Howdy, Stranger!

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

This isn’t going to go down well in White House – Trump named “Loser of the Year” – politicalbetting

1246

Comments

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:
    So the EU side are now actively pushing for no-deal in January, because they think the disruption will cause UK compromises. Good to know.
    Did you read the article?

    The EU is not “actively pushing” for a no-deal; they are preparing leverage for a post no-deal scenario.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited December 2020
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:
    So the EU side are now actively pushing for no-deal in January, because they think the disruption will cause UK compromises. Good to know.
    This was originally the UK govt's thinking about disruption in the EU. There's no moral high ground, just a power struggle between a larger bloc and a smaller partner.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    Pagan2 said:

    A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

    That's a really stupid graphic. The two immediate idiocies that spring to mind are:

    We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there is no reason for them to be affected by the type of Brexit we have. Indeed the vast majority of avocados are imported from Israel and we already have a trade deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.


    Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.
    Except that if Brexit does block the ports then the ports will be blocked for imports from everywhere, not just the EU.
    The issue is likely to be the ports facing the EU.

    Mind you as we have seen the last week, blocked ports is an issue the world over right now. The US is having a massive issue with rotting food because they can't export it through their own ports.
    Surely the answer then is that imports from non eu countries which we already have the wherewithal to deal with and systems get prioritised and then we have time we process the eu imports. That way no disruption for those imports from the rest of the world
    That is already the case in a lot of non EU cases. Certainly with fresh fruit there is a lot more direct shipping between the countries of origin and the UK than the EUphiles like to admit.

    To put some numbers on it. According to the Department of Transport in 2019 we imported 2 million tonnes of agricultural products from EU ports. But we imported 2.8 million tonnes from the US direct and a further half million tonnes from Africa, Asia and Australasia that didn't go through EU ports. Given that the vast majority of that 2 million tonnes imported from the EU ports will be from EU countries, the amount of agricultural products coming from the rest of the world via the EU is tiny.
    Yes its why I am amused by the claims that we will be stuck with british produce. Often the reason we buy eu produce is as much because of eu protectionist tariffs as anything. We already have systems in place to process them so all we really need in those cases is employ more warm bodies as the systems exist.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    Pagan2 said:

    A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

    That's a really stupid graphic. The two immediate idiocies that spring to mind are:

    We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there is no reason for them to be affected by the type of Brexit we have. Indeed the vast majority of avocados are imported from Israel and we already have a trade deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.


    Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.
    Except that if Brexit does block the ports then the ports will be blocked for imports from everywhere, not just the EU.
    The issue is likely to be the ports facing the EU.

    Mind you as we have seen the last week, blocked ports is an issue the world over right now. The US is having a massive issue with rotting food because they can't export it through their own ports.
    Surely the answer then is that imports from non eu countries which we already have the wherewithal to deal with and systems get prioritised and then we have time we process the eu imports. That way no disruption for those imports from the rest of the world
    That is already the case in a lot of non EU cases. Certainly with fresh fruit there is a lot more direct shipping between the countries of origin and the UK than the EUphiles like to admit.

    To put some numbers on it. According to the Department of Transport in 2019 we imported 2 million tonnes of agricultural products from EU ports. But we imported 2.8 million tonnes from the US direct and a further half million tonnes from Africa, Asia and Australasia that didn't go through EU ports. Given that the vast majority of that 2 million tonnes imported from the EU ports will be from EU countries, the amount of agricultural products coming from the rest of the world via the EU is tiny.
    I think one of the differences is that we import agricultural products from non-EU places but we import a lot of finished food products from the EU. There is definitely going to be some level of disruption to supply chains but I don't think it's going to be as bad as some of the Twitter "experts" are saying.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    MaxPB said:

    Pagan2 said:

    A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

    That's a really stupid graphic. The two immediate idiocies that spring to mind are:

    We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there is no reason for them to be affected by the type of Brexit we have. Indeed the vast majority of avocados are imported from Israel and we already have a trade deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.


    Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.
    Except that if Brexit does block the ports then the ports will be blocked for imports from everywhere, not just the EU.
    The issue is likely to be the ports facing the EU.

    Mind you as we have seen the last week, blocked ports is an issue the world over right now. The US is having a massive issue with rotting food because they can't export it through their own ports.
    Surely the answer then is that imports from non eu countries which we already have the wherewithal to deal with and systems get prioritised and then we have time we process the eu imports. That way no disruption for those imports from the rest of the world
    That is already the case in a lot of non EU cases. Certainly with fresh fruit there is a lot more direct shipping between the countries of origin and the UK than the EUphiles like to admit.

