I must have missed something - I thought the modern idea was that you can self-identify to be whoever you want to be, and that was incontestable by mere facts?
Transracialism is probably the next big thing, but we dont seem there yet. We're in hyper race awareness mode at present
I thought we were already there with the Metropolitan Black Police Association and a BAME group in the Labour Party, in the vanguard of progress as usual. And in the census or any of those stupid government forms which ask you about your ethnicity, of course.
And yet some people get mad if you have a hairstyle not approved for your race, so I doubt they approve of people deciding they feel like a different race than they were classified at birth.
Are we classified racially at birth? There's no race on my birth cert.
I dont mean formally. In fact peoples view of their own race can change, or change between generations. But this point was prompted by people like that professor who switch from their 'old' race to a new one .
@Philip_Thompson I doubt the EU cares very much in the grand scheme of things if British fish gets more expensive.
They do know that for some reason the Government is obsessed with it though, and thus they are using it for leverage.
AIUI, much of the fish our lads catch isn't what 'we' like; so it's exported. And, as was pointed out upthread, exporting fish is a matter of ashore > refrigerated lorry> vendor> consumers double-quick time. Sitting in a ferry off Calais while Monsieur le Douane works his way through the paperwork won't do it a lot of good.
Our lads can only catch 25% of our stocks though. If they can catch more and their competitors can cath less it will be far more profitable, that is entirely basic and indisputable.
Is it reasonable that a coastal island like the UK with vast swathes of control of the seas as our sovereign territory is forbidden by law from catching 75% of our own stocks and having a trade DEFICIT in seafood? Why on earth are we net IMPORTERS of seafood? That is madness!
Funny how Mr Nabavi seems to think the EU consumers aren't going to object to empty shelves when suddenly billions of pounds of seafood goes missing from their shelves in his scenario.
There is only one party that will lose out if the UK gets 100% of our waters - and it is not the UK.
Err, the EU won't have empty shelves. It could have shortages of some specific seafood items, but that's it. The EU imports very little food from the UK, whereas around 30% of food we eat comes from the EU. Any disruption from the expected chaos at Dover is going to hit us very badly indeed.
Err no because the 75% of UK stocks that are currently caught by EU fishermen are not classed as a UK export.
The EU imports £1.11 billion of seafood from us . . . but that is only from what we catch ourselves. On top of that they also get 75% of the catch from UK waters.
If that vanishes overnight then what do you think is going to replace it?
Fish caught from just beyond the edge of the UK waters, to some extent. Otherwise, yes there will be some price increases in the EU. I never claimed that a chaotic no-deal crash-out would be good for the EU, it would be bad for them too. But it would be worse for the UK, and specifically for the UK fishing industry.
It makes 2020-to-2016 analysis impossible. When you looked at the graphs for 2016-vs-2012 it was a clear after an initial surge that the Dem registered vote was not performing as well in early voting as it had done previously.
This year, how the fuck can you tell how well it is performing!
You can do the following thought experiment..
Would you be happier as (I presume you're a Biden backer/supporter) seeing Dem registrations at 58k whilst GOP is over 200 ?
The key thing is watching the returns. North Carolina provides effectively real time data on who has returned their early ballot/voted early. So we can see what proportion of people have returned their ballot by party registration.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
Your last sentence is a hope, and an opinion, not a fact. We will see.
When push comes to shove, the majority of people will not choose to trade their existing jobs and livelihood so that Michael Gove can get on board a fishing boat wearing a yellow coat in the North Sea and wave the Union Jack.
The majority of voters voted to leave to EU to end free movement, reclaim our fishing waters and do our own trade deals and stop sending more money to do the EU despite dire warnings from the Remain campaign of economic apocalypse if they did
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Mainly the fish we catch is exported and the fish we eat is imported.
Yes because we're only allowed to catch 9% of cod in our waters.
66% of the cod in our own waters are caught by French fishermen who then export them to us.
If there was no deal and the fishermen started catch 100% of cod in our waters when what do you think our fishermen would do with those cod?
Not sure where you get those figures from. We export a lot of cod to the EU - see chart here:
And we will still be able to export fish post-Brexit, any country can. But the UK i despite being a coastal island remarkably a net importer of fish as it stands too.
Doubling or quadrupling our quota is not going to hurt UK fishermen. It is insane to suggest otherwise. Oh and we export to more than just the EU.
You are doing a good job explaining why this is a red line for the EU, but you are making the schoolboy error of thinking that 'fish' are interchangeable, UK consumers don't eat much fish, but what they do eat is largely imported and doesn't come from UK or EU waters: canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack. Most of the high-value UK catch is exported to the EU. That catch will be worth very little if we don't have a deal which allows it to be landed in EU ports and sold on within hours of catching it. There's no other distribution avenue immediately available.
The UK doesn't eat much fish? I must be confused when I thought fish and chips was one of the country's most popular dishes. Plus the UK is actually a net importer of seafood!
We have a balance of trade deficit on seafood which is insane given our coastal island status. Given we are a coastal island with major stocks of seafood as a natural resource why do we have a balance of trade deficit on seafood, that is madness. But it is less insane when you realise that we only get one quarter of our stocks.
Plus a significant chunk of our exports already go to outside the EU27 anyway and some of what is exported to the EU27 is frozen anyway.
Getting 4x the stocks would be profitable even if at a lower margin.
2018 the UK imported £3.28 billion in seafood and exported £1.87 billion. A trade deficit of £1.41 billion pounds.
Despite the fact we're an island nation with 4x the stocks than we are currently catching.
Yes, and it will be worse in the event of no deal. We'll still be importing canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack, and we'll have nowhere to sell the high-end stuff we currently sell fresh to the EU. I really don't get why you can't understand that imported cod and tuna are not the same as exported scallops and herring.
It will not be worse, we will have 4x the stocks.
What do you think will happen to the 75% of the stocks that the EU fishermen currently catch if we start catching it? What do you think the consumers of that 75% will be eating?
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
A couple of new verses for Rule Britannia should do the trick.
I must have missed something - I thought the modern idea was that you can self-identify to be whoever you want to be, and that was incontestable by mere facts?
Transracialism is probably the next big thing, but we dont seem there yet. We're in hyper race awareness mode at present
I thought we were already there with the Metropolitan Black Police Association and a BAME group in the Labour Party, in the vanguard of progress as usual. And in the census or any of those stupid government forms which ask you about your ethnicity, of course.
And yet some people get mad if you have a hairstyle not approved for your race, so I doubt they approve of people deciding they feel like a different race than they were classified at birth.
Are we classified racially at birth? There's no race on my birth cert.
I dont mean formally. In fact peoples view of their own race can change, or change between generations. But this point was prompted by people like that professor who switch from their 'old' race to a new one .
Sometimes I tick “White British” on forms, other times I tick “Any Other White Background”.
As someone who has no “British blood” and is ethnically “Jewish” through my mother (although not from my Father), my “race” just a big fat 🤷♂️.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
LOL!!!
You I presume have been in the UK these past few months. Can you really make such a claim so blithely?!
DFG!
Yes. We just went through a global pandemic that disrupted supply chains far more than Brexit ever could, with far more panic buying than could ever be seen - and the supermarkets coped throughout.
We've just been through a major stress test and came through it intact.
Finally you accept that in the midst of a global pandemic (you haven't scheduled it to end by Jan 2021 have you?) is not the time to Brexit.
Because we had empty shelves in supermarkets during the global pandemic and you are now seeking to add chaos via new rules on trade which are likely to empty those shelves again.
Again. The shelves were empty as recently as a few months ago. Empty.
No I do not accept that, that is not what I said.
The shelves were not empty a few months ago. I was able to get stock from the shelves constantly for everything except toilet paper as a unique product. The shelves were never completely empty.
