politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guest slot: The impact of leaving the EU on London’s techno
Comments
-
No idea. If the market is moving that much I can only assume it is something significant.rcs1000 said:
Telephone?Casino_Royale said:I presume this is the poll:
Justin
16m
Justin @Donnie_Eagle
@MSmithsonPB ICM just confirmed new poll today at 12.30pm.
0 -
Gordon Brown on R4 this morning is worth a listenPulpstar said:Remain have spent an awful lot of time talking 'at' people rather than 'to' people.
from about 2hrs 20m in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ffb1x#play
He goes ballistic when Mrs Duffy dropped into the conversation.0 -
Let's look at the facts shall we?Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I never ceased to be amazed just how divorced from reality some of the Remainders are on here.Cicero said:
Cameron got virtually all he asked for. He was not laughed at- it was taken very seriously. The fact was that the negotiations were extremely tough. The idea that the UK was derided is a product of paranoia. Mostly the UK goes with the majority in the EU- up to 80% of the time, which is a higher percentage than most other states. Do you expect that it should be 100% of the time, and that no other national interests should be respected expect those of the UK?Philip_Thompson said:
If the rest of the EU wanted us in then they should have given Cameron a much better "deal" than the incredibly weak one we were given.Cicero said:Well of course we did!!!!
As soon as it become clear that there was a real risk, all of the European Chambers spoke out- just because we were dismissed as just a another bunch or irrelevant "experts" does not make our warnings any the less. COBCOE and other umbrella organisations have spoken out in the strongest possible terms. We have no doubt: even the threat of Brexit is causing damage. A Brexit reality would be drastically more difficult for British business and British interests across Europe and around the world. All neutral research points out the economic damage - and frankly the majority of British business is furious that our clear concerns have been been dismissed out of hand by post truth politicians.
Dismiss these clear warnings as "project fear" all you like- but be in no doubt there will be a very large price to pay for a withdrawal from the EU. It really is even a risk to the system of collective security- as your previous threat to link NATO to EU negotiations makes crystal clear. The damage is being done today, now. Even after a Remain vote it will take some time to restore the image of Brand UK, and a Brexit will cost years and billions of Pounds before any recovery would come.
You can't complain about someone walking away if they say to you "we need something different" and you effectively laugh in their face and dismiss them.
Cameron asked for almost nothing and got less.
And the EU loses more votes in Council than any other country in the EU. So your claim that we are in the majority more often than most other states is simply wrong.
The British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
Wrong? Yes, I am: the UK wins 95% of the time, not 80%.0 -
So far in the last 18 months the UK oil industry has lost 120,000 jobs, more than two thirds of them people who live in Scotland. I find it hard to believe there is much of a shortage of labour up there at the moment.FrankBooth said:
Sounds a bit like Juncker's quota system! It does seem rather odd that part of the UK would currently have a shortage of immigrants.Richard_Tyndall said:
Even though it is Gove proposing this I honestly think it has to be a load of bollocks. In basic practical terms how could you have one part of a country with no internal borders with unrestricted immigration whilst the rest of the country had restrictions in place? It simply wouldn't work. Northern Ireland is different because of the ability to control movement between the province and the mainland but Scotland and England have a long land border.Theuniondivvie said:Sort of on topic.
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/742258507974643712
Should I consider this:
a) a realistic offer from Brexiteers on what Scotland's powers over sovereignty, self determination and 'taking back control' would be in a post-Brexit UK.
b) a load of old bollocks from someone desperate to maximise a Leave vote and reduce any vote differential between rUK and Scotland.
Since it's not a photo shopped vow on the front page of a tabloid, I fear I may have to plump for b).
As long as there is no border control between Scotland and England this is just Gove playing fast and lose.0 -
Is it normal to bail out weeks before a vote? Jim Messina is leaving BSE to go work in Spain.
http://order-order.com/2016/06/13/spanish-flee-remains-messina-off-to-madrid0 -
Deutsch Telekom now owns 12% of BT.TCPoliticalBetting said:
So BT think it is a smart move for their brand to associate with REMAIN? The next time a customer (who is LEAVE such as I), has to choose their tv/broadband/mobile/telephone/etc supplier, some will remember and look harder for an alternative. After all it is widely known that LEAVErs are more passionate about the issue than REMAINers.PlatoSaid said:BT tells 80k staff to vote Remain.
On a side note I have to say that BT is really only successful/survives in the UK. A quick look at their 2015 Report has the misnamed "Global Services" division really getting less than 60% of its revenues from outside the UK. GS represents under 20% of EBITDA - so take out the 40% UK part and it non-UK earnings are probably under 10% of all EBITDA of BT.... Why?
