Thanks to StJohn for the crossword. I've not managed a complete one yet, although close, but tomorrow I think I have a real chance, given I have no other plans.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
No inherent right is correct. Do you think the EU will substantially lose access to UK waters after 5.5 years? They don't have any inherent right to it, now, but they kept 75% of what they had before ...
They kept 75% while using that as a bargaining chip in negotiations for an FTA. Going forwards that will no longer apply anymore, that chip is gone.
Furthermore its also worth remembering that the UK gets some fish out of EU waters and I believe that is continuing. If the EU were to get roughly the same as the UK out of each others reciprocal waters there'd be no need for either side to want to reduce it anymore.
The UK clearly won overall on fish once the transition is over. It also kept out of dynamic alignment and even a ratchet clause. State aid being distortionary will be decided by a UK domestic body. That is every point of contention decided in the UK's favour. Plus the rules of origin decisions allow the UK to keep its EU supply chains. David Frost has played a blinder.
another brain dead moron pops up
You should be celebrating Malcolm.
Shows that the smaller party that is prepared to walk away can get what it needs regardless of what the larger party says . . . can you think of a time that might be relevant in the near future? 🤔
Merry Christmas to you Philip, I am indeed celebrating and looking forward to 2021 and a better year. However I do think the celebrations are a bit premature and some of the jingoistic crap from people who obviously do not understand what they are talking about is a bit off. I remain optimistic we will be out of it soon but am cynical of politicians of all creeds, there can be no more self serving lying toerags on the planet than politicians. Boris is a giant among them.
Sparing a thought for truckers this Christmas, stuck in Kent in the freezing cold and inadequate sanitation and still days away from seeing their families.
I hope all PBers are having as merry a Christmas as one can in these strange times.
Peace and goodwill to all. (Normal hostilities can resume tomorrow..)
Edit: Although I see they've resumed already!
Sorry about that. Best wishes to yourself and everyone else on here, Keep safe and happy.
Also spare a thought for truckers this Christmas, stuck in Kent in the freezing cold and inadequate sanitation and still days away from seeing their families. Most of us are lucky
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
I assume you can back up that claim, given you immediately went to calling me a halfwit?
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
Now you make yourself look even dumber, they negotiate after the 5.5 years when they still have most of their current quota and if EU unhappy they can apply tariffs, what bit of that is not clear to you.
No, it's not linked in any way to the tariffs, it's just a standard negotiation for fishing rights as done by any other state. If you can show any report suggesting otherwise, please go ahead.
Sparing a thought for truckers this Christmas, stuck in Kent in the freezing cold and inadequate sanitation and still days away from seeing their families.
I hope all PBers are having as merry a Christmas as one can in these strange times.
Peace and goodwill to all. (Normal hostilities can resume tomorrow..)
Edit: Although I see they've resumed already!
Sorry about that. Best wishes to yourself and everyone else on here, Keep safe and happy.
Also spare a thought for truckers this Christmas, stuck in Kent in the freezing cold and inadequate sanitation and still days away from seeing their families. Most of us are lucky
For sure , hard to imagine Christmas stuck on M20 with next to nothing. An absolute scandal.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
I assume you can back up that claim, given you immediately went to calling me a halfwit?
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
Now you make yourself look even dumber, they negotiate after the 5.5 years when they still have most of their current quota and if EU unhappy they can apply tariffs, what bit of that is not clear to you.
No, it's not linked in any way to the tariffs, it's just a standard negotiation for fishing rights as done by any other state. If you can show any report suggesting otherwise, please go ahead.
Can you show me where it states anything different. Show me the paragraph that says they can just walk away with all UK fish in 5.5 years where EU have no option to apply tariffs.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
I assume you can back up that claim, given you immediately went to calling me a halfwit?
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
Now you make yourself look even dumber, they negotiate after the 5.5 years when they still have most of their current quota and if EU unhappy they can apply tariffs, what bit of that is not clear to you.