    To put some numbers on it. According to the Department of Transport in 2019 we imported 2 million tonnes of agricultural products from EU ports. But we imported 2.8 million tonnes from the US direct and a further half million tonnes from Africa, Asia and Australasia that didn't go through EU ports. Given that the vast majority of that 2 million tonnes imported from the EU ports will be from EU countries, the amount of agricultural products coming from the rest of the world via the EU is tiny.
    I think one of the differences is that we import agricultural products from non-EU places but we import a lot of finished food products from the EU. There is definitely going to be some level of disruption to supply chains but I don't think it's going to be as bad as some of the Twitter "experts" are saying.
    Most of those finished products will also be available from non eu sources
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    Scott_xP said:
    Actually more like 11,000, given that 8,000 is pretty much the usual daily death rate.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705
    Is that the HYUFD school of diplomacy?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Pagan2 said:

    Most of those finished products will also be available from non eu sources

    Even if that were true, perishability becomes an issue
  • Pagan2 said:

    Is your company the only one importing canadian oats? I doubt it in which case they just combine all the canadian oats on to however many ships rather than have it delievered as a mixed shipment.

    Secondly why does off loading in ireland first then shipping to the uk cost more than offloading in the uk then shipping to ireland?. Your argument is based on "This is how we do it now". What will happen is companies will look at the best way of doing it then when we finally get told the rules.

    I am totally behind the arguments that companies should know by now. Just not behind the argument that how we currently do it will be how we do it in the future

    I agree with the principle and whats more so does the industry. Finding "cost to serve" efficiencies has been a focus for a good few years now. The problem is that what you are suggesting is likely to add cost not reduce it.

    If you are an exporter to the EU market currently shipping it all in one bulk shipment via Zeebrugge, why is it in your interest to change it so that the UK bit is done separately? Again all things are possible at a price.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    Scott_xP said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Most of those finished products will also be available from non eu sources

    Even if that were true, perishability becomes an issue
    Washing machines, hair dryers, vacuum cleaners etc are perishable? Who knew?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited December 2020

    Is that the HYUFD school of diplomacy?
    It's the post-Falklands, neo-imperial and seaborne delusions form of diplomacy. Buccaneers, the open seas.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    Scott_xP said:
    FFS they have made @HYUFD an admiral of the fleet, haven't they?
  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    In those several years will there be an outward migration of all the fish currently here that we don't eat, and in inward migration of all those foreign fish we do like to eat?

    Its simple to work out apparently...
    Most of what we eat we import from countries outside of the EU

    For example Cod
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/511023/cod-import-value-united-kingdom-uk-country-of-origin/#:~:text=Fisheries & Aquaculture-,Cod import value to the United Kingdom (UK,2016, by country of origin&text=This statistic shows the total,to the UK from Iceland.

    And most of that german Cod we should be boycotting due to its being fished illegaly

    https://balticeye.org/en/fisheries/denmark-and-germany-continue-to-catch-cod---despite-ban/
    I will be sure to ask the bloke in the chippy next week. "This Cod, has it been fished illegally from Germany?"
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
  • Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:
    FFS they have made @HYUFD an admiral of the fleet, haven't they?
    The EU will cave now.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    Pagan2 said:

    Is your company the only one importing canadian oats? I doubt it in which case they just combine all the canadian oats on to however many ships rather than have it delievered as a mixed shipment.

    Secondly why does off loading in ireland first then shipping to the uk cost more than offloading in the uk then shipping to ireland?. Your argument is based on "This is how we do it now". What will happen is companies will look at the best way of doing it then when we finally get told the rules.

    I am totally behind the arguments that companies should know by now. Just not behind the argument that how we currently do it will be how we do it in the future

    I agree with the principle and whats more so does the industry. Finding "cost to serve" efficiencies has been a focus for a good few years now. The problem is that what you are suggesting is likely to add cost not reduce it.

    If you are an exporter to the EU market currently shipping it all in one bulk shipment via Zeebrugge, why is it in your interest to change it so that the UK bit is done separately? Again all things are possible at a price.
    If you have 100 tons to ship and the eu wants 80 tons and the uk wants 20 tons....are you going to say ah well too difficult we will ship the 80 tons and throw away the 20 tons or are you going to still ship the 20 tons and maybe charge a little more or maybe take less profit on it rather than waste it.

    I suspect yes a little cost extra and a little less profit will be whats settled on in the short term and in the middle term they will sort things so they ship to both places with no extra cost. Maybe by consortiums of companies sharing for example an oat transport ship
  • Is that the HYUFD school of diplomacy?
    It's the post-Falklands, neo-imperial and seaborne delusions form of diplomacy. Buccaneers, the open seas.
    How would Iceland or Norway or indeed any fishing nation defend their fish from illegal fishing boats

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,320
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:
    FFS they have made @HYUFD an admiral of the fleet, haven't they?
    I always voted at my party's call,
    And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
    (He never thought of thinking for himself at all.)
    I thought so little, they rewarded me
    By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navy!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:
    FFS they have made @HYUFD an admiral of the fleet, haven't they?
    ...or just Editor of the Daily Mail.
  • Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:
    FFS they have made @HYUFD an admiral of the fleet, haven't they?
    What gunboats?