In one week at the peak of it I went to the supermarket and they had no chicken so I bought something else instead. Its called substitution, a well known economic effect. By the next week they had chicken again.
You really don't think that supermarket shelves were empty in the UK a few months ago?
I appreciate that your foray to buy not chicken aside you are 24hrs a day at PB but you really can't have gone out much over lockdown.
Funny how Mr Nabavi seems to think the EU consumers aren't going to object to empty shelves when suddenly billions of pounds of seafood goes missing from their shelves in his scenario.
There is only one party that will lose out if the UK gets 100% of our waters - and it is not the UK.
Err, the EU won't have empty shelves. It could have shortages of some specific seafood items, but that's it. The EU imports very little food from the UK, whereas around 30% of food we eat comes from the EU. Any disruption from the expected chaos at Dover is going to hit us very badly indeed.
Err no because the 75% of UK stocks that are currently caught by EU fishermen are not classed as a UK export.
The EU imports £1.11 billion of seafood from us . . . but that is only from what we catch ourselves. On top of that they also get 75% of the catch from UK waters.
If that vanishes overnight then what do you think is going to replace it?
Fish caught from just beyond the edge of the UK waters, to some extent. Otherwise, yes there will be some price increases in the EU. I never claimed that a chaotic no-deal crash-out would be good for the EU, it would be bad for them too. But it would be worse for the UK, and specifically for the UK fishing industry.
Having 4x the catch is not going to be worse for the UK.
At 4x the catch the UK could not just have import substitution within the UK but it could also export more to the rest of the world than it currently exports to the EU alone with 25% of the stocks.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
Your last sentence is a hope, and an opinion, not a fact. We will see.
When push comes to shove, the majority of people will not choose to trade their existing jobs and livelihood so that Michael Gove can get on board a fishing boat wearing a yellow coat in the North Sea and wave the Union Jack.
The majority of voters voted to leave to EU to end free movement, reclaim our fishing waters and do our own trade deals and stop sending more money to do the EU despite dire warnings from the Remain campaign of economic apocalypse if they did
Nobody believed the “dire warnings of economic apocalypse”. They were told it was rubbish. Even now @Philip_Thompson says it is rubbish.
The fact is we don’t know what the economic impact is going to be when the transition period ends, and if there is significant economic damage, we don’t know how people will react to that, having been told it was b*llocks.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Mainly the fish we catch is exported and the fish we eat is imported.
Yes because we're only allowed to catch 9% of cod in our waters.
66% of the cod in our own waters are caught by French fishermen who then export them to us.
If there was no deal and the fishermen started catch 100% of cod in our waters when what do you think our fishermen would do with those cod?
Not sure where you get those figures from. We export a lot of cod to the EU - see chart here:
And we will still be able to export fish post-Brexit, any country can. But the UK i despite being a coastal island remarkably a net importer of fish as it stands too.
Doubling or quadrupling our quota is not going to hurt UK fishermen. It is insane to suggest otherwise. Oh and we export to more than just the EU.
You are doing a good job explaining why this is a red line for the EU, but you are making the schoolboy error of thinking that 'fish' are interchangeable, UK consumers don't eat much fish, but what they do eat is largely imported and doesn't come from UK or EU waters: canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack. Most of the high-value UK catch is exported to the EU. That catch will be worth very little if we don't have a deal which allows it to be landed in EU ports and sold on within hours of catching it. There's no other distribution avenue immediately available.
The UK doesn't eat much fish? I must be confused when I thought fish and chips was one of the country's most popular dishes. Plus the UK is actually a net importer of seafood!
We have a balance of trade deficit on seafood which is insane given our coastal island status. Given we are a coastal island with major stocks of seafood as a natural resource why do we have a balance of trade deficit on seafood, that is madness. But it is less insane when you realise that we only get one quarter of our stocks.
Plus a significant chunk of our exports already go to outside the EU27 anyway and some of what is exported to the EU27 is frozen anyway.
Getting 4x the stocks would be profitable even if at a lower margin.
2018 the UK imported £3.28 billion in seafood and exported £1.87 billion. A trade deficit of £1.41 billion pounds.
Despite the fact we're an island nation with 4x the stocks than we are currently catching.
Yes, and it will be worse in the event of no deal. We'll still be importing canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack, and we'll have nowhere to sell the high-end stuff we currently sell fresh to the EU. I really don't get why you can't understand that imported cod and tuna are not the same as exported scallops and herring.
It will not be worse, we will have 4x the stocks.
What do you think will happen to the 75% of the stocks that the EU fishermen currently catch if we start catching it? What do you think the consumers of that 75% will be eating?
Do you have any actual expertise or experience in the fishing industry, or is this all just “layman pretending to be an expert”?
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
Your last sentence is a hope, and an opinion, not a fact. We will see.
When push comes to shove, the majority of people will not choose to trade their existing jobs and livelihood so that Michael Gove can get on board a fishing boat wearing a yellow coat in the North Sea and wave the Union Jack.
The majority of voters voted to leave to EU to end free movement, reclaim our fishing waters and do our own trade deals and stop sending more money to do the EU despite dire warnings from the Remain campaign of economic apocalypse if they did
Nobody believed the “dire warnings of economic apocalypse”. They were told it was rubbish. Even now @Philip_Thompson says it is rubbish.
The fact is we don’t know what the economic impact is going to be when the transition period ends, and if there is significant economic damage, we don’t know how people will react to that, having been told it was b*llocks.
We will see.
Indeed. If the EU won't compromise then its time to find out. If I'm wrong I'll put my hands up and say fair enough I called that wrong.
I must have missed something - I thought the modern idea was that you can self-identify to be whoever you want to be, and that was incontestable by mere facts?
Transracialism is probably the next big thing, but we dont seem there yet. We're in hyper race awareness mode at present
I thought we were already there with the Metropolitan Black Police Association and a BAME group in the Labour Party, in the vanguard of progress as usual. And in the census or any of those stupid government forms which ask you about your ethnicity, of course.
It can be inappropriate to have a specific group to represent a minority in an organization or sector - e.g. I would raise an eyebrow at an Association of Black Hoteliers - but with things such as the police, who need to be representative and inclusive, and our foremost progressive political party, ditto, I think it makes sense and adds value. Or it can in theory at least. Whether it does, I don't know.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
Your last sentence is a hope, and an opinion, not a fact. We will see.
When push comes to shove, the majority of people will not choose to trade their existing jobs and livelihood so that Michael Gove can get on board a fishing boat wearing a yellow coat in the North Sea and wave the Union Jack.
The majority of voters voted to leave to EU to end free movement, reclaim our fishing waters and do our own trade deals and stop sending more money to do the EU despite dire warnings from the Remain campaign of economic apocalypse if they did
Nobody believed the “dire warnings of economic apocalypse”. They were told it was rubbish. Even now @Philip_Thompson says it is rubbish.
The fact is we don’t know what the economic impact is going to be when the transition period ends, and if there is significant economic damage, we don’t know how people will react to that, having been told it was b*llocks.
We will see.
Indeed. If the EU won't compromise then its time to find out. If I'm wrong I'll put my hands up and say fair enough I called that wrong.
You really are shameless. Your interpretation of the “EU won’t compromise” is basically “the EU won’t give us exactly what we want, boo hoo it isn’t fair”.
There’s not a chance in hell you will admit you are wrong. It will just be constant whinging that “Brexit would have been a success if it wasn’t for the meddling EU”.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Mainly the fish we catch is exported and the fish we eat is imported.
Yes because we're only allowed to catch 9% of cod in our waters.
66% of the cod in our own waters are caught by French fishermen who then export them to us.
If there was no deal and the fishermen started catch 100% of cod in our waters when what do you think our fishermen would do with those cod?
Not sure where you get those figures from. We export a lot of cod to the EU - see chart here:
And we will still be able to export fish post-Brexit, any country can. But the UK i despite being a coastal island remarkably a net importer of fish as it stands too.