No, it's not linked in any way to the tariffs, it's just a standard negotiation for fishing rights as done by any other state. If you can show any report suggesting otherwise, please go ahead.
Can you show me where it states anything different. Show me the paragraph that says they can just walk away with all UK fish in 5.5 years where EU have no option to apply tariffs.
The HMG summary states that the 5.5 year transition period can be cancelled at any time with notice, but there will be option for tariffs/compensation. After this period is over, the UK and EU will negotiate as any other costal state negotiates.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
I assume you can back up that claim, given you immediately went to calling me a halfwit?
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
Now you make yourself look even dumber, they negotiate after the 5.5 years when they still have most of their current quota and if EU unhappy they can apply tariffs, what bit of that is not clear to you.
No, it's not linked in any way to the tariffs, it's just a standard negotiation for fishing rights as done by any other state. If you can show any report suggesting otherwise, please go ahead.
Can you show me where it states anything different. Show me the paragraph that says they can just walk away with all UK fish in 5.5 years where EU have no option to apply tariffs.
The HMG summary states that the 5.5 year transition period can be cancelled at any time with notice, but there will be option for tariffs/compensation. After this period is over, the UK and EU will negotiate as any other costal state negotiates.
I will believe it when I see the words in black and white , HMG are a bunch of liars and ne'er do wells.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
I assume you can back up that claim, given you immediately went to calling me a halfwit?
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
Now you make yourself look even dumber, they negotiate after the 5.5 years when they still have most of their current quota and if EU unhappy they can apply tariffs, what bit of that is not clear to you.
No, it's not linked in any way to the tariffs, it's just a standard negotiation for fishing rights as done by any other state. If you can show any report suggesting otherwise, please go ahead.
Can you show me where it states anything different. Show me the paragraph that says they can just walk away with all UK fish in 5.5 years where EU have no option to apply tariffs.
The HMG summary states that the 5.5 year transition period can be cancelled at any time with notice, but there will be option for tariffs/compensation. After this period is over, the UK and EU will negotiate as any other costal state negotiates.
I will believe it when I see the words in black and white , HMG are a bunch of liars and ne'er do wells.
I honestly don't see what the point engaging you is if that's your only bit of evidence to back up your claim. At least I had a source to back up my position.
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
I assume you can back up that claim, given you immediately went to calling me a halfwit?
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
Now you make yourself look even dumber, they negotiate after the 5.5 years when they still have most of their current quota and if EU unhappy they can apply tariffs, what bit of that is not clear to you.
No, it's not linked in any way to the tariffs, it's just a standard negotiation for fishing rights as done by any other state. If you can show any report suggesting otherwise, please go ahead.
Can you show me where it states anything different. Show me the paragraph that says they can just walk away with all UK fish in 5.5 years where EU have no option to apply tariffs.
The HMG summary states that the 5.5 year transition period can be cancelled at any time with notice, but there will be option for tariffs/compensation. After this period is over, the UK and EU will negotiate as any other costal state negotiates.
I will believe it when I see the words in black and white , HMG are a bunch of liars and ne'er do wells.
Ah, so you're their coloured crayons correspondent!
As an arts graduate, I'd say someone seriously needs top help you add up because you obviously can't add up.
25% of 50 is 12.5. 50 minus 12.5 is 37.5. Or about a third of 100.
So what's your problem?
Probably doing science. I've never met a scientist with the foggiest idea how numbers - or simplification - work
Probably because I did Greats. You probably don't know what that is, because you're a scientist. But a larger proportion of British Prime Minsters did Greats than any other subject
That's why Britain has just about the highest incidence pr capita of Nobel prizes in the world
Engineering. We have to make the things discovered practical.
Interesting - should the "25%" be applied to the share of the current catch or the total current catch? I've been seeing both interpretations throughout the fishing conversations, which has made it very difficult to track.
I read it the other way to you in the piece.
On the other, I would see the lack of variety in PMs' degree subjects and alma maters as a real problem over time.