    Did they mean Gumboots?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    In those several years will there be an outward migration of all the fish currently here that we don't eat, and in inward migration of all those foreign fish we do like to eat?

    Its simple to work out apparently...
    Most of what we eat we import from countries outside of the EU

    For example Cod
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/511023/cod-import-value-united-kingdom-uk-country-of-origin/#:~:text=Fisheries & Aquaculture-,Cod import value to the United Kingdom (UK,2016, by country of origin&text=This statistic shows the total,to the UK from Iceland.

    And most of that german Cod we should be boycotting due to its being fished illegaly

    https://balticeye.org/en/fisheries/denmark-and-germany-continue-to-catch-cod---despite-ban/
    I will be sure to ask the bloke in the chippy next week. "This Cod, has it been fished illegally from Germany?"
    Shrugs euphiles often are on here saying the CFP is a good thing and a reason why we should stay bound by their rules....just showing you that the eu isn't that good when certain countries break the rules, volkswagen all over
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Defund the WHO:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/11/who-accused-conspiring-italy-remove-damning-covid-report

    The World Health Organization has been accused of conspiring with the Italian health ministry to remove a report revealing the country’s mismanagement at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic – the publication of which was intended to prevent future deaths.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited December 2020

    Is that the HYUFD school of diplomacy?
    It's the post-Falklands, neo-imperial and seaborne delusions form of diplomacy. Buccaneers, the open seas.
    How would Iceland or Norway or indeed any fishing nation defend their fish from illegal fishing boats

    Probably with a consensual agreement with neighbours, going on recent rather than pre-modern nordic history.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    edited December 2020
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Is your company the only one importing canadian oats? I doubt it in which case they just combine all the canadian oats on to however many ships rather than have it delievered as a mixed shipment.

    Secondly why does off loading in ireland first then shipping to the uk cost more than offloading in the uk then shipping to ireland?. Your argument is based on "This is how we do it now". What will happen is companies will look at the best way of doing it then when we finally get told the rules.

    I am totally behind the arguments that companies should know by now. Just not behind the argument that how we currently do it will be how we do it in the future

    I agree with the principle and whats more so does the industry. Finding "cost to serve" efficiencies has been a focus for a good few years now. The problem is that what you are suggesting is likely to add cost not reduce it.

    If you are an exporter to the EU market currently shipping it all in one bulk shipment via Zeebrugge, why is it in your interest to change it so that the UK bit is done separately? Again all things are possible at a price.
    If you have 100 tons to ship and the eu wants 80 tons and the uk wants 20 tons....are you going to say ah well too difficult we will ship the 80 tons and throw away the 20 tons or are you going to still ship the 20 tons and maybe charge a little more or maybe take less profit on it rather than waste it.

    I suspect yes a little cost extra and a little less profit will be whats settled on in the short term and in the middle term they will sort things so they ship to both places with no extra cost. Maybe by consortiums of companies sharing for example an oat transport ship
    Like with anything, it will depend if anyone else can supply it cheaper in the same quantities direct to a British port. Otherwise they'll just say: "you can have your 20 tons but it now costs 50% more".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Why bother with actual journalism - going out and talking to people, finding out what’s happening - when you can instead spend your ‘working’ day retweeting sarcastic memes at each other.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Sandpit said:

    Why bother with actual journalism - going out and talking to people, finding out what’s happening - when you can instead spend your ‘working’ day retweeting sarcastic memes at each other.
    Well he isn't a journalist so what is your point?
  • Foxy said:

    Scott_xP said:
    FFS they have made @HYUFD an admiral of the fleet, haven't they?
    The EU will cave now.
    "Features distorted in the flickering light
    The faces are twisted and grotesque
    Silent and stern in the sweltering night
    The mob moves like demons possessed
    Quiet in conscience, calm in their right
    Confident their ways are best"


    - Peart, Lifeson, Lee 1981
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    In those several years will there be an outward migration of all the fish currently here that we don't eat, and in inward migration of all those foreign fish we do like to eat?

    Its simple to work out apparently...
    Most of what we eat we import from countries outside of the EU

    For example Cod
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/511023/cod-import-value-united-kingdom-uk-country-of-origin/#:~:text=Fisheries & Aquaculture-,Cod import value to the United Kingdom (UK,2016, by country of origin&text=This statistic shows the total,to the UK from Iceland.

    And most of that german Cod we should be boycotting due to its being fished illegaly

    https://balticeye.org/en/fisheries/denmark-and-germany-continue-to-catch-cod---despite-ban/
    I will be sure to ask the bloke in the chippy next week. "This Cod, has it been fished illegally from Germany?"
    We’ll doubtless be told it was swimming toward the Uk at the time....
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
  • Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    So what?