Doubling or quadrupling our quota is not going to hurt UK fishermen. It is insane to suggest otherwise. Oh and we export to more than just the EU.
You are doing a good job explaining why this is a red line for the EU, but you are making the schoolboy error of thinking that 'fish' are interchangeable, UK consumers don't eat much fish, but what they do eat is largely imported and doesn't come from UK or EU waters: canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack. Most of the high-value UK catch is exported to the EU. That catch will be worth very little if we don't have a deal which allows it to be landed in EU ports and sold on within hours of catching it. There's no other distribution avenue immediately available.
The UK doesn't eat much fish? I must be confused when I thought fish and chips was one of the country's most popular dishes. Plus the UK is actually a net importer of seafood!
We have a balance of trade deficit on seafood which is insane given our coastal island status. Given we are a coastal island with major stocks of seafood as a natural resource why do we have a balance of trade deficit on seafood, that is madness. But it is less insane when you realise that we only get one quarter of our stocks.
Plus a significant chunk of our exports already go to outside the EU27 anyway and some of what is exported to the EU27 is frozen anyway.
Getting 4x the stocks would be profitable even if at a lower margin.
2018 the UK imported £3.28 billion in seafood and exported £1.87 billion. A trade deficit of £1.41 billion pounds.
Despite the fact we're an island nation with 4x the stocks than we are currently catching.
Yes, and it will be worse in the event of no deal. We'll still be importing canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack, and we'll have nowhere to sell the high-end stuff we currently sell fresh to the EU. I really don't get why you can't understand that imported cod and tuna are not the same as exported scallops and herring.
It will not be worse, we will have 4x the stocks.
What do you think will happen to the 75% of the stocks that the EU fishermen currently catch if we start catching it? What do you think the consumers of that 75% will be eating?
Do you have any actual expertise or experience in the fishing industry, or is this all just “layman pretending to be an expert”?
Specific to fishing? No.
But I do have actual expertise, experience and knowledge of business, economics, mathematics and being able to read.
Having 4x the stocks of a valuable product is going to be valuable. As for economics and business the market finds a way to clear products. The idea that we can have 4x the stocks of a desired product that people want . . . but it will rot . . . is total rot.
Business works by having a product you can sell and people wanting to buy it and the market finds a way. You can't outsmart the market, that is what some people don't understand. If you have 4x the product - and the consumers are there - the product will find a way to the consumers.
It is simple business, simple economics, simple mathematics. Having a quarter of the product is not progress.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Mainly the fish we catch is exported and the fish we eat is imported.
Yes because we're only allowed to catch 9% of cod in our waters.
66% of the cod in our own waters are caught by French fishermen who then export them to us.
If there was no deal and the fishermen started catch 100% of cod in our waters when what do you think our fishermen would do with those cod?
Not sure where you get those figures from. We export a lot of cod to the EU - see chart here:
And we will still be able to export fish post-Brexit, any country can. But the UK i despite being a coastal island remarkably a net importer of fish as it stands too.
Doubling or quadrupling our quota is not going to hurt UK fishermen. It is insane to suggest otherwise. Oh and we export to more than just the EU.
You are doing a good job explaining why this is a red line for the EU, but you are making the schoolboy error of thinking that 'fish' are interchangeable, UK consumers don't eat much fish, but what they do eat is largely imported and doesn't come from UK or EU waters: canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack. Most of the high-value UK catch is exported to the EU. That catch will be worth very little if we don't have a deal which allows it to be landed in EU ports and sold on within hours of catching it. There's no other distribution avenue immediately available.
The UK doesn't eat much fish? I must be confused when I thought fish and chips was one of the country's most popular dishes. Plus the UK is actually a net importer of seafood!
We have a balance of trade deficit on seafood which is insane given our coastal island status. Given we are a coastal island with major stocks of seafood as a natural resource why do we have a balance of trade deficit on seafood, that is madness. But it is less insane when you realise that we only get one quarter of our stocks.
Plus a significant chunk of our exports already go to outside the EU27 anyway and some of what is exported to the EU27 is frozen anyway.
Getting 4x the stocks would be profitable even if at a lower margin.
2018 the UK imported £3.28 billion in seafood and exported £1.87 billion. A trade deficit of £1.41 billion pounds.
Despite the fact we're an island nation with 4x the stocks than we are currently catching.
Yes, and it will be worse in the event of no deal. We'll still be importing canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack, and we'll have nowhere to sell the high-end stuff we currently sell fresh to the EU. I really don't get why you can't understand that imported cod and tuna are not the same as exported scallops and herring.
It will not be worse, we will have 4x the stocks.
What do you think will happen to the 75% of the stocks that the EU fishermen currently catch if we start catching it? What do you think the consumers of that 75% will be eating?
Do you have any actual expertise or experience in the fishing industry, or is this all just “layman pretending to be an expert”?
Specific to fishing? No.
But I do have actual expertise, experience and knowledge of business, economics, mathematics and being able to read.
Having 4x the stocks of a valuable product is going to be valuable. As for economics and business the market finds a way to clear products. The idea that we can have 4x the stocks of a desired product that people want . . . but it will rot . . . is total rot.
Business works by having a product you can sell and people wanting to buy it and the market finds a way. You can't outsmart the market, that is what some people don't understand. If you have 4x the product - and the consumers are there - the product will find a way to the consumers.
It is simple business, simple economics, simple mathematics. Having a quarter of the product is not progress.
That’s a long-winded way to write: “i’m a layman pretending to be an expert”. Got it. Just as bad as Twitter.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
It is becoming a sovereign coastal nation. That is what country's do, why would you object to that?
If people are breaking the law illegally catching fish they have no right to catch then what do you think happens today already?
And I concur with this: An excellent side effect is that vaccine technology will never be the same after this – it’s going to be like aircraft design before and after World War II, and for many of the same reasons. This whole pandemic has been awful, in many different ways, but we’re going to come out of it stronger and more capable than when we went in...
The EU catches 75% of the stocks in our waters genius.
If I understand this article correctly, you are mixing up catches with landings. ie a lot of fish is landed by UK vessels in rEU. There is still a deficit on catches: UK vessels catch less in other EU waters than rEU vessels catch in UK waters. But the difference is a lot less.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
It is becoming a sovereign coastal nation. That is what country's do, why would you object to that?
If people are breaking the law illegally catching fish they have no right to catch then what do you think happens today already?
Nothing, most likely, because the Tories, your party, who have been in power since 2010, have gutted the budgets of the armed forces, the police, and the legal system.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
Your last sentence is a hope, and an opinion, not a fact. We will see.
When push comes to shove, the majority of people will not choose to trade their existing jobs and livelihood so that Michael Gove can get on board a fishing boat wearing a yellow coat in the North Sea and wave the Union Jack.
The majority of voters voted to leave to EU to end free movement, reclaim our fishing waters and do our own trade deals and stop sending more money to do the EU despite dire warnings from the Remain campaign of economic apocalypse if they did
Nobody believed the “dire warnings of economic apocalypse”. They were told it was rubbish. Even now @Philip_Thompson says it is rubbish.
The fact is we don’t know what the economic impact is going to be when the transition period ends, and if there is significant economic damage, we don’t know how people will react to that, having been told it was b*llocks.
We will see.
Indeed. If the EU won't compromise then its time to find out. If I'm wrong I'll put my hands up and say fair enough I called that wrong.
You really are shameless. Your interpretation of the “EU won’t compromise” is basically “the EU won’t give us exactly what we want, boo hoo it isn’t fair”.
There’s not a chance in hell you will admit you are wrong. It will just be constant whinging that “Brexit would have been a success if it wasn’t for the meddling EU”.
Whether Brexit is a success or failure has nothing to do with the EU.