What Mr Rake and the other folk running BT should be focused on is improving their global performance and breaking out of their UK monopolies. Heck they have the EU - what is holding them back? Time they acted before Openreach goes.0 -
Despite Gove being highly rated on this forum he has turned out to be perhaps the most dishonest operator of all the main figures in either campaign.Theuniondivvie said:Sort of on topic.
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/742258507974643712
Should I consider this:
a) a realistic offer from Brexiteers on what Scotland's powers over sovereignty, self determination and 'taking back control' would be in a post-Brexit UK.
b) a load of old bollocks from someone desperate to maximise a Leave vote and reduce any vote differential between rUK and Scotland.
Since it's not a photo shopped vow on the front page of a tabloid, I fear I may have to plump for b).0 -
Thanks, that's what I pretty much thought.Richard_Tyndall said:
Even though it is Gove proposing this I honestly think it has to be a load of bollocks. In basic practical terms how could you have one part of a country with no internal borders with unrestricted immigration whilst the rest of the country had restrictions in place? It simply wouldn't work. Northern Ireland is different because of the ability to control movement between the province and the mainland but Scotland and England have a long land border.Theuniondivvie said:Sort of on topic.
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/742258507974643712
Should I consider this:
a) a realistic offer from Brexiteers on what Scotland's powers over sovereignty, self determination and 'taking back control' would be in a post-Brexit UK.
b) a load of old bollocks from someone desperate to maximise a Leave vote and reduce any vote differential between rUK and Scotland.
Since it's not a photo shopped vow on the front page of a tabloid, I fear I may have to plump for b).
As long as there is no border control between Scotland and England this is just Gove playing fast and lose.
At the very most I guess Scotland might be given some sort of oversight of special cases like the recent Brain family stushie.0 -
The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.0
-
I was basing it on value of catch. Using the EU figures ironically :-)MattW said:
Depends how you count it.Richard_Tyndall said:OldKingCole said:
It accounts for about 12 - 15% of their total catch.Richard_Tyndall said:
I’m grateful for the information, which, from a fairly uneducated viewpooint co-incides with what I ‘felt” ..... fish stocks were in trouble before, but the CFP didn’t help as much as it could have. However, as regards bottom feeders, IIRC Icelandic fishermen don’t normally fish for them, do they? Thought the seabed was unsuitable.FeersumEnjineeya said:
Which would be why the two countries outside of the CFP have been able to maintain and restore fishing stocks whilst those inside have not or have done it far more slowly?Richard_Tyndall said:
That's not what the experts say, but then, being experts, what would they know?OldKingCole said:bluenoserog said:
What an arrogant comment! Try saying in an Aberdeen pub on a Saturday night.Bromptonaut said:
Yes indeed. As I would have were I a farrier around the time Henry Ford was in his pomp.MattW said:
You would have seen it had you been, for example, a fisherman.Bromptonaut said:
Yes. Our firm, started circa 10 years ago by me and a laptop, now employs circa 50 people in 5 offices, including a number of very talented people from other EU countries.dugarbandier said:
just out of interest, is there any actual evidence that the "start-up" model is actually a sensible way to do things? granted, it probably stimulates local pizza and coffee outlets. But anything else?SouthamObserver said:
How many tech-based start ups with one idea and seeking early stage funding have you worked for?
Being in the EU has helped us. I don't see any of this 'red tape from Brussels' that the mouthfoamers keep blathering about.
The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries
Conclusion:
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
15-40% by weight; 20-65% by numbers.
Of course the fish they can't keep are the small ones and the endangered species, which are supposed to be next year's catch...
Here is one (old but makes the point) analysis where my numbers came from:
https://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/files/discards.pdf
Edit. I think we are taking at cross purposes. You are talking about discard and I was answering OldKingCole's question about how much of Iceland's fishing is bottom feeding species.0 -
Many years ago I was the head of computer systems for a top 10 FTSE company.
Very few of the programmers were graduates.
Whilst you need people who work logically and systematically, it is a fairly routine job.
Interestingly, when I graduated one of the few companies not to offer me a job was ICL (International Computers Ltd) who did not like my answers to the programming aptitude test as I was too imaginative with alternatives to the set answers.