    Shall we reopen all the mines so you guys can relive your childhoods too?

    Fishing as you remember it is the past and will remain in the past.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

    It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.
    That is from a viewpoint that supports the EU but an equal number do not and would want to defend our fishing waters

    I assume you are not backing the illegal fishing of foreign boats
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    The story in the article (which you claim is tantamount to blackmail) does not even mention fishing. Go to bed.
  • Scott_xP said:
    And quite right too.

    This is one of the things where ultra Remainers cheer the EU taking punitive measures but condemn the UK if it does the same.

    It's why they don't earn themselves an audience on the subject.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

    It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.
    That is from a viewpoint that supports the EU but an equal number do not and would want to defend our fishing waters

    I assume you are not backing the illegal fishing of foreign boats
    In the grand scheme of problems that face this country, a completely self imposed problem like this is quite frankly right at the bottom of my priority list. I really couldn't give a hoot.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

    It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.
    It’s pathetic and sickening that the Mail should publish a headline about gunboats on the eve of a critical deal with the EU.
  • Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    So what?

    Shall we reopen all the mines so you guys can relive your childhoods too?

    Fishing as you remember it is the past and will remain in the past.
    No it is not by any stretch of the imagination and frankly your remarks are absurd

    This happened when we joined the EU and after and most certainly was not in our childhood
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

    It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.
    That is from a viewpoint that supports the EU but an equal number do not and would want to defend our fishing waters

    I assume you are not backing the illegal fishing of foreign boats
    In the grand scheme of problems that face this country, a completely self imposed problem like this is quite frankly right at the bottom of my priority list. I really couldn't give a hoot.
    Because you have never cared about the harm done to the people by the eu. You have been always "I am ok" typical lawyer
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,851
    Johnson's about to get booted out of the largest market in the world and Trump's named 'Loser of the year'!

    No wonder Trump thinks it's a fix.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    So what?

    Shall we reopen all the mines so you guys can relive your childhoods too?

    Fishing as you remember it is the past and will remain in the past.
    No it is not by any stretch of the imagination and frankly your remarks are absurd

    This happened when we joined the EU and after and most certainly was not in our childhood
    You have missed the point quite spectacularly.
  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Pagan2 said:

    Washing machines, hair dryers, vacuum cleaners etc are perishable? Who knew?

    Those are not food products.

    If you had read the post "we import a lot of finished food products from the EU" you wouldn't have made an arse of yourself
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    Roger said:

    Johnson's about to get booted out of the largest market in the world and Trump's named 'Loser of the year'!

    No wonder Trump thinks it's a fix.

    Don't be upset Roger its only naming him biggest loser because they don't realise you exist
  • A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

    That's a really stupid graphic. The two immediate idiocies that spring to mind are:

    We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there is no reason for them to be affected by the type of Brexit we have. Indeed the vast majority of avocados are imported from Israel and we already have a trade deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.

    Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.
    Two immediate idiocies in what you have posted. We almost certainly import bananas and avocados from Belgium rather than from Israel or Ivory Coast. The EU is a vast market, so bulk imports come into a port for warehousing and then onward distribution to the final market like the UK. The Daily Mail puts these on their list because they are EU imports.

    Yes we can set up direct import routes for Bananas and Avocados and Oranges and everything else that we import via the EU but it will be low volume high cost additions to the current business model and that will bang the unit price up.

    As for fish, the point the Mail is making is that according to our government there is going to be major disruption to our ports. And quite frankly they're trying to educate the wazzocks who think that saving British Fishing liberates Fish and Chips.

    'Yes that is a chippy. Yes those are fishing boats. No they haven't caught the cod the chippy across the road is preparing for you because Cod don't swing in these waters you dumb bastards.'
    There may be some modest price rises because bananas and avocados now have to go direct to Felixstowe in a different boat rather than to Rotterdam and then Felixstowe in the same boat but there will be no problems with supply as we have free trade deals with all the source countries.

    My view is the market will find the most efficient route to keep costs down to a minimum.

    Honestly it's a silly thing to hang your hat on. If you're going to take umbrage at No Deal then focus on the EU perishable food products that are really effected.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

    That's a really stupid graphic. The two immediate idiocies that spring to mind are:

    We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there is no reason for them to be affected by the type of Brexit we have. Indeed the vast majority of avocados are imported from Israel and we already have a trade deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.

    Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.
    Two immediate idiocies in what you have posted. We almost certainly import bananas and avocados from Belgium rather than from Israel or Ivory Coast. The EU is a vast market, so bulk imports come into a port for warehousing and then onward distribution to the final market like the UK. The Daily Mail puts these on their list because they are EU imports.