Brexit will be a success or failure depending upon what MPs in Westminster do.
We do not need a deal to make Brexit a success. The EU can not prevent Brexit being a success. MPs in Parliament can if they screw it up or if we sign bad deals.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
Your last sentence is a hope, and an opinion, not a fact. We will see.
When push comes to shove, the majority of people will not choose to trade their existing jobs and livelihood so that Michael Gove can get on board a fishing boat wearing a yellow coat in the North Sea and wave the Union Jack.
The majority of voters voted to leave to EU to end free movement, reclaim our fishing waters and do our own trade deals and stop sending more money to do the EU despite dire warnings from the Remain campaign of economic apocalypse if they did
Nobody believed the “dire warnings of economic apocalypse”. They were told it was rubbish. Even now @Philip_Thompson says it is rubbish.
The fact is we don’t know what the economic impact is going to be when the transition period ends, and if there is significant economic damage, we don’t know how people will react to that, having been told it was b*llocks.
We will see.
Indeed. If the EU won't compromise then its time to find out. If I'm wrong I'll put my hands up and say fair enough I called that wrong.
You really are shameless. Your interpretation of the “EU won’t compromise” is basically “the EU won’t give us exactly what we want, boo hoo it isn’t fair”.
There’s not a chance in hell you will admit you are wrong. It will just be constant whinging that “Brexit would have been a success if it wasn’t for the meddling EU”.
Whether Brexit is a success or failure has nothing to do with the EU.
Brexit will be a success or failure depending upon what MPs in Westminster do.
We do not need a deal to make Brexit a success. The EU can not prevent Brexit being a success. MPs in Parliament can if they screw it up or if we sign bad deals.
Then why are you constantly whinging about the EU “refusing to compromise”?
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Mainly the fish we catch is exported and the fish we eat is imported.
Yes because we're only allowed to catch 9% of cod in our waters.
66% of the cod in our own waters are caught by French fishermen who then export them to us.
If there was no deal and the fishermen started catch 100% of cod in our waters when what do you think our fishermen would do with those cod?
Not sure where you get those figures from. We export a lot of cod to the EU - see chart here:
And we will still be able to export fish post-Brexit, any country can. But the UK i despite being a coastal island remarkably a net importer of fish as it stands too.
Doubling or quadrupling our quota is not going to hurt UK fishermen. It is insane to suggest otherwise. Oh and we export to more than just the EU.
You are doing a good job explaining why this is a red line for the EU, but you are making the schoolboy error of thinking that 'fish' are interchangeable, UK consumers don't eat much fish, but what they do eat is largely imported and doesn't come from UK or EU waters: canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack. Most of the high-value UK catch is exported to the EU. That catch will be worth very little if we don't have a deal which allows it to be landed in EU ports and sold on within hours of catching it. There's no other distribution avenue immediately available.
The UK doesn't eat much fish? I must be confused when I thought fish and chips was one of the country's most popular dishes. Plus the UK is actually a net importer of seafood!
We have a balance of trade deficit on seafood which is insane given our coastal island status. Given we are a coastal island with major stocks of seafood as a natural resource why do we have a balance of trade deficit on seafood, that is madness. But it is less insane when you realise that we only get one quarter of our stocks.
Plus a significant chunk of our exports already go to outside the EU27 anyway and some of what is exported to the EU27 is frozen anyway.
Getting 4x the stocks would be profitable even if at a lower margin.
2018 the UK imported £3.28 billion in seafood and exported £1.87 billion. A trade deficit of £1.41 billion pounds.
Despite the fact we're an island nation with 4x the stocks than we are currently catching.
Yes, and it will be worse in the event of no deal. We'll still be importing canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack, and we'll have nowhere to sell the high-end stuff we currently sell fresh to the EU. I really don't get why you can't understand that imported cod and tuna are not the same as exported scallops and herring.
It will not be worse, we will have 4x the stocks.
What do you think will happen to the 75% of the stocks that the EU fishermen currently catch if we start catching it? What do you think the consumers of that 75% will be eating?
Do you have any actual expertise or experience in the fishing industry, or is this all just “layman pretending to be an expert”?
Specific to fishing? No.
But I do have actual expertise, experience and knowledge of business, economics, mathematics and being able to read.
Having 4x the stocks of a valuable product is going to be valuable. As for economics and business the market finds a way to clear products. The idea that we can have 4x the stocks of a desired product that people want . . . but it will rot . . . is total rot.
Business works by having a product you can sell and people wanting to buy it and the market finds a way. You can't outsmart the market, that is what some people don't understand. If you have 4x the product - and the consumers are there - the product will find a way to the consumers.
It is simple business, simple economics, simple mathematics. Having a quarter of the product is not progress.
That’s a long-winded way to write: “i’m a layman pretending to be an expert”. Got it. Just as bad as Twitter.
NO! Well, yes of course you are right but Philip is an invaluable resource for PB.
First he is always on here so there's someone to play with; and secondly he is an intelligent bloke who evidently has time to do a lot of wiki research and hence has something to say.
The issue is that three times out of five he will pick a transparently ridiculous position and then try to wear you down by posting in support of it relentlessly. I really don't understand some of the basic logic fails he commits. It makes no sense for an otherwise bright person.
I often think he is actually an old-fashioned troll before the meaning of that changed - ie trying to derail conversations by posting subtle and not so subtle absurd ideas and then watching everyone scrabbling around to say: well that's ridiculous and thereby corrupting the chat room.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
It is becoming a sovereign coastal nation. That is what country's do, why would you object to that?
If people are breaking the law illegally catching fish they have no right to catch then what do you think happens today already?
I`m not arguing against the principles in play - I`m questioning the practicalities. How many Navy vessels will be employed to police our waters? What will this cost? Will it cost more than the value of the fish?
These questions were not considered by Leavers who responded to the viceral call of "let`s let no jonny foreigner near OUR fish". It is more complicated than that. Is the image of a pugnacious, aggressive and isolationist nation one that we want to foster?
It`s getting close to my DailyMail-reading father-in-law who seriously wants war ships patrolling our ports.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
Your last sentence is a hope, and an opinion, not a fact. We will see.
When push comes to shove, the majority of people will not choose to trade their existing jobs and livelihood so that Michael Gove can get on board a fishing boat wearing a yellow coat in the North Sea and wave the Union Jack.
The majority of voters voted to leave to EU to end free movement, reclaim our fishing waters and do our own trade deals and stop sending more money to do the EU despite dire warnings from the Remain campaign of economic apocalypse if they did
Nobody believed the “dire warnings of economic apocalypse”. They were told it was rubbish. Even now @Philip_Thompson says it is rubbish.
The fact is we don’t know what the economic impact is going to be when the transition period ends, and if there is significant economic damage, we don’t know how people will react to that, having been told it was b*llocks.
We will see.
Indeed. If the EU won't compromise then its time to find out. If I'm wrong I'll put my hands up and say fair enough I called that wrong.
You really are shameless. Your interpretation of the “EU won’t compromise” is basically “the EU won’t give us exactly what we want, boo hoo it isn’t fair”.
There’s not a chance in hell you will admit you are wrong. It will just be constant whinging that “Brexit would have been a success if it wasn’t for the meddling EU”.
Whether Brexit is a success or failure has nothing to do with the EU.
Brexit will be a success or failure depending upon what MPs in Westminster do.
We do not need a deal to make Brexit a success. The EU can not prevent Brexit being a success. MPs in Parliament can if they screw it up or if we sign bad deals.
Then why are you constantly whinging about the EU “refusing to compromise”?
Why do you care?
I'm not. I said if the EU don't compromise we should walk away to no deal - how is that a whinge?
If it rains tomorrow I will put on a coat. If its sunny I will put on sunscreen. Neither is a whinge.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
Your last sentence is a hope, and an opinion, not a fact. We will see.
