succesful "Register as a Republican Voter" campaign, it might nullify the Dem advantage.
That said there is so much wrong in US democracy, that this is not so high up on the list.
It’s a non partisan blanket primary. But because it falls outside the standard election period (it’s in June) it heavily advantages the incumbents.
It also eliminates third party candidates - benefiting the Democrats because greens/socialists tend to vote democrat while libertarians don’t vote for anyone
But you could say something similar about any election with a run-off, which occurs in many countries.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
Presumably then our lads can fish in Irish, French or Portuguese (etc) waters?
Not exactly.
Yes they can fish in other waters but it is stocks that matter. Our share of stocks is artificially deflated so does not represent the UK's natural sovereign resources in our waters. So we lose out.
Being able to fish in other waters might be nice if we were getting from those waters the same stocks we are letting people take from ours . . . but that's not the case.
If that is indeed the case, why did we agree to having our share of the stocks "artificially deflated"? Was this in return for something else?
We didn't get a say, not exactly. The method for creating the CFP stocks by nation which majorly deflates UK stocks was determined prior to us joining the EEC so it was part of the acquis communitaire when we joined.
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
But as I mentioned earlier, there is no such thing as "our" stocks. Because fish are mobile, it makes no sense to try to split them into "our" and "their" stocks. If, say, we decided to empty our waters of fish, it would also devastate stocks in other waters, and vice versa. That's why some sort of common fisheries policy is essential.
Indeed, for some though not all species I assume. Hence my inquiry earlier if Mr Grayling was in charge of issuing the "British" fish with little blue passports for when they migrate. Never mind whether the future quota to catch them is sold yet again to the furriners.
Fish do migrate but there are international laws to govern this already.
If a school of fish swims from British to Norwegian waters and back then those fish if caught in Norwegian waters are governed by Norwegian law and are outside the remit of the CFP. Those same fish if caught in British waters are currently classed essentially as being caught in EU waters and under the remit of the CFP.
If that school of fish swims regularly between Britain and Norway without going into EU waters then why should it be outside of the CFP when in Norwegian waters but inside the CFP when in British ones? The UK is not in the EU anymore.
To manage fish stocks the EU negotiates regularly with Norway to manage stock levels. The EU should do the same with us, as an independent, sovereign, coastal nations - what is wrong with that?
Fine, I agree, it's what is needed.
So long as we don't go back to the overfishing of the old days. Fishermen are basically looting the common and have to be kept a sharp eye on. I don't know that the UK Gmt would want to do that for its Brexiter cronies.
Yes, while the CFP certainly has its faults, it has at least managed to save European fish stocks from the same sort of devastation suffered by Canadian Atlantic fisheries. Given the promises made to UK fishermen, the most likely outcome of the exit of the UK from the CFP is unlikely to be a positive one for European fish stocks.
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
I think Boris will annouce Oxfords vaccine around the same time. I will be astonished now if the vaccination programme in the UK does not begin before Christmas. Hancock hinted at that yesterday.
Before Christmas and by 1 November are two very different timelines. I've been expecting an announcement mid-November at the earliest plausibly and I can understand Trump's frustration with that and wanting to push it forwards but that is inappropriate if the science isn't done yet.
If the science is ready by 1 November so be it, if it isn't I can't see our government jumping the gun.
I can't see that, either. At the end of the day it will be the vaccine developers and the regulators who make that assessment. The idea that Johnson will make that assessment (or has the capacity to do so) is simply risible.
Of course Trump has introduced some doubt around the integrity of the US regulatory process, but even there he can't get around the science.
Governments will make decisions about vaccine funding, how fast vaccination programs might be rolled out, etc - but they should not be, and will not* make the assessment about whether a vaccine is effective.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
Sorry to be obtuse, but just why is the Common Fisheries Policy so hated? Looks to me as though it's an effort to share out stocks reasonably fairly, although obviously various species of fish swim in different waters, due to temperature, food specials and so on.
Because it shares out our stocks between multiple nations.
When else do you ever see a nation's sovereign natural resource get shared out between countries? We don't share the North Sea Oil between the whole of Europe, why do we share our fish?
IIRC it was done that way by a Conservative government to secure special privileges for the City of London. But that was a bit before myt time.
It was also a convenient excuse fior overfishing/a whipping boy when conservation measures came in, eas it not?
And some of the fishermen had done their bit to share it out by selling their rights to non-UK nationals.
There's also the fact that fish swim around while oil stays put. This means that heavy fishing in one area can deplete the stocks in another, hence the need for a common fisheries policy.
Everyone (sensible anyway) agrees with the fact that there is a common interest in managing fish stocks
There are fundamental disagreements on how to do that
And the CFP is horribly adverse to U.K. interests - it was where Heath was legged over but accepted it as the price of getting a deal done on EC entry IIRC
CFP came later than the Heath deal. Mrs T was at the helm by then, see this take on the matter (which is not quite what is portrayed in Brexiter discourse)
I believe that when the U.K., Ireland, Denmark, and Norway applied to join the EU in the early 70’s the concept of the CFP was created toute suite by the original 6 as they eyed the vast waters that would now enter the EU. Norway voted not to join, partially as a consequence of what I’m sure they saw as a pretty naked grab for natural resources, that the four applicants had a lot of that the six didn’t.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
Very well said.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
Quite. Now I suspect there would be tariffs issued on fish in a big huff, a nice sideline in British fish being creatively labelled “Irish” ( there’s a 2020’s Whisky Galore book in that ??), glum faces in Spanish tapas bars, and a later compromise involving fisher folk being paid off on the continent over a number of years as their industry descales.