    Yes we can set up direct import routes for Bananas and Avocados and Oranges and everything else that we import via the EU but it will be low volume high cost additions to the current business model and that will bang the unit price up.

    As for fish, the point the Mail is making is that according to our government there is going to be major disruption to our ports. And quite frankly they're trying to educate the wazzocks who think that saving British Fishing liberates Fish and Chips.

    'Yes that is a chippy. Yes those are fishing boats. No they haven't caught the cod the chippy across the road is preparing for you because Cod don't swing in these waters you dumb bastards.'
    There may be some modest price rises because bananas and avocados now have to go direct to Felixstowe in a different boat rather than to Rotterdam and then Felixstowe in the same boat but there will be no problems with supply as we have free trade deals with all the source countries.

    My view is the market will find the most efficient route to keep costs down to a minimum.

    Honestly it's a silly thing to hang your hat on. If you're going to take umbrage at No Deal then focus on the EU perishable food products that are really effected.
    Is there anything we can't source from elsewhere except tulips ?
  • Excellent. And you should be cheering this.

    If you want a Deal then you should be cheering the UK making clear to the EU the consequences of No Deal just as the EU has threatened to ground British flights and fish in UK waters anyway to get it to do a Deal.
  • MaxPB said:

    Pagan2 said:

    A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

    That's a really stupid graphic. The two immediate idiocies that spring to mind are:

    We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there is no reason for them to be affected by the type of Brexit we have. Indeed the vast majority of avocados are imported from Israel and we already have a trade deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.


    Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.
    Except that if Brexit does block the ports then the ports will be blocked for imports from everywhere, not just the EU.
    The issue is likely to be the ports facing the EU.

    Mind you as we have seen the last week, blocked ports is an issue the world over right now. The US is having a massive issue with rotting food because they can't export it through their own ports.
    Surely the answer then is that imports from non eu countries which we already have the wherewithal to deal with and systems get prioritised and then we have time we process the eu imports. That way no disruption for those imports from the rest of the world
    That is already the case in a lot of non EU cases. Certainly with fresh fruit there is a lot more direct shipping between the countries of origin and the UK than the EUphiles like to admit.

    To put some numbers on it. According to the Department of Transport in 2019 we imported 2 million tonnes of agricultural products from EU ports. But we imported 2.8 million tonnes from the US direct and a further half million tonnes from Africa, Asia and Australasia that didn't go through EU ports. Given that the vast majority of that 2 million tonnes imported from the EU ports will be from EU countries, the amount of agricultural products coming from the rest of the world via the EU is tiny.
    I think one of the differences is that we import agricultural products from non-EU places but we import a lot of finished food products from the EU. There is definitely going to be some level of disruption to supply chains but I don't think it's going to be as bad as some of the Twitter "experts" are saying.
    True. But the original point of disagreement was over the import of things like bananas. The vast majority of those never go anywhere near an EU port but are brought in directly from the country of origin.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    Let me ask you a question. What is the general policy goal here?

    Is it to maximise the economic value to the UK of Britain's fishing stock?

    If so, we should treat it like we do oil & gas and allow anyone to bid on quotas, and to maximise revenue for the Exchequor.

    Is it to maximise employment in the UK?

    In which case, we should probably do as above, but contain a provision requiring that all catches are landed in the UK.

    Is it to create a competitive UK fishing fleet, that can compete with the Japanese, the Koreans, the Canadians and the Norwegians?

    In which case we want policies that encourage the purchase of large vessels that can stay afloat for months at an end.

    Or is it to maintain the way of life of traditional fishermen?

    Without tariffs on foreign imports, British fishemen in small boats are not going to be competitive.

    Your skipper was in tears because it wasn't economic to be a fisherman. And it wasn't economic because his unit costs were 3x that of some of his competitors. He'd use more labour and more fuel to bring ashore a kilo of fish than peers.

    Selling quotas was the logical response to that.

    But if there hadn't been quotas to sell, he'd still have stopped fishing. Because what stopped him was the fact that he was earning massively less than minimum wage for a back breaking job.
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    The story in the article (which you claim is tantamount to blackmail) does not even mention fishing. Go to bed.
    Maybe you need to show at least some courtesy even when disagreeing but is this the way Lib Dems expect to win over support

    How many mps have you got in the HOC these days
  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    It’s not blackmail, it’s a threat

    Do the deal we tell you to now or we will duck you over in January
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480
    edited December 2020

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    So what?

    Shall we reopen all the mines so you guys can relive your childhoods too?