When push comes to shove, the majority of people will not choose to trade their existing jobs and livelihood so that Michael Gove can get on board a fishing boat wearing a yellow coat in the North Sea and wave the Union Jack.
If it comes to it people won't have that choice. The choice they will have is who to blame.
I predict a majority of Leavers will blame the EU and a majority of Remainers will blame Johnson.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
Your last sentence is a hope, and an opinion, not a fact. We will see.
When push comes to shove, the majority of people will not choose to trade their existing jobs and livelihood so that Michael Gove can get on board a fishing boat wearing a yellow coat in the North Sea and wave the Union Jack.
If it comes to it people won't have that choice. The choice they will have is who to blame.
I predict a majority of Leavers will blame the EU and a majority of Remainers will blame Johnson.
You may be right. Keir’s big test will be whether he can control the narrative.
Yes. It's difficult because there will still be lots of people, understandably, who will use the situation to refight the 2016 referendum.
Somehow he would have to pin the blame on the government without looking back to the referendum.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Mainly the fish we catch is exported and the fish we eat is imported.
Yes because we're only allowed to catch 9% of cod in our waters.
66% of the cod in our own waters are caught by French fishermen who then export them to us.
If there was no deal and the fishermen started catch 100% of cod in our waters when what do you think our fishermen would do with those cod?
Not sure where you get those figures from. We export a lot of cod to the EU - see chart here:
And we will still be able to export fish post-Brexit, any country can. But the UK i despite being a coastal island remarkably a net importer of fish as it stands too.
Doubling or quadrupling our quota is not going to hurt UK fishermen. It is insane to suggest otherwise. Oh and we export to more than just the EU.
You are doing a good job explaining why this is a red line for the EU, but you are making the schoolboy error of thinking that 'fish' are interchangeable, UK consumers don't eat much fish, but what they do eat is largely imported and doesn't come from UK or EU waters: canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack. Most of the high-value UK catch is exported to the EU. That catch will be worth very little if we don't have a deal which allows it to be landed in EU ports and sold on within hours of catching it. There's no other distribution avenue immediately available.
The UK doesn't eat much fish? I must be confused when I thought fish and chips was one of the country's most popular dishes. Plus the UK is actually a net importer of seafood!
We have a balance of trade deficit on seafood which is insane given our coastal island status. Given we are a coastal island with major stocks of seafood as a natural resource why do we have a balance of trade deficit on seafood, that is madness. But it is less insane when you realise that we only get one quarter of our stocks.
Plus a significant chunk of our exports already go to outside the EU27 anyway and some of what is exported to the EU27 is frozen anyway.
Getting 4x the stocks would be profitable even if at a lower margin.
2018 the UK imported £3.28 billion in seafood and exported £1.87 billion. A trade deficit of £1.41 billion pounds.
Despite the fact we're an island nation with 4x the stocks than we are currently catching.
Yes, and it will be worse in the event of no deal. We'll still be importing canned tuna, tropical prawns, Norwegian/Icelandic cod and Alaskan pollack, and we'll have nowhere to sell the high-end stuff we currently sell fresh to the EU. I really don't get why you can't understand that imported cod and tuna are not the same as exported scallops and herring.
It will not be worse, we will have 4x the stocks.
What do you think will happen to the 75% of the stocks that the EU fishermen currently catch if we start catching it? What do you think the consumers of that 75% will be eating?
Do you have any actual expertise or experience in the fishing industry, or is this all just “layman pretending to be an expert”?
Specific to fishing? No.
But I do have actual expertise, experience and knowledge of business, economics, mathematics and being able to read.
Having 4x the stocks of a valuable product is going to be valuable. As for economics and business the market finds a way to clear products. The idea that we can have 4x the stocks of a desired product that people want . . . but it will rot . . . is total rot.
Business works by having a product you can sell and people wanting to buy it and the market finds a way. You can't outsmart the market, that is what some people don't understand. If you have 4x the product - and the consumers are there - the product will find a way to the consumers.
It is simple business, simple economics, simple mathematics. Having a quarter of the product is not progress.
That’s a long-winded way to write: “i’m a layman pretending to be an expert”. Got it. Just as bad as Twitter.
That's a long-winded way of writing "I have no reply to your logic or your arguments".
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
It is becoming a sovereign coastal nation. That is what country's do, why would you object to that?
If people are breaking the law illegally catching fish they have no right to catch then what do you think happens today already?
Nothing, most likely, because the Tories, your party, who have been in power since 2010, have gutted the budgets of the armed forces, the police, and the legal system.
While they have, the Government does seem to believe there is still more fat that could be trimmed...
Any comparison to Iceland is fatuous with regards to fish. They're 42% of their exports, and 0.1% of our economy.
They have about 3/4 of what would be our sovereign waters, whilst we have 183 times the population. There's probably around a billion max solely from fishing to be gained if we want to hardball it with the EU on this issue.
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well, slight.
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well slight.
I think he could actually win Edinburgh South as an independent.
Any comparison to Iceland is fatuous with regards to fish. They're 42% of their exports, and 0.1% of our economy.
They have about 3/4 of what would be our sovereign waters, whilst we have 183 times the population. There's probably around a billion max solely from fishing to be gained if we want to hardball it with the EU on this issue.
Gaining a billion could turn the industry from one we have a balance of trade deficit in, to one we have a balance of trade surplus in.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well slight.
I think he could actually win Edinburgh South as an independent.
Possibly, particularly if the Tories stood to one side. But why would they? Anywhere else in the UK his seat would be a nailed on safe Tory seat. Its a very prosperous part of Edinburgh. I think that they would fancy their chances.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
LOL!!!
You I presume have been in the UK these past few months. Can you really make such a claim so blithely?!
DFG!
Yes. We just went through a global pandemic that disrupted supply chains far more than Brexit ever could, with far more panic buying than could ever be seen - and the supermarkets coped throughout.
We've just been through a major stress test and came through it intact.
Finally you accept that in the midst of a global pandemic (you haven't scheduled it to end by Jan 2021 have you?) is not the time to Brexit.
Because we had empty shelves in supermarkets during the global pandemic and you are now seeking to add chaos via new rules on trade which are likely to empty those shelves again.
Again. The shelves were empty as recently as a few months ago. Empty.
No I do not accept that, that is not what I said.
The shelves were not empty a few months ago. I was able to get stock from the shelves constantly for everything except toilet paper as a unique product. The shelves were never completely empty.
In one week at the peak of it I went to the supermarket and they had no chicken so I bought something else instead. Its called substitution, a well known economic effect. By the next week they had chicken again.
You really don't think that supermarket shelves were empty in the UK a few months ago?
I appreciate that your foray to buy not chicken aside you are 24hrs a day at PB but you really can't have gone out much over lockdown.
PT must be like the chap I once met on the Isle of Rum - he had not done his shopping in advance, there being only a post office with very limited stock. He ended up on a diet of raw carrots and Penguin biscuits for his week's mountain climbing.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
I don't know. Trump calling US soldiers killed in combat "losers" seems entirely in-character, and is probably a vote-loser for Trump so makes sense for the Democrats to try and keep these stories in the news.
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
I must have missed something - I thought the modern idea was that you can self-identify to be whoever you want to be, and that was incontestable by mere facts?
Transracialism is probably the next big thing, but we dont seem there yet. We're in hyper race awareness mode at present
I thought we were already there with the Metropolitan Black Police Association and a BAME group in the Labour Party, in the vanguard of progress as usual. And in the census or any of those stupid government forms which ask you about your ethnicity, of course.
And yet some people get mad if you have a hairstyle not approved for your race, so I doubt they approve of people deciding they feel like a different race than they were classified at birth.
Are we classified racially at birth? There's no race on my birth cert.