A class mate at Grammar school who also went to Nottingham University like me became ICLs managing director at age 33, but not via the programmer route.0 -
In my experience a lot of them are workaholics! Not like us lot here. Though it has felt like I've become a workaholic in the last few weeks.rcs1000 said:
While I don't speak for TF, I suspect you'd find the job satisfaction of most of those people is pretty high. They all enjoy their jobs too much to spend time on pb.John_N4 said:That's a nice piece of writing, Tech Founder. Here's a summary:
* you want Britain to remain in the EU so that hi-tech startups employing cheap foreign labour (most of which fail, and are aiming to get taken over by Google etc.) can hire computer programmers from the continent who are too lazy to apply for visas or to bring a letter from their employer that will get them a long-term visa stamp in their passport at Dover - or maybe their employer won't write them a letter because he's too busy.
And therefore the rest of us should say okay to a level of immigration running in the hundreds of thousands for the next few decades?
Learn to write letters for your employees, or go to the Valley, mate.
"young, hungry, raw talent, fresh off the Megabus from Krakow."
You mean impoverished and desperate and naive enough to believe that working for six months in Dalston on shit wages may lead them to be the next Steve Jobs.
0 -
The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.0
-
Seems sensible to me. I understand that Leave are proposing an overall cap on migrant numbers plus a points-based system to allocate visas. As such, you could hypothecate c.10% of the total to Scotland and allow Holyrood to decide what criteria they want to encourage. And, of course, the important point was that agriculture and fisheries policy would be devolved.Richard_Tyndall said:Even though it is Gove proposing this I honestly think it has to be a load of bollocks.
0 -
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.Casino_Royale said:The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
0 -
No doubt big state ads will be allowed, but those advertising a smaller, slimmed down model will be vetoed
"Adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.
Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.
It means controversial adverts like Protein World’s “Are you beach body ready?” poster, which provoked a huge backlash when it appeared last year, would no longer be allowed."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-there-will-be-no-more-body-shaming-adverts-on-the-tube-a3269951.html0 -
Boom! And we are now into the lets boycott business's that hold an opposing view in the Referendum. I have lost count of the amount of business's the Cybernats wanted boycotted.TCPoliticalBetting said:
So BT think it is a smart move for their brand to associate with REMAIN? The next time a customer (who is LEAVE such as I), has to choose their tv/broadband/mobile/telephone/etc supplier, some will remember and look harder for an alternative. After all it is widely known that LEAVErs are more passionate about the issue than REMAINers.PlatoSaid said:BT tells 80k staff to vote Remain.
On a side note I have to say that BT is really only successful/survives in the UK. A quick look at their 2015 Report has the misnamed "Global Services" division really getting less than 60% of its revenues from outside the UK. GS represents under 20% of EBITDA - so take out the 40% UK part and it non-UK earnings are probably under 10% of all EBITDA of BT.... Why?
What Mr Rake and the other folk running BT should be focused on is improving their global performance and breaking out of their UK monopolies. Heck they have the EU - what is holding them back? Time they acted before Openreach goes.0 -
Yes, I think that is true whether we leave or stay. I expect there to be a new directive soon that will make referendums extremely hard to hold, not illegal, but very difficult, maybe suspension of single market membership while the referendum campaign is carried out or something like that.Casino_Royale said:The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
0 -
Hell hath no fury like Gillian Duffy.TGOHF said:
Gordon Brown on R4 this morning is worth a listenPulpstar said:Remain have spent an awful lot of time talking 'at' people rather than 'to' people.
from about 2hrs 20m in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ffb1x#play
He goes ballistic when Mrs Duffy dropped into the conversation.0 -
I can't get on to Betfair. Can someone explain what has happened today?0
-
Ah. Typical Remainder response. When you have been proved wrong change the terms of the discussion in the hope no one will go back and check.Cicero said:
Let's look at the facts shall we?Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I never ceased to be amazed just how divorced from reality some of the Remainders are on here.Cicero said:
Cameron got virtually all he asked for. He was not laughed at- it was taken very seriously. The fact was that the negotiations were extremely tough. The idea that the UK was derided is a product of paranoia. Mostly the UK goes with the majority in the EU- up to 80% of the time, which is a higher percentage than most other states. Do you expect that it should be 100% of the time, and that no other national interests should be respected expect those of the UK?Philip_Thompson said:
If the rest of the EU wanted us in then they should have given Cameron a much better "deal" than the incredibly weak one we were given.Cicero said:Well of course we did!!!!
As soon as it become clear that there was a real risk, all of the European Chambers spoke out- just because we were dismissed as just a another bunch or irrelevant "experts" does not make our warnings any the less. COBCOE and other umbrella organisations have spoken out in the strongest possible terms. We have no doubt: even the threat of Brexit is causing damage. A Brexit reality would be drastically more difficult for British business and British interests across Europe and around the world. All neutral research points out the economic damage - and frankly the majority of British business is furious that our clear concerns have been been dismissed out of hand by post truth politicians.