Really this has been daylight robbery in plain sight for 50 years. Barnier knows it, we know it, the trawlermen of Grimsby, Boulogne, and Corunna know it. The EU is nakedly doing what its forebears did in 1970/72 and trying to lever advantage in fishing against trading rights eleswhere. Trouble is it’s all too public, visible, and emotive.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Trump is America's Corbyn and people are making the same mistakes in logic now as they were in 2019.
The media were living in a bubble in 2016 and their response since then has been largely to continue living in the same bubble. People who tried to report from outside it, like Andrew Sullivan, have been excommunicated.
I feel like this is 2019 GE repeated. The Tories should have been 1.1 or so to win a majority but they weren't from recollection, people were convinced - including me, I am guilty - of thinking 2017 might be repeated. Is there a chance of that here?
Are you referring to the US election here, Horse?
Yes, I mean there's a similar effect in that in GE19 here the odds were wrong/bad because some assumed 2017 would be repeated.
Perhaps the same is true here, people assume 2016 will be repeated.
Perhaps this has led to Trump being now favourite?
I have always thought the vaccine annoucement would be Mid October with the Army setting up temporary hospitals and Trump visiting them holding the vaccine up chanting USA USA USA.
That would be the case if there was a vaccine that works.
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
I think Boris will annouce Oxfords vaccine around the same time. I will be astonished now if the vaccination programme in the UK does not begin before Christmas. Hancock hinted at that yesterday.
Before Christmas and by 1 November are two very different timelines. I've been expecting an announcement mid-November at the earliest plausibly and I can understand Trump's frustration with that and wanting to push it forwards but that is inappropriate if the science isn't done yet.
If the science is ready by 1 November so be it, if it isn't I can't see our government jumping the gun.
I can't see that, either. At the end of the day it will be the vaccine developers and the regulators who make that assessment. The idea that Johnson will make that assessment (or has the capacity to do so) is simply risible.
Of course Trump has introduced some doubt around the integrity of the US regulatory process, but even there he can't get around the science.
Governments will make decisions about vaccine funding, how fast vaccination programs might be rolled out, etc - but they should not be, and will not* make the assessment about whether a vaccine is effective.
*Unless they're Russian.
Indeed and if the FDA were to grant emergency approval to the Oxford vaccine before the election but the British were not to do so it would ask more questions than it answers. It would be too transparent.
Had the leading vaccine not been a British one his appointees at the FDA could have gotten away with corrupting the process easier.
Comments
Biden 2.04 / 2.06
Trump 2.02/ 2.04
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441
Even more embarrasing Ryvita ran a campaign about fighting the "Inch War", which I also thought it was a real war.
Boris Johnson lied again!
At Prime Minister’s Questions on 23 June, Sir Keir told Mr Johnson: “On schools, I do think that it is safe for some children to return. I completely support that; the question is how quickly we can get all children back to school safely, the sooner the better.”
https://twitter.com/alistairkgrant/status/1301168051971334146?s=20
So if by "in return for something else" you include EEC membership then yes, we got EEC membership when we agreed to that. If you mean some other policy or quid pro quo then no we did not, we simply had to sign up to it as part of the acquis communitaire or we couldn't join.
The EEC of course became the EU and we have quit that so our obligations to share our natural resources have come to an end. The EEC membership we got when we signed up for the acquis communitaire is now in the past and so should be our membership of the CFP. We can and should be free to manage our stocks as we see fit.
And a review of subsequent weasel worded ones:
https://mercinon.wordpress.com/2020/08/25/a-tale-of-highland-holidays-who-clyped-on-boris/
Does the Government fear an economic rebalancing away from the capital?
By Mary Harrington"
https://unherd.com/2020/09/the-commuters-are-revolting/
It also eliminates third party candidates - benefiting the Democrats because greens/socialists tend to vote democrat while libertarians don’t vote for anyone
It’s no wonder that the Dems tried so hard to get it passed over 20 years. The Goverornator finally did a squalid little deal to support it in return for getting His budget passed
I guess the difference there was it was effectively leaderless and unbranded, so it rapidly became about copycat rioting and looting with seemingly no purpose.
He got carried away and didn't think about the security implications perhaps. An apology would be more appropriate than doubling down or implying it was all Torcuil and nothing to do with him.
International law is very clear on fish stocks. They are "our" stocks.