I dont mean formally. In fact peoples view of their own race can change, or change between generations. But this point was prompted by people like that professor who switch from their 'old' race to a new one .
Yes, this is the point I want to bring out. People often say "If you can change gender why not race?" - which sounds cute and on the button but in fact the comparison is not valid.
There's this point here - that gender is part of your legal ID from birth in a way that race is not.
Also, race is far more cluttered and undefined than gender. Lots of people are a mix of races. Half one thing, quarter another, bit of this, bit of that. Melting pot.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
All of which is just to explain why I dislike and disapprove of the sentiment referred to in my 1st para. Suppose it will keep on being expressed though. It's a way of flagging opposition to the notion of transgender in a way that looks superficially thoughtful.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
And one which actually took stock protection seriously, in terms of navy and coastguard equipment and staffing.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
Defense spend of only 0.26% GDP and a NATO member too...
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well, slight.
The Scottish LDs then, it would then likely give the LDs 2 Edinburgh seats, South as well as West
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Very true.
Though the UK does enjoy cod and currently catches 9% of its own cod. The reason we import cod, is because we're only catching 9% of our own cod.
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well slight.
I think he could actually win Edinburgh South as an independent.
Possibly, particularly if the Tories stood to one side. But why would they? Anywhere else in the UK his seat would be a nailed on safe Tory seat. Its a very prosperous part of Edinburgh. I think that they would fancy their chances.
Edinburgh was 70% Remain in 2016 though even as it was over 60% No in 2014
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Scollops are great if they are cooked properly, I didn’t realize they weren’t popular in the UK
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
I don't know. Trump calling US soldiers killed in combat "losers" seems entirely in-character, and is probably a vote-loser for Trump so makes sense for the Democrats to try and keep these stories in the news.
He didn't do that in that clip. There have been stories that he has found the idea that people may be willing to risk or even lay down their lives for their country confusing and inconsistent with his "transactional" view of the world. But I don't think we see that in that clip or in his recent tweets.
Meantime, the death toll from Covid in the richest country in the world continues to climb, the divisions in society deepen and become ever more lethal, the evidence of misogyny is overwhelming, the "billionaire" fantasy he has spun will come apart on the back of his tax returns and he is running out of allies to insult. There is not a shortage of material here.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
And one which actually took stock protection seriously, in terms of navy and coastguard equipment and staffing.
Yes, I think it’s fair to say that if we can’t (won’t?) police our border between Dover and Cardiff, we won’t do much to stop illegal fishing (unless it’s by our own people, of course).
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well slight.
I think he could actually win Edinburgh South as an independent.
He'd lose borrowed Con vote. The winner would get sub 30%
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Indeed Trump clearly says "he's a war hero, ... because he was captured." It was obviously meant as a slight, implying that had McCain not been captured then he would not be a war hero. But no one can claim that Trump (in this interview) said "he's not a war hero".
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
I don't know. Trump calling US soldiers killed in combat "losers" seems entirely in-character, and is probably a vote-loser for Trump so makes sense for the Democrats to try and keep these stories in the news.
Of course.
And in the unlikely event that it's just a piece of Swiftboating, who is going to believe that unless they believe Trump isn't an habitual liar ?
All those who like to remind us that denying something only gives it more publicity might consider the effect of Trump's reaction.
According to remainers, fish are inconsequential. Nobody cares. Its a red herring. ha ha ha.
Problem with this announcement is that it certainly won't happen. If there is a deal, this doubling of UK fish catches is the UK opening gambit that will be whittled down by the EU to a much smaller increase.
Or there won't be a deal with the consequences of UK fisherman being locked out of the market that represents 70% of their catch. As the Covid catastrophe for fishermen has shown, this market isn't easily replaceable.
Even were the UK fishermen to be locked out of exports (they won't and can't be, but that's another matter) the fishermen will still gain from extra stock and will be able to sell to the UK.
Currently the UK is catching 9% of the cod in the UK's Channel waters. France catches 66% of it and exports it to the UK. The UK eats a heck of a lot of cod.
Why on earth do you think UK fishermen would be incapable of catching cod in UK waters and selling it to the UK if the EU tried to lock them out?
Having a product that people want to buy and people able to buy it is better than being able to sell a product but not having anything to sell.
The maximum UK cod quota post Brexit in the Channel will be miniscule compared to our existing 59% share of Northern North Sea cod quota (or our 87% share of the haddock quota for the same area).
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Scollops are great if they are cooked properly, I didn’t realize they weren’t popular in the UK
I love scallops, especially with black pudding and a bit of balsamic. But they do seem a minority taste here which is a bit weird given their availability and flavour.
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well slight.
I think he could actually win Edinburgh South as an independent.
Possibly, particularly if the Tories stood to one side. But why would they? Anywhere else in the UK his seat would be a nailed on safe Tory seat. Its a very prosperous part of Edinburgh. I think that they would fancy their chances.
Edinburgh was 70% Remain in 2016 though even as it was over 60% No in 2014
Yeah but by 2024 the story (and possibly Boris) will have moved on.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
And one which actually took stock protection seriously, in terms of navy and coastguard equipment and staffing.
Yes, I think it’s fair to say that if we can’t (won’t?) police our border between Dover and Cardiff, we won’t do much to stop illegal fishing (unless it’s by our own people, of course).
I know we were talking about Welsh independence earlier, but was that meant to say Calais rather than Cardiff?
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well, slight.
The Scottish LDs then, it would then likely give the LDs 2 Edinburgh seats, South as well as West
I think if Labour was still inflicting Corbyn on a disappointed nation that might have been a real possibility but under arch remainer SKS I think he is secure whatever the nutters in Scottish Labour say.
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well slight.
I think he could actually win Edinburgh South as an independent.
Possibly, particularly if the Tories stood to one side. But why would they? Anywhere else in the UK his seat would be a nailed on safe Tory seat. Its a very prosperous part of Edinburgh. I think that they would fancy their chances.
I'm actually surprised he is getting threatened with his jotters now. In 2017, he was interviewed in the Gruaniad recommending Scots voters to vote tactically Tory rather than Labour to keep the SNP out - except of course in Morningside. I can't find the Graun interview online but it did happen - I remember being very surprised when I read it.
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Scollops are great if they are cooked properly, I didn’t realize they weren’t popular in the UK
I love scallops, especially with black pudding and a bit of balsamic. But they do seem a minority taste here which is a bit weird given their availability and flavour.
Scallops are one of the few foods that I don't like people near me eating. They smell awful. I'm not so rude, however, to tell people this while they are eating them.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Indeed Trump clearly says "he's a war hero, ... because he was captured." It was obviously meant as a slight, implying that had McCain not been captured then he would not be a war hero. But no one can claim that Trump (in this interview) said "he's not a war hero".
He said exactly that (around 13 sec in), in direct response to the interviewer saying "he's a war hero". He then walked it back a bit, which is classic Trump plausible deniability tactics ("some people say" etc).
Reminds me of this article shortly after McCain's death: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/26/did-trump-just-joke-about-john-mccains-death/ ...It’s also important to note Trump’s track record here. Since McCain’s death, Trump has regularly said he wasn’t a fan of McCain’s, attacked a book he wrote (it “bombed”), claimed the McCain family didn’t thank him for his state funeral, suggested that those who tried to obscure the USS John S. McCain (named for McCain’s father) from view during his event had good intentions and said that there were “stains” on his record. All of this, of course, came after Trump suggested in 2016 that McCain wasn’t a war hero. Trump has been fixated on McCain more than any of these former senators, so it’s difficult to believe McCain wouldn’t cross his mind when he’s speaking in this context.
Trump also has a habit of using plausible deniability to his advantage. He often walks right up to the edge of saying something extremely offensive without directly saying it, and then allows his supporters to connect the dots. Then, when his critics connect those same dots, he claims victimhood...
I can well believe he's a lot worse when not being recorded.