Dismiss these clear warnings as "project fear" all you like- but be in no doubt there will be a very large price to pay for a withdrawal from the EU. It really is even a risk to the system of collective security- as your previous threat to link NATO to EU negotiations makes crystal clear. The damage is being done today, now. Even after a Remain vote it will take some time to restore the image of Brand UK, and a Brexit will cost years and billions of Pounds before any recovery would come.
You can't complain about someone walking away if they say to you "we need something different" and you effectively laugh in their face and dismiss them.
Cameron asked for almost nothing and got less.
And the UK loses more votes in Council than any other country in the EU. So your claim that we are in the majority more often than most other states is simply wrong.
The British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
Wrong? Yes, I am: the UK wins 95% of the time, not 80%.
I made no comment on how often the UK wins or loses overall. I said you were wrong to claim they win more often than the rest of the EU countries. According to Hix's own figures the UK has lost more often in Council votes than any other country in the EU.0 -
Need to see the details to be convinced but, it it stacks up, it's a clever move by Gove, IMHO.Chelyabinsk said:
Seems sensible to me. I understand that Leave are proposing an overall cap on migrant numbers plus a points-based system to allocate visas. As such, you could hypothecate c.10% of the total to Scotland and allow Holyrood to decide what criteria they want to encourage. And, of course, the important point was that agriculture and fisheries policy would be devolved.Richard_Tyndall said:Even though it is Gove proposing this I honestly think it has to be a load of bollocks.
0 -
Perhaps I should qualify this. Politicians in my experience have two parts of the brain. What they argue for is in one place and the reality they need to deliver is in another lobe. The neurons somehow keep the parts of the brain sane. Gove is special in not having a reality lobe to interact with his highly developed rhetoric lobe.FF43 said:
Despite Gove being highly rated on this forum he has turned out to be perhaps the most dishonest operator of all the main figures in either campaign.Theuniondivvie said:Sort of on topic.
https://twitter.com/mark_mclaughlin/status/742258507974643712
Should I consider this:
a) a realistic offer from Brexiteers on what Scotland's powers over sovereignty, self determination and 'taking back control' would be in a post-Brexit UK.
b) a load of old bollocks from someone desperate to maximise a Leave vote and reduce any vote differential between rUK and Scotland.
Since it's not a photo shopped vow on the front page of a tabloid, I fear I may have to plump for b).0 -
0_oMontyHall said:No doubt big state ads will be allowed, but those advertising a smaller, slimmed down model will be vetoed
"Adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.
Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.
It means controversial adverts like Protein World’s “Are you beach body ready?” poster, which provoked a huge backlash when it appeared last year, would no longer be allowed."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-there-will-be-no-more-body-shaming-adverts-on-the-tube-a3269951.html
That'll kill all the cosmetic surgery ads too I suppose. I really don't like this sort of thought-police stuff.0 -
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.FrankBooth said:The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
What about everyone else?
0 -
Remainers seem to be starting to lose it across the board.TGOHF said:
Gordon Brown on R4 this morning is worth a listenPulpstar said:Remain have spent an awful lot of time talking 'at' people rather than 'to' people.
from about 2hrs 20m in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ffb1x#play
He goes ballistic when Mrs Duffy dropped into the conversation.0 -
It's boing-boing on the betting markets.
Leave now back up to 3.0 -
Another reason to Leave.MaxPB said:
Yes, I think that is true whether we leave or stay. I expect there to be a new directive soon that will make referendums extremely hard to hold, not illegal, but very difficult, maybe suspension of single market membership while the referendum campaign is carried out or something like that.Casino_Royale said:The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
0 -
The range of skills required in technology roles is huge. Software development goes from people creating a yet another forms application for a corporate db to incredibly esoteric areas where it's as much about creating the technology as you go, rather than simply using it.David_Evershed said:Many years ago I was the head of computer systems for a top 10 FTSE company.
Very few of the programmers were graduates.
Whilst you need people who work logically and systematically, it is a fairly routine job.
Interestingly, when I graduated one of the few companies not to offer me a job was ICL (International Computers Ltd) who did not like my answers to the programming aptitude test as I was too imaginative with alternatives to the set answers.
A class mate at Grammar school who also went to Nottingham University like me became ICLs managing director at age 33, but not via the programmer route.