There is a reason the EU has to make annual agreements with out non-EU nations outside the CFP like Norway which is exactly what the UK is asking for ourselves. That we be treated as any other sovereign non-EU country is. The EU aren't happy with that as they know they get much more than their share via the CFP which they could foist on us via the acquis communitaire and which Norway dodged by not joining . . . but tough.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/no-bounce-in-support-for-trump-as-americans-see-pandemic-not-crime-as-top-issue-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN25T1I3
What's so different about Johnson that it's suddenly become an issue of national security?
The chance of Trump becoming President but the GOP not taking the house must be close to zero percent.
Yet there wasn't any of this.
Heath, swallowed it as the price of membership, and it has been a stone in the shoe ever since out of all proportion to the actual economic value (eg Mr Geldof and his meeting with fisher folk on the Thames a few days before the 2016 referendum as an example of how this whole thing as lingered like a bad smell ever since 1973).
If the EEC six had had an iota of sense they would’ve left well alone, but frankly they could resist.
Imagine if France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were applying to join a Hanseatic league of Germany, Benelux, Denmark, and the U.K. and we dreamt up a common wine policy on the grounds the applicants had lots and we had very little, and proceeded to dish out the rights to the Loire Valley, Bordeaux, Rioja etc amongst us. I suspect that might’ve annoyed the French a tad for the past fifty years, and well beyond its monetary worth.
What goes around and all that....
If a school of fish swims from British to Norwegian waters and back then those fish if caught in Norwegian waters are governed by Norwegian law and are outside the remit of the CFP. Those same fish if caught in British waters are currently classed essentially as being caught in EU waters and under the remit of the CFP.
If that school of fish swims regularly between Britain and Norway without going into EU waters then why should it be outside of the CFP when in Norwegian waters but inside the CFP when in British ones? The UK is not in the EU anymore.
To manage fish stocks the EU negotiates regularly with Norway to manage stock levels. The EU should do the same with us, as an independent, sovereign, coastal nations - what is wrong with that?
If there isn't yet evidence of a working vaccine then a later announcement makes sense, as you can hope that the truth that it isn't available, or the efficacy is still uncertain, doesn't comprehensively unravel until after polling day.
Depends on how comprehensively the professionalism and impartiality of the FDA has been hobbled.
So long as we don't go back to the overfishing of the old days. Fishermen are basically looting the common and have to be kept a sharp eye on. I don't know that the UK Gmt would want to do that for its Brexiter cronies.
And that is why Barnier in his still naked partisan attempt to cling on to what his forebears grabbed is on a hiding to nothing.
It is worth remembering too that if we do exit No Deal on 31/12 then that is it for the European fishermen he is negotiating on behalf. Their rights to fish in our waters expire overnight and like Iceland we would have exclusive rights to fish in our sovereign waters.
Now we shall see of course, but the opportunity is there if we can really substantially free ourselves of the CFP.
If the science is ready by 1 November so be it, if it isn't I can't see our government jumping the gun.
If it works a bit, then it would take longer for that to emerge from the statistical noise - October/November perhaps.
So, the more time that passes without an announcement of success, the worse the likely outcome. But not time to worry yet.
My feeling is that the Trump convention bump was real, but it might now have reverted to the status quo ante.
The government said no reallocation of quota.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fisheries-white-paper-sustainable-fisheries-for-future-generations/sustainable-fisheries-for-future-generations-consultation-document
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1301182027086135297?s=21
If the cops stopped killing black people, the protests would stop too. The UK doesn't have the fuel to keep protests like these going, thank goodness.
I still think the Imperial one which will be ready early next year will be the one most people have as it is so easy to produce.
Perhaps the same is true here, people assume 2016 will be repeated.
The EU though would lose their illegitimate quotas in our waters. Any Spanish, French etc fishermen with Spanish or French quotas fishing in our waters would lose it overnight. Hence why that document refers to "further opportunities" precisely because our existing quota is less than what our national quota should be.
Its important not to confuse national quotas with individuals quotas. Individual quotas under licence from the UK isn't the issue, the issue is the UK's quota to licence out is too low in the first place.
My white whale
At the end of the day it will be the vaccine developers and the regulators who make that assessment. The idea that Johnson will make that assessment (or has the capacity to do so) is simply risible.
Of course Trump has introduced some doubt around the integrity of the US regulatory process, but even there he can't get around the science.
This article sets out (far better than the recent speculative FT article) what might be meant by emergency authorisation by the FDA:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/02/experts-see-a-chance-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-approval-this-fall-if-its-done-right/
Given the test set by the regulator (12 months of evidence), and usage this year, even if efficacy is obvious, will be by definition emergency authorisation.
Governments will make decisions about vaccine funding, how fast vaccination programs might be rolled out, etc - but they should not be, and will not* make the assessment about whether a vaccine is effective.
*Unless they're Russian.
Really this has been daylight robbery in plain sight for 50 years. Barnier knows it, we know it, the trawlermen of Grimsby, Boulogne, and Corunna know it. The EU is nakedly doing what its forebears did in 1970/72 and trying to lever advantage in fishing against trading rights eleswhere. Trouble is it’s all too public, visible, and emotive.
Who knew?
I have bought EC supremacy at 28 for enough to not tell the wife.
Had the leading vaccine not been a British one his appointees at the FDA could have gotten away with corrupting the process easier.