The Tories would love to have him leaving 0 Scottish Labour MPs
The prospects of someone who was contemplating leaving Labour because they were not sufficiently evangelical about the wonders of EU membership joining Boris's Tory party must be, well slight.
I think he could actually win Edinburgh South as an independent.
Possibly, particularly if the Tories stood to one side. But why would they? Anywhere else in the UK his seat would be a nailed on safe Tory seat. Its a very prosperous part of Edinburgh. I think that they would fancy their chances.
I'm actually surprised he is getting threatened with his jotters now. In 2017, he was interviewed in the Gruaniad recommending Scots voters to vote tactically Tory rather than Labour to keep the SNP out - except of course in Morningside. I can't find the Graun interview online but it did happen - I remember being very surprised when I read it.
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Scollops are great if they are cooked properly, I didn’t realize they weren’t popular in the UK
I love scallops, especially with black pudding and a bit of balsamic. But they do seem a minority taste here which is a bit weird given their availability and flavour.
Scallops are one of the few foods that I don't like people near me eating. They smell awful. I'm not so rude, however, to tell people this while they are eating them.
I'll bear it in mind though, should we ever meet for a meal.
Ignore the comments re Biden etc, focus on what is being said about his organisation vs 4 years ago.
Difference is, this time round he's the establishment. Corrupt establishment, sure, but he can't run as an insurgent any more, and he doesn't know anything else.
Trump also has a habit of using plausible deniability to his advantage. He often walks right up to the edge of saying something extremely offensive without directly saying it, and then allows his supporters to connect the dots. Then, when his critics connect those same dots, he claims victimhood...
I'm surprised his reported comments implying that the USA might have been fighting on the wrong side haven't been picked up on.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
But then, as the top-rated comment on the story says:
"Clearly this is a case of liberal elite road haulagers, staffed by liberal elite truckers, and using liberal elite logistic systems, programmed by liberal elite software engineers, all trying to bad-mouth Brexit. And it is a sign of the bias in the liberal elite BBC and liberal elite Financial Times that they are reporting this, instead of focusing solely on the glorious sunlit uplands to come."
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Very true.
Though the UK does enjoy cod and currently catches 9% of its own cod. The reason we import cod, is because we're only catching 9% of our own cod.
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Scollops are great if they are cooked properly, I didn’t realize they weren’t popular in the UK
I love scallops, especially with black pudding and a bit of balsamic. But they do seem a minority taste here which is a bit weird given their availability and flavour.
Scallops are wonderful but rather expensive. I fry them lightly in olive oil with a fine dusting of flour but the traditional Cockney way also works well - covered in batter and deep fried in hot cooking oil.
I adore whelks but can understand people being put off by the appearance. It is important they are fresh and grit-free. Lightly seasoned with vinegar and black pepper they are to die for.
If Leave had offered cheaper and more plentiful scallops and whelks I would have certainly voted to leave the EU.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Scollops are great if they are cooked properly, I didn’t realize they weren’t popular in the UK
I love scallops, especially with black pudding and a bit of balsamic. But they do seem a minority taste here which is a bit weird given their availability and flavour.
Scallops are wonderful but rather expensive. I fry them lightly in olive oil with a fine dusting of flour but the traditional Cockney way also works well - covered in batter and deep fried in hot cooking oil.
I adore whelks but can understand people being put off by the appearance.
If Leave had offered cheaper and more plentiful scallops and whelks I would have certainly voted to leave the EU.
It was definitely an opportunity to Mussel up the leave vote. (Not great but things are not the same since @ydoethur has had to waste his time teaching again).
Ignore the comments re Biden etc, focus on what is being said about his organisation vs 4 years ago.
Difference is, this time round he's the establishment. Corrupt establishment, sure, but he can't run as an insurgent any more, and he doesn't know anything else.
I was thinking more about the comments about his organisation on the ground, enthusiasm etc. It sounds like the ground game is a lot more organised and efficient this time round (no surprise). Also, some interesting comments about his new campaign manager.
In 2016 Holyrood election for Edinburgh Southern (not exactly the same as the Westminster seat) Labour won the FPTP seat but on the list the constituency actually voted majority Conservative.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Indeed Trump clearly says "he's a war hero, ... because he was captured." It was obviously meant as a slight, implying that had McCain not been captured then he would not be a war hero. But no one can claim that Trump (in this interview) said "he's not a war hero".
He said exactly that (around 13 sec in), in direct response to the interviewer saying "he's a war hero". He then walked it back a bit, which is classic Trump plausible deniability tactics ("some people say" etc).
At 12 seconds he says "He's a ... " pause waving hands around "war hero"
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Very true.
Though the UK does enjoy cod and currently catches 9% of its own cod. The reason we import cod, is because we're only catching 9% of our own cod.
I've looked at the EU total allowable catch for 2020 for Cod in the North Sea and Atlantic and it's slightly more than 20,000 tonnes. This obviously includes lots of cod in other countries waters, not just in UK waters.
British consumption of cod is about 115,000 tonnes per year.
We do not import cod because the evil EU has stolen all our fish.
Part of the 'fish problem' is definitions, surely. 'Fish' covers a multitude of species, as was pointed out upthread. A small example; whelks are not a popular dish in UK; even in the shellfish bars along the Thames estuary they are less popular than , say, cockles. However, the S Koreans, for some reason like them. So we export a lot to there, Same applies, I think, to scallops, although they go to Europe. We are not going to suddenly take to eating whelks or scallops because the fisherfolk can't export them any longer. (Yes, I know exports to S.Korea shouldn't be affected by Brexit).
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
Scollops are great if they are cooked properly, I didn’t realize they weren’t popular in the UK
I love scallops, especially with black pudding and a bit of balsamic. But they do seem a minority taste here which is a bit weird given their availability and flavour.
Scallops are wonderful but rather expensive. I fry them lightly in olive oil with a fine dusting of flour but the traditional Cockney way also works well - covered in batter and deep fried in hot cooking oil.
I adore whelks but can understand people being put off by the appearance.
If Leave had offered cheaper and more plentiful scallops and whelks I would have certainly voted to leave the EU.
It was definitely an opportunity to Mussel up the leave vote. (Not great but things are not the same since @ydoethur has had to waste his time teaching again).
Ignore the comments re Biden etc, focus on what is being said about his organisation vs 4 years ago.
Difference is, this time round he's the establishment. Corrupt establishment, sure, but he can't run as an insurgent any more, and he doesn't know anything else.
I was thinking more about the comments about his organisation on the ground, enthusiasm etc. It sounds like the ground game is a lot more organised and efficient this time round (no surprise). Also, some interesting comments about his new campaign manager.
Mr Bridgegate? Yes, American voters love their lives being inconvenienced to score political points. Instant connection.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
The Spanish anomaly: fight COVID-19 with the 'highest population density' in Europe. The 47.2 million people who live in Spain are concentrated in only 13% of the territory,
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
Indeed, on paper Iceland should have been crushed into submission.
In fact they won an overwhelmingly victory over the UK. And this was in the days when we still had a rather large navy.
Trump also has a habit of using plausible deniability to his advantage. He often walks right up to the edge of saying something extremely offensive without directly saying it, and then allows his supporters to connect the dots. Then, when his critics connect those same dots, he claims victimhood...
I'm surprised his reported comments implying that the USA might have been fighting on the wrong side haven't been picked up on.
WW1 though even Trump has not gone so far as to say the US should not have defeated the Nazis in WW2
In 2016 Holyrood election for Edinburgh Southern (not exactly the same as the Westminster seat) Labour won the FPTP seat but on the list the constituency actually voted majority Conservative.
Comments
Is it reasonable that a coastal island like the UK with vast swathes of control of the seas as our sovereign territory is forbidden by law from catching 75% of our own stocks and having a trade DEFICIT in seafood? Why on earth are we net IMPORTERS of seafood? That is madness!