Saying 'I'm a software developer' tells you nothing about how skilled or valuable they are. The very best software developers are rock stars and earn a fortune. At the lower end, many developers have been, and will continue to be, replaced by code generation systems.0 -
0
-
This is stupid (I mean the original post). I would expect most large businesses to prefer us to Remain. This is entirely unsurprising - much has been written about how big business likes supranational entities. There's no point in getting upset about it, and a boycott is ludicrous (though I appreciate that each of us has the right to do whatever the hell they like).fitalass said:
Boom! And we are now into the lets boycott business's that hold an opposing view in the Referendum. I have lost count of the amount of business's the Cybernats wanted boycotted.TCPoliticalBetting said:
So BT think it is a smart move for their brand to associate with REMAIN? The next time a customer (who is LEAVE such as I), has to choose their tv/broadband/mobile/telephone/etc supplier, some will remember and look harder for an alternative. After all it is widely known that LEAVErs are more passionate about the issue than REMAINers.PlatoSaid said:BT tells 80k staff to vote Remain.
On a side note I have to say that BT is really only successful/survives in the UK. A quick look at their 2015 Report has the misnamed "Global Services" division really getting less than 60% of its revenues from outside the UK. GS represents under 20% of EBITDA - so take out the 40% UK part and it non-UK earnings are probably under 10% of all EBITDA of BT.... Why?
What Mr Rake and the other folk running BT should be focused on is improving their global performance and breaking out of their UK monopolies. Heck they have the EU - what is holding them back? Time they acted before Openreach goes.0 -
His classic clunking fist - he's gabbling through his points too. Don't think I've ever heard him speak so fast - its almost without taking breath.Casino_Royale said:
Remainers seem to be starting to lose it across the board.TGOHF said:
Gordon Brown on R4 this morning is worth a listenPulpstar said:Remain have spent an awful lot of time talking 'at' people rather than 'to' people.
from about 2hrs 20m in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ffb1x#play
He goes ballistic when Mrs Duffy dropped into the conversation.0 -
EU referendum: Holyrood 'could control immigration' after Brexit.
Utter rubbish from Gove. Later he says "Ultimately, the numbers who would come in the future would be decided by the Westminster parliament and the Holyrood parliament working together."
It's all smoke up your arse.
Note that the SNP wants more immigration to Scotland, not less. Lots of cheap labour for employers willing to donate to their party, and lots of lovely rural grants.
I wouldn't be surprised if Leave does even better in Scotland than in England and Wales.0 -
Makes me proud to be British.PlatoSaid said:
If Leave wins or loses - we've shown how truculent we are.Casino_Royale said:The sad thing about this vote is that the most likely reaction of the EU won't be to concede the need for democratic reform but to confirm that referendums are dangerous, and should be avoided like the plague in future.
0 -
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.chestnut said:
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.FrankBooth said:The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
What about everyone else?
0 -
She is my guide to the referendum.MonikerDiCanio said:
Hell hath no fury like Gillian Duffy.TGOHF said:
Gordon Brown on R4 this morning is worth a listenPulpstar said:Remain have spent an awful lot of time talking 'at' people rather than 'to' people.
from about 2hrs 20m in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ffb1x#play
He goes ballistic when Mrs Duffy dropped into the conversation.
0 -
They're doing it already, and that's when they're already in the EU. My wife and malc work for the same US IT multinat and they have a policy of more or less reducing their UK footprint by a third. So where's the great benefit in staying in the EU ?williamglenn said:On topic, I think a more pertinent point is that the major US tech companies will be more likely to scale down their operations in the UK and scale up in Amsterdam, Paris or the A10 countries.
The EU just makes it easier to kill UK jobs.0 -
BT
"The letter says: "The vote is so important that we, supported by the BT Board, believe we have an obligation to write to you to explain our views.
"We want to give our view on the potential impact that next week's decision may have on the company and on its current, past and future employees. The vote will have an impact on the economy, and knock-on effects on companies operating in the UK.
That includes us at BT, and it is one of the reasons we favour the UK remaining inside a reformed EU..."
"The value of the pound has also been affected - something which would, in the view of many, be exacerbated in the event of the UK leaving the EU. The pound's value internationally affects the cost of everything from holidays to imported goods.