    Fishing as you remember it is the past and will remain in the past.
    No it is not by any stretch of the imagination and frankly your remarks are absurd

    This happened when we joined the EU and after and most certainly was not in our childhood
    When we joined the EU, our territorial waters were 3 miles offshore. Indeed we were illegally fishing in Icelandic waters, complaining because they had extended their waters to 50 miles. At that time Britain was a strong advocate of international freedom of the seas. We only extended our waters to 200 miles in 1982.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

    It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.
    It’s pathetic and sickening that the Mail should publish a headline about gunboats on the eve of a critical deal with the EU.
    I do not often agree with you upon this I do

    And this is after you rudely told me to 'go to bed'
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    It’s not blackmail, it’s a threat

    Do the deal we tell you to now or we will duck you over in January
    Well they're clearly wrong as "no deal" is going to be fab so what on earth is the problem? Why is anyone bothered?
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    I don't support No Deal and I think the UK is being reckless on a LPF position I now think is acceptable but my position changes on 1st January.

    If we're out without any Deal then there's no going back.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,200

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

    It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.
    Sums up Brexit in a nutshell . The UK has become a global laughing stock. From London 2012 to this all because of a Tory psycho drama over Europe .
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    The story in the article (which you claim is tantamount to blackmail) does not even mention fishing. Go to bed.
    Maybe you need to show at least some courtesy even when disagreeing but is this the way Lib Dems expect to win over support

    How many mps have you got in the HOC these days
    I have no idea.
    But I am content that I did not vote to humiliate and dismember the country, as you fear you might have done during your wibbly moments.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...
    The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

    It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.
    If you have someone breaking the law shouldn’t you use the police (or coastguard) to prevent that?

    The mail is being hyperbolic but what’s new
  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    There is a very big difference between coal and sustainable fish and fishing

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    edited December 2020
    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...
    The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's
    People who support the mines use the same rubbish argument. "bUt tHEy wERe PrOfITable"

    The fact is that Thatcher, despite her many faults, moved us on as a nation to bigger and better things than fishing and mining.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    edited December 2020
    Prince Andrew's sex slave alibi falls apart: Explosive dossier blows a hole in 'Pizza Express' excuse, and shows he had a manicure booked on day Virginia Roberts claims she slept with him... but investigation questions her story too

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9044879/Prince-Andrews-sex-slave-alibi-falls-apart-Explosive-dossier-blows-hole-Pizza-Express-excuse.html
  • Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:
    So the EU side are now actively pushing for no-deal in January, because they think the disruption will cause UK compromises. Good to know.
    Did you read the article?

    The EU is not “actively pushing” for a no-deal; they are preparing leverage for a post no-deal scenario.
    And, so are we.
  • Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    It’s not blackmail, it’s a threat

    Do the deal we tell you to now or we will duck you over in January
    Well they're clearly wrong as "no deal" is going to be fab so what on earth is the problem? Why is anyone bothered?
    To be honest you sound very bothered indeed
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    rcs1000 said:

    Let me ask you a question. What is the general policy goal here?

    To keep BoZo in Number 10 for 1 more day...
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    There is a very big difference between coal and sustainable fish and fishing

    Whatever helps you justify it. With all due respect it is hypocrisy and nothing more.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    So what?

    Shall we reopen all the mines so you guys can relive your childhoods too?

    Fishing as you remember it is the past and will remain in the past.
    No it is not by any stretch of the imagination and frankly your remarks are absurd

    This happened when we joined the EU and after and most certainly was not in our childhood
    You might want to recall why the evil EU and many other countries around the world imposed fishing quotas. It was called the "collapse of fish stocks". Basically, the fishing fleets of the world hoovered the seas clean of fish.
    In the 1970's when british had there own waters they were recovering and 10% of fish species were classed by scientists as over fished. By 2020 after years of the cfp 95% of fish species are over fished

    “The track record of fisheries managment in Europe has been disasterous. The number of fish stocks classified as seriously overfished rose from 10 per cent in 1970 to 50 per cent by 2000. With so much expertise, how did things go so badly wrong?” (p 346)

    source
    https://britishseafishing.co.uk/common-fisheries-policy-cfp/

  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    There is a very big difference between coal and sustainable fish and fishing

    Whatever helps you justify it. With all due respect it is hypocrisy and nothing more.
    I really have no idea how supporting a UK fishing industry is hypocrisy when coal is a fossil fuel
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

    It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.
    If you have someone breaking the law shouldn’t you use the police (or coastguard) to prevent that?

    The mail is being hyperbolic but what’s new
    Sure but many crimes go unpunished on a daily basis. Fishing "illegally" is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. It is especially not something to get your knickers in a twist over.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    There is a very big difference between coal and sustainable fish and fishing

    Yeah, one lot voted Labour, the others did not.
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    The story in the article (which you claim is tantamount to blackmail) does not even mention fishing. Go to bed.
    Maybe you need to show at least some courtesy even when disagreeing but is this the way Lib Dems expect to win over support

    How many mps have you got in the HOC these days
    I have no idea.
    But I am content that I did not vote to humiliate and dismember the country, as you fear you might have done during your wibbly moments.
    I voted remain and not for Boris
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    It’s not blackmail, it’s a threat

    Do the deal we tell you to now or we will duck you over in January
    All they have said is, whilst sovereignty over sea territory and the harvest underneath is disputed, we stay in talks, and we keep the status quo.