The other interpretation is incorrect, but much repeated, including here, and also by our lying government. Perhaps surprisingly the EU encouraged people to think their claim was bigger than it was by referring to a percentage of their current allocation rather than the total, which would be smaller. I guess they don't care about what people in the UK, and now outside the EU, think.
Details in this thread. Note the "about one third/about one half" refers to fish landings by weight, not value. The rEU fish larger proportions of cheaper species out of UK waters.
The entire discussion about what fraction they will give back is quite ridiculous. At the end of the 5.5 years they will have no inherent right to any fish in British waters. Who really cares if that takes a few years to achieve?
you halfwit , if uk change it after 5 years they can apply tariffs, stupidity abounds.
I assume you can back up that claim, given you immediately went to calling me a halfwit?
In reality, those tariff punishments are not connected at all to fishing. The entire fishing quota is negotiated annually after the five and a half years.
Now you make yourself look even dumber, they negotiate after the 5.5 years when they still have most of their current quota and if EU unhappy they can apply tariffs, what bit of that is not clear to you.
No, it's not linked in any way to the tariffs, it's just a standard negotiation for fishing rights as done by any other state. If you can show any report suggesting otherwise, please go ahead.
Can you show me where it states anything different. Show me the paragraph that says they can just walk away with all UK fish in 5.5 years where EU have no option to apply tariffs.
The HMG summary states that the 5.5 year transition period can be cancelled at any time with notice, but there will be option for tariffs/compensation. After this period is over, the UK and EU will negotiate as any other costal state negotiates.
I will believe it when I see the words in black and white , HMG are a bunch of liars and ne'er do wells.
Ah, so you're their coloured crayons correspondent!
At what point will it be polite for someone to say "I told you so"? Asking for a friend.
You do need to have actually told someone the thing you are going to say you told them. What was all that blether about how You Personally Were Not Afraid of the egg-breaking entailed in making the no deal omelette, if you knew all along it wouln't happen?
But thanks for asking the question on behalf of @kinabalu.
I will believe it when I see the words in black and white , HMG are a bunch of liars and ne'er do wells.
Ah, so you're their coloured crayons correspondent!
The state of Scottish Education....
I have no view on that. I almost regret making the joke. A sort of Xmas cracker type joke.
You can solve the secrets to the universe using crayons.
I still find the smell of crayons and playdoh amazingly evocative.
Happy Xmas Carlotta, and happy xmas Malcolm.
The US Marine Corps is *that* way and 3 doors down the hall...
I do find that the USMC dress blues are fundamentally unserious. We go to Brookwood for Armistice Day, and one year a US carrier (possibly the Roosevelt?) sent a contingent to complement the British troops there. They looked like they are wearing PJ bottoms...
Comments
Thanks to StJohn for the crossword. I've not managed a complete one yet, although close, but tomorrow I think I have a real chance, given I have no other plans.
Congratulations to Mike for another year of PB.
I remain optimistic we will be out of it soon but am cynical of politicians of all creeds, there can be no more self serving lying toerags on the planet than politicians. Boris is a giant among them.
Also spare a thought for truckers this Christmas, stuck in Kent in the freezing cold and inadequate sanitation and still days away from seeing their families. Most of us are lucky
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1342522990471356417?s=20
At what point will it be polite for someone to say "I told you so"? Asking for a friend.
Fish is likely to be quite black and white.
Can't we talk about pickled herring? Currently preparing my Christmas Dinner* starter.
(* YES, dinner IS in the evening)
https://twitter.com/NunesAlt/status/1342370589407776769?s=20
Enjoy your tea!
https://twitter.com/tom_winter/status/1342532887871188993?s=21
https://twitter.com/TurkishAirlines/status/1342535209397452801?s=20
You can solve the secrets to the universe using crayons.
I still find the smell of crayons and playdoh amazingly evocative.
Happy Xmas Carlotta, and happy xmas Malcolm.
But thanks for asking the question on behalf of @kinabalu.
This thread has been solved!
New thread.