"Virtually all major independent experts believe leaving the EU would result in an economic downturn, one from which it may take several years to recover. This will, of course, affect us at BT."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/eu-referendum-tory-donor-funding-david-cameron-gordon-brown-live/#update-20160613-1049
0 -
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.MattW said:
This is mainly missing the point, which is the destruction of the industry largely as a result of a failed regulatory system, and the impossibility of reformation of that failed regulatory system.OldKingCole said:
I’m grateful for the information, which, from a fairly uneducated viewpooint co-incides with what I ‘felt” ..... fish stocks were in trouble before, but the CFP didn’t help as much as it could have. However, as regards bottom feeders, IIRC Icelandic fishermen don’t normally fish for them, do they? Thought the seabed was unsuitable.Richard_Tyndall said:
Which would be why the two countries outside of the CFP have been able to maintain and restore fishing stocks whilst those inside have not or have done it far more slowly?FeersumEnjineeya said:
That's not what the experts say, but then, being experts, what would they know?Richard_Tyndall said:
There had been some decline yes and overfishing had been a problem but no where near on the scale of what was seen after we joined the CFP. Look at the history of the collapse of stocks in the Irish box or look at the way Norway has maintained very successful fish stocks and a healthy fishing industry thanks to being outside the CFP.OldKingCole said:
I’m prepared to be told I’m wrong, but weren’t fish stocks running low BEFORE the CFP took effect? Compare the cod stocks (or lack of them) on the Grand Banks.
And much of the problem with the Grand Banks lay with massive Spanish fishing fleets destroying stocks - just as they have done down the West Coast of Africa, destroying the livelihoods of the local fishermen there as well.
The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries
Conclusion:
It is clear that seabed ecosystems have undergone a profound reorganization since the industrialization of fishing and that commercial stocks of most bottom-living species, which once comprised an important component of marine ecosystems, collapsed long ago. The Common Fisheries Policy was not responsible for this collapse, although under its auspices most stocks have continued to decline. Our findings emphasize the need for urgent action to eliminate overexploitation of European fisheries and rebuild fish stocks to much higher levels of abundance than those that prevail today.
The CFP have mandated that a large proportion - probably half or more - of caught fish has had to be thrown back into the sea, dead, because of a failed regulatory regime. That discard alone shows that it failed.
Perhaps fish stocks wouldn't have declined (or stayed at endangered levels) if we had been able to keep what we caught, rather than catching twice as much as we keep, and throwing half back, dead.
Then it has taken 30+ years to even begin to sort the discard problem, and that because of the intervention of a TV Celebrity Chef, and the issue has proven to be beyond the ability of a sclerotic, failed, EU to resolve.
Then the industry has been forcibly decimated repearedly as a result of that failure.0 -
True but we've become a very individualistic society, there's something very Thatcherite about it. The mining communities did all they could to protect themselves, I don't really blame middle class Londoners for doing the same thing. What I dislike is when people try to convince us (themselves?) that their own self-interest must be the national interest. We need to be more honest about politics as a bargain of competing interests.chestnut said:
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.FrankBooth said:The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
What about everyone else?0 -
There's a phone poll out later, it's probably showing Leave in front, also the Remain side have dug up Gordon Brown which seems an act of desperation.Estobar said:I can't get on to Betfair. Can someone explain what has happened today?
Another factor could be that people who allowed to witness the opening of postal votes are seeing a lot more votes for Leave than they expected and no doubt a few of them are interested in making a few quid.0 -
I am not talking about a boycott , I am just pointing out that BT should be more concerned with its brand image with its current and future UK customers. It is very unwise for a company to stray into the political area which is why most do not. Customers are more inclined to recall negative associations than positive ones. The brand image of a company is a very valuable thing, it needs to be nurtured not linked to controversial activities.fitalass said:
Boom! And we are now into the lets boycott business's that hold an opposing view in the Referendum. I have lost count of the amount of business's the Cybernats wanted boycotted.TCPoliticalBetting said:
So BT think it is a smart move for their brand to associate with REMAIN? The next time a customer (who is LEAVE such as I), has to choose their tv/broadband/mobile/telephone/etc supplier, some will remember and look harder for an alternative. After all it is widely known that LEAVErs are more passionate about the issue than REMAINers.PlatoSaid said:BT tells 80k staff to vote Remain.
On a side note I have to say that BT is really only successful/survives in the UK. A quick look at their 2015 Report has the misnamed "Global Services" division really getting less than 60% of its revenues from outside the UK. GS represents under 20% of EBITDA - so take out the 40% UK part and it non-UK earnings are probably under 10% of all EBITDA of BT.... Why?
What Mr Rake and the other folk running BT should be focused on is improving their global performance and breaking out of their UK monopolies. Heck they have the EU - what is holding them back? Time they acted before Openreach goes.