    The people pushing this blackmail line, the people who have created this crisis in our country and our economy, need to be taken off media and social media just like the anti vaxxers shouldn’t be given air time. Including this site, brexiteers should be suspended for pushing this narrative in the same way the anti vaxxers need to be because they are dangerous in their insanity. We have taken freedom of speech far too far in recent times, so that we are following voices from out the nature state, not civilisation.

    There is no sovereignty out there under the oceans on those fish stocks. It’s a fantasy between peoples ears. The science is absolutely black and white. We won’t have enough cod to feed the British appetite without a trade on catches with our neighbours.
    If you go strictly to sovereignty and not the science, Londoners will have to eat haddock.

    Brexit Britain has no choice but to trade. Simples.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...
    The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's
    People who support the mines use the same rubbish argument. "bUt tHEy wERe PrOfITable"

    The fact is that Thatcher, despite her many faults, moved us on as a nation to bigger and better things than fishing and mining.
    Flipping hamburgers and flipping houses?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...
    The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's
    People who support the mines use the same rubbish argument. "bUt tHEy wERe PrOfITable"

    The fact is that Thatcher, despite her many faults, moved us on as a nation to bigger and better things than fishing and mining.
    Flipping hamburgers and flipping houses?
    And noble professions they are too.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257

    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:
    So the EU side are now actively pushing for no-deal in January, because they think the disruption will cause UK compromises. Good to know.
    Did you read the article?

    The EU is not “actively pushing” for a no-deal; they are preparing leverage for a post no-deal scenario.
    And, so are we.
    Of course, the U.K. must protect its interests in the event of a No Deal.

    But talk of gunboats is juvenile and irresponsible. And Daniel K is a cretin’s cretin. You should know better than to endorse his entrails.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848
    gealbhan said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    It’s not blackmail, it’s a threat

    Do the deal we tell you to now or we will duck you over in January
    All they have said is, whilst sovereignty over sea territory and the harvest underneath is disputed, we stay in talks, and we keep the status quo.

    The people pushing this blackmail line, the people who have created this crisis in our country and our economy, need to be taken off media and social media just like the anti vaxxers shouldn’t be given air time. Including this site, brexiteers should be suspended for pushing this narrative in the same way the anti vaxxers need to be because they are dangerous in their insanity. We have taken freedom of speech far too far in recent times, so that we are following voices from out the nature state, not civilisation.

    There is no sovereignty out there under the oceans on those fish stocks. It’s a fantasy between peoples ears. The science is absolutely black and white. We won’t have enough cod to feed the British appetite without a trade on catches with our neighbours.
    If you go strictly to sovereignty and not the science, Londoners will have to eat haddock.

    Brexit Britain has no choice but to trade. Simples.
    Can we therefore remove people like you from all social media and this site as you are giving fake news
  • Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    So what?

    Shall we reopen all the mines so you guys can relive your childhoods too?

    Fishing as you remember it is the past and will remain in the past.
    No it is not by any stretch of the imagination and frankly your remarks are absurd

    This happened when we joined the EU and after and most certainly was not in our childhood
    You might want to recall why the evil EU and many other countries around the world imposed fishing quotas. It was called the "collapse of fish stocks". Basically, the fishing fleets of the world hoovered the seas clean of fish.
    In the 1970's when british had there own waters they were recovering and 10% of fish species were classed by scientists as over fished. By 2020 after years of the cfp 95% of fish species are over fished

    “The track record of fisheries managment in Europe has been disasterous. The number of fish stocks classified as seriously overfished rose from 10 per cent in 1970 to 50 per cent by 2000. With so much expertise, how did things go so badly wrong?” (p 346)

    source
    https://britishseafishing.co.uk/common-fisheries-policy-cfp/

    So, if we had loads of fish, why did we indulge in popping up to Iceland to steal their fish?

    https://britishseafishing.co.uk/the-cod-wars/
  • Pagan2 said:

    A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

    That's a really stupid graphic. The two immediate idiocies that spring to mind are:

    We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there is no reason for them to be affected by the type of Brexit we have. Indeed the vast majority of avocados are imported from Israel and we already have a trade deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.

    Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.
    Two immediate idiocies in what you have posted. We almost certainly import bananas and avocados from Belgium rather than from Israel or Ivory Coast. The EU is a vast market, so bulk imports come into a port for warehousing and then onward distribution to the final market like the UK. The Daily Mail puts these on their list because they are EU imports.

    Yes we can set up direct import routes for Bananas and Avocados and Oranges and everything else that we import via the EU but it will be low volume high cost additions to the current business model and that will bang the unit price up.