What do you think will happen to the 75% of the stocks that the EU fishermen currently catch if we start catching it? What do you think the consumers of that 75% will be eating?
As someone who has no “British blood” and is ethnically “Jewish” through my mother (although not from my Father), my “race” just a big fat 🤷♂️.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2020/08/tanned-rested-and-ready-donald-trump-is-in-much-better-shape-than-he-was-four-years-ago-mulshine.html
Ignore the comments re Biden etc, focus on what is being said about his organisation vs 4 years ago.
I appreciate that your foray to buy not chicken aside you are 24hrs a day at PB but you really can't have gone out much over lockdown.
At 4x the catch the UK could not just have import substitution within the UK but it could also export more to the rest of the world than it currently exports to the EU alone with 25% of the stocks.
That 4x bigger catch will go somewhere.
The fact is we don’t know what the economic impact is going to be when the transition period ends, and if there is significant economic damage, we don’t know how people will react to that, having been told it was b*llocks.
We will see.
There’s not a chance in hell you will admit you are wrong. It will just be constant whinging that “Brexit would have been a success if it wasn’t for the meddling EU”.
But I do have actual expertise, experience and knowledge of business, economics, mathematics and being able to read.
Having 4x the stocks of a valuable product is going to be valuable.
As for economics and business the market finds a way to clear products. The idea that we can have 4x the stocks of a desired product that people want . . . but it will rot . . . is total rot.
Business works by having a product you can sell and people wanting to buy it and the market finds a way. You can't outsmart the market, that is what some people don't understand. If you have 4x the product - and the consumers are there - the product will find a way to the consumers.
It is simple business, simple economics, simple mathematics. Having a quarter of the product is not progress.
If people are breaking the law illegally catching fish they have no right to catch then what do you think happens today already?
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/09/03/coronavirus-vaccine-roundup-early-september
And I concur with this:
An excellent side effect is that vaccine technology will never be the same after this – it’s going to be like aircraft design before and after World War II, and for many of the same reasons. This whole pandemic has been awful, in many different ways, but we’re going to come out of it stronger and more capable than when we went in...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/15/uk-fishermen-may-not-win-waters-back-after-brexit-eu-memo-reveals
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Brexit will be a success or failure depending upon what MPs in Westminster do.
We do not need a deal to make Brexit a success. The EU can not prevent Brexit being a success. MPs in Parliament can if they screw it up or if we sign bad deals.
Why do you care?
First he is always on here so there's someone to play with; and secondly he is an intelligent bloke who evidently has time to do a lot of wiki research and hence has something to say.
The issue is that three times out of five he will pick a transparently ridiculous position and then try to wear you down by posting in support of it relentlessly. I really don't understand some of the basic logic fails he commits. It makes no sense for an otherwise bright person.
I often think he is actually an old-fashioned troll before the meaning of that changed - ie trying to derail conversations by posting subtle and not so subtle absurd ideas and then watching everyone scrabbling around to say: well that's ridiculous and thereby corrupting the chat room.
These questions were not considered by Leavers who responded to the viceral call of "let`s let no jonny foreigner near OUR fish". It is more complicated than that. Is the image of a pugnacious, aggressive and isolationist nation one that we want to foster?
It`s getting close to my DailyMail-reading father-in-law who seriously wants war ships patrolling our ports.
If it rains tomorrow I will put on a coat. If its sunny I will put on sunscreen. Neither is a whinge.
Somehow he would have to pin the blame on the government without looking back to the referendum.
They have about 3/4 of what would be our sovereign waters, whilst we have 183 times the population. There's probably around a billion max solely from fishing to be gained if we want to hardball it with the EU on this issue.
That sounds like progress to me.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
It's ages since I had any whelks, although I used to like them. I had scallops quite recently, although sometimes people look at me oddly when I order them.
There's this point here - that gender is part of your legal ID from birth in a way that race is not.
Also, race is far more cluttered and undefined than gender. Lots of people are a mix of races. Half one thing, quarter another, bit of this, bit of that. Melting pot.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
All of which is just to explain why I dislike and disapprove of the sentiment referred to in my 1st para. Suppose it will keep on being expressed though. It's a way of flagging opposition to the notion of transgender in a way that looks superficially thoughtful.
Though the UK does enjoy cod and currently catches 9% of its own cod. The reason we import cod, is because we're only catching 9% of our own cod.
Meantime, the death toll from Covid in the richest country in the world continues to climb, the divisions in society deepen and become ever more lethal, the evidence of misogyny is overwhelming, the "billionaire" fantasy he has spun will come apart on the back of his tax returns and he is running out of allies to insult. There is not a shortage of material here.
It was obviously meant as a slight, implying that had McCain not been captured then he would not be a war hero. But no one can claim that Trump (in this interview) said "he's not a war hero".
And in the unlikely event that it's just a piece of Swiftboating, who is going to believe that unless they believe Trump isn't an habitual liar ?
All those who like to remind us that denying something only gives it more publicity might consider the effect of Trump's reaction.
Widely regarded as one of the worst possible drafts on the job.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/15236862.ian-murray-backs-tactical-voting-for-tories-to-keep-snp-out/
He then walked it back a bit, which is classic Trump plausible deniability tactics ("some people say" etc).
Reminds me of this article shortly after McCain's death:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/26/did-trump-just-joke-about-john-mccains-death/
...It’s also important to note Trump’s track record here. Since McCain’s death, Trump has regularly said he wasn’t a fan of McCain’s, attacked a book he wrote (it “bombed”), claimed the McCain family didn’t thank him for his state funeral, suggested that those who tried to obscure the USS John S. McCain (named for McCain’s father) from view during his event had good intentions and said that there were “stains” on his record. All of this, of course, came after Trump suggested in 2016 that McCain wasn’t a war hero. Trump has been fixated on McCain more than any of these former senators, so it’s difficult to believe McCain wouldn’t cross his mind when he’s speaking in this context.
Trump also has a habit of using plausible deniability to his advantage. He often walks right up to the edge of saying something extremely offensive without directly saying it, and then allows his supporters to connect the dots. Then, when his critics connect those same dots, he claims victimhood...
I can well believe he's a lot worse when not being recorded.
Corrupt establishment, sure, but he can't run as an insurgent any more, and he doesn't know anything else.
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
Brexit: UK 'sleepwalking into disaster' over border plans, hauliers warn
But then, as the top-rated comment on the story says:
"Clearly this is a case of liberal elite road haulagers, staffed by liberal elite truckers, and using liberal elite logistic systems, programmed by liberal elite software engineers, all trying to bad-mouth Brexit. And it is a sign of the bias in the liberal elite BBC and liberal elite Financial Times that they are reporting this, instead of focusing solely on the glorious sunlit uplands to come."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhwcEvMJz1Y
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g503784-d5769085-Reviews-Oh_My_Cod_Hornchurch-Hornchurch_Greater_London_England.html
Disclaimer: I'm a veggie - never visited the above establishment
I adore whelks but can understand people being put off by the appearance. It is important they are fresh and grit-free. Lightly seasoned with vinegar and black pepper they are to die for.
If Leave had offered cheaper and more plentiful scallops and whelks I would have certainly voted to leave the EU.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1301846557575335936
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
British consumption of cod is about 115,000 tonnes per year.
We do not import cod because the evil EU has stolen all our fish.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/12/18/2020-fishing-opportunities-in-the-atlantic-north-and-the-mediterranean-seas-council-secures-agreement/
https://www.google.com/search?q=British+cod+consumption
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
The Spanish anomaly: fight COVID-19 with the 'highest population density' in Europe. The 47.2 million people who live in Spain are concentrated in only 13% of the territory,
In fact they won an overwhelmingly victory over the UK. And this was in the days when we still had a rather large navy.