0 -
Perhaps people don't believe it?SouthamObserver said:
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.chestnut said:
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.FrankBooth said:The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
What about everyone else?
0 -
Why are postal votes being opened? I know this is what happens but what justification is there? Remember the people in 2010 who couldn't vote because they were still queuing at 10pm?DeClare said:
There's a phone poll out later, it's probably showing Leave in front, also the Remain side have dug up Gordon Brown which seems an act of desperation.Estobar said:I can't get on to Betfair. Can someone explain what has happened today?
Another factor could be that people who allowed to witness the opening of postal votes are seeing a lot more votes for Leave than they expected and no doubt a few of them are interested in making a few quid.0 -
Are you interested in betting on that proposition?John_N4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if Leave does even better in Scotland than in England and Wales.0 -
I doubt it shows Leave in front (ICM had a 20 point Remain lead at one point), but I suspect it's shown the gap close considerably.DeClare said:
There's a phone poll out later, it's probably showing Leave in front, also the Remain side have dug up Gordon Brown which seems an act of desperation.Estobar said:I can't get on to Betfair. Can someone explain what has happened today?
Another factor could be that people who allowed to witness the opening of postal votes are seeing a lot more votes for Leave than they expected and no doubt a few of them are interested in making a few quid.0 -
Donald Tusk says Brexit would threaten western civilisation.
"A so-called Brexit vote would provide a major boost to radical anti-European forces who he said would be 'drinking champagne'."
When he says champagne, he means vodka.
The following quote is lovely:
"As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilisation in its entirety."0 -
Only the outer envelopes are opened, so people talking about postal vote returns showing specific trends are talking crap.FrankBooth said:
Why are postal votes being opened? I know this is what happens but what justification is there? Remember the people in 2010 who couldn't vote because they were still queuing at 10pm?DeClare said:
There's a phone poll out later, it's probably showing Leave in front, also the Remain side have dug up Gordon Brown which seems an act of desperation.Estobar said:I can't get on to Betfair. Can someone explain what has happened today?
Another factor could be that people who allowed to witness the opening of postal votes are seeing a lot more votes for Leave than they expected and no doubt a few of them are interested in making a few quid.
(That being said, I would expect Leave to be well ahead on postals.)0 -
UK government policies have for a long time contributed to driving up the cost of living. In the end that will always price us out of jobs that can go overseas. If we weren't in the EU it would be one less factor to justify a multinational paying our inflated wages and the shift to other countries would accelerate.Alanbrooke said:
They're doing it already, and that's when they're already in the EU. My wife and malc work for the same US IT multinat and they have a policy of more or less reducing their UK footprint by a third. So where's the great benefit in staying in the EU ?williamglenn said:On topic, I think a more pertinent point is that the major US tech companies will be more likely to scale down their operations in the UK and scale up in Amsterdam, Paris or the A10 countries.
The EU just makes it easier to kill UK jobs.0 -
BwahahaJohn_N4 said:Donald Tusk says Brexit would threaten western civilisation.
"A so-called Brexit vote would provide a major boost to radical anti-European forces who he said would be 'drinking champagne'."
When he says champagne, he means vodka.
The following quote is lovely:
"As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilisation in its entirety."
0 -
Miss Plato, I agree on the thought police nonsense.
Must agree on Gove's stupid Scottish migration claim. He either means it, and is a fool, or doesn't, and is being deceitful. A low point for the Leave campaign.
Mr. N4, Tusk is late to the party with his claims of Armageddon.0 -
Does ISIS allow champagne?John_N4 said:Donald Tusk says Brexit would threaten western civilisation.
"A so-called Brexit vote would provide a major boost to radical anti-European forces who he said would be 'drinking champagne'."
When he says champagne, he means vodka.0 -
Where are they flocking from?TCPoliticalBetting said:
She is my guide to the referendum.
0 -
-
At the right price, yes. I don't think it's more probable than not; I am just highly sceptical of treating it as a foregone conclusion that Leave will do worse in S than in E&W.Theuniondivvie said:
Are you interested in betting on that proposition?John_N4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if Leave does even better in Scotland than in England and Wales.0 -
Sadly, it’s raining at Lords.0
-
Jesus. What's wrong with these people?John_N4 said:Donald Tusk says Brexit would threaten western civilisation.
"A so-called Brexit vote would provide a major boost to radical anti-European forces who he said would be 'drinking champagne'."
When he says champagne, he means vodka.
The following quote is lovely:
"As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilisation in its entirety."