    As for fish, the point the Mail is making is that according to our government there is going to be major disruption to our ports. And quite frankly they're trying to educate the wazzocks who think that saving British Fishing liberates Fish and Chips.

    'Yes that is a chippy. Yes those are fishing boats. No they haven't caught the cod the chippy across the road is preparing for you because Cod don't swing in these waters you dumb bastards.'
    There may be some modest price rises because bananas and avocados now have to go direct to Felixstowe in a different boat rather than to Rotterdam and then Felixstowe in the same boat but there will be no problems with supply as we have free trade deals with all the source countries.

    My view is the market will find the most efficient route to keep costs down to a minimum.

    Honestly it's a silly thing to hang your hat on. If you're going to take umbrage at No Deal then focus on the EU perishable food products that are really effected.
    Is there anything we can't source from elsewhere except tulips ?
    What this boils down to is a few months disruption whilst the new supply lines bed in and establish and we adjust to the new systems, general price rises of 2-5% and a mixture of medium-high tarrifs on exclusive EU products, which will mean people will generally buy much less of them and start buying them elsewhere - unless speciality.

    Far from ideal but not the end of the world either.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    Pagan2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?
    A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

    If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.
    You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?
    The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems
    Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.
    If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.
    And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members
    Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage
    It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities
    I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

    Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!
    There is a very big difference between coal and sustainable fish and fishing

    Whatever helps you justify it. With all due respect it is hypocrisy and nothing more.
    I really have no idea how supporting a UK fishing industry is hypocrisy when coal is a fossil fuel
    Because you're crying about how the CFP "devastated" fishing communities whilst presumably supporting the devastation of mining communities.

    And your only justification is "but fossil fuels"?

    I have sympathy for former fishing ports and towns especially because my family is literally from one but realistically it's the past. We now do high tech manufacturing and provide services. Fishing is the past at least how you remember it. Likewise mining.
  • Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    Many will
    Not many read the FT.
    I thought also you had your own mind.
    I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

    However, if it is no deal I cannot understand why so many think it is OK for the illegal operation of fishing boats in UK waters or indeed Norwegian and Iceland
    Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

    It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.
    It’s pathetic and sickening that the Mail should publish a headline about gunboats on the eve of a critical deal with the EU.
    Were you saying the same thing yesterday when the EU threatened to ground all our planes unless we gave them unilateral access to our fishing waters in the event of No Deal?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    I wonder what the ROI of the FPS is going to be. They can come alongside interlopers and give them orders to move away or prepare to be boarded but if they don't' comply? Then what? Johnson does not have the fortitude to sink one.
  • Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:
    So the EU side are now actively pushing for no-deal in January, because they think the disruption will cause UK compromises. Good to know.
    Did you read the article?

    The EU is not “actively pushing” for a no-deal; they are preparing leverage for a post no-deal scenario.
    And, so are we.
    Of course, the U.K. must protect its interests in the event of a No Deal.

    But talk of gunboats is juvenile and irresponsible. And Daniel K is a cretin’s cretin. You should know better than to endorse his entrails.
    To be honest the editors are idiots for their front pages
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895

    What this boils down to is a few months disruption whilst the new supply lines bed in and establish and we adjust to the new systems, general price rises of 2-5% and a mixture of medium-high tarrifs on exclusive EU products, which will mean people will generally buy much less of them and start buying them elsewhere - unless speciality.

    Far from ideal but not the end of the world either.

    People called 999 when KFC ran short.

    There will be riots
  • Pagan2 said:

    gealbhan said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_xP said:
    If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be
    Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.
    It’s not blackmail, it’s a threat

    Do the deal we tell you to now or we will duck you over in January
    All they have said is, whilst sovereignty over sea territory and the harvest underneath is disputed, we stay in talks, and we keep the status quo.

    The people pushing this blackmail line, the people who have created this crisis in our country and our economy, need to be taken off media and social media just like the anti vaxxers shouldn’t be given air time. Including this site, brexiteers should be suspended for pushing this narrative in the same way the anti vaxxers need to be because they are dangerous in their insanity. We have taken freedom of speech far too far in recent times, so that we are following voices from out the nature state, not civilisation.

    There is no sovereignty out there under the oceans on those fish stocks. It’s a fantasy between peoples ears. The science is absolutely black and white. We won’t have enough cod to feed the British appetite without a trade on catches with our neighbours.
    If you go strictly to sovereignty and not the science, Londoners will have to eat haddock.

    Brexit Britain has no choice but to trade. Simples.
    Can we therefore remove people like you from all social media and this site as you are giving fake news
    Touché
  • I'm always amused to hear people being outraged at the idea illegal fishing would be stopped.

    What next - being outraged that bank robbers might be stopped?

    Thieves should be tackled. Fishermen should be used to tackle.
This discussion has been closed.