And I thought Tusk was supposed to be the sensible one.0 -
The link you linked to doesn't work.FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
Here is Isabella Lövin, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Swedish Green Party. Lövin is the team leader on the Fisheries Committee for the Green Group of MEPs, and has published a book on the subject.
Her view on the CFP
"In fact, it’s been a disaster on an unimaginable scale. Due to political pressure, we have been subsidising overfishing. Our boats are simply too effective at what they do, which has created political pressure to increase the quota for catches, and politicians have given in to that. They have been exceeding scientific advice by 50% on average. They are not taking responsibility for our common resource, which is the fish.
The CFP is also affecting the marine environment in a wider sense. We’re seeing more and more scientific reports published on the connections between overfishing of predatory fish from the marine ecosystems and algae blooming.
Overfishing can be curbed, and it has been in the US, Australia and New Zealand. In Norway, it’s not as evident as in EU waters"
Or read the EU's own commissioned report into the CFP. It states:
"Status of stocks- The fisheries subject to the CFP suffer a much higher rate of overfishing than occurs on average worldwide and in a comparable developed country."
http://www.greenpeace.org/greece/PageFiles/97797/reflections-on-the-common-fish.pdf
0 -
That;s just bollocks. The same multinat isn't making any discenible attempt to move jobs from it's German and French subsidiaries because it's too expensive.williamglenn said:
UK government policies have for a long time contributed to driving up the cost of living. In the end that will always price us out of jobs that can go overseas. If we weren't in the EU it would be one less factor to justify a multinational paying our inflated wages and the shift to other countries would accelerate.Alanbrooke said:
They're doing it already, and that's when they're already in the EU. My wife and malc work for the same US IT multinat and they have a policy of more or less reducing their UK footprint by a third. So where's the great benefit in staying in the EU ?williamglenn said:On topic, I think a more pertinent point is that the major US tech companies will be more likely to scale down their operations in the UK and scale up in Amsterdam, Paris or the A10 countries.
The EU just makes it easier to kill UK jobs.
In other words the ideal scenario is to move UK jobs overseas to Poland and Hungary while keeping UK prices levels intact.0 -
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.0 -
No, they really won't.John_N4 said:
At the right price, yes. I don't think it's more probable than not; I am just highly sceptical of treating it as a foregone conclusion that Leave will do worse in S than in E&W.Theuniondivvie said:
Are you interested in betting on that proposition?John_N4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if Leave does even better in Scotland than in England and Wales.0 -
1. Fish are attracted to them?HurstLlama said:
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
2. They do not permit over fishing in their areas.0 -
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.chestnut said:
Perhaps people don't believe it?SouthamObserver said:
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.chestnut said:
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.FrankBooth said:The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
What about everyone else?
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn.
Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-248d9ac7-9784-4769-936a-8d3b435857a8
0 -
(Iceland does have the distinct advantage of having a lot of territorial waters for its small population.)TCPoliticalBetting said:
1. Fish are attracted to them?HurstLlama said:
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
2. They do not permit over fishing in their areas.0 -
He did only say "potentially" immigration.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, I agree on the thought police nonsense.
Must agree on Gove's stupid Scottish migration claim. He either means it, and is a fool, or doesn't, and is being deceitful. A low point for the Leave campaign.
Mr. N4, Tusk is late to the party with his claims of Armageddon.
It's agriculture and fisheries that matter.0 -
Tusk's comments make you wonder how, after the Bloomberg speech, DC got such a poor deal. @themanwhodoesnothagglefora2ndhandcar.0
-
Great to see some FACTS in this debate.Cicero said:
Let's look at the facts shall we?Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I never ceased to be amazed just how divorced from reality some of the Remainders are on here.Cicero said:
Cameron got virtually all he asked for. He was not laughed at- it was taken very seriously. The fact was that the negotiations were extremely tough. The idea that the UK was derided is a product of paranoia. Mostly the UK goes with the majority in the EU- up to 80% of the time, which is a higher percentage than most other states. Do you expect that it should be 100% of the time, and that no other national interests should be respected expect those of the UK?Philip_Thompson said:
If the rest of the EU wanted us in then they should have given Cameron a much better "deal" than the incredibly weak one we were given.Cicero said:Well of course we did!!!!
As soon as it become clear that there was a real risk, all of the European Chambers spoke out- just because we were dismissed as just a another bunch or irrelevant "experts" does not make our warnings any the less. COBCOE and other umbrella organisations have spoken out in the strongest possible terms. We have no doubt: even the threat of Brexit is causing damage. A Brexit reality would be drastically more difficult for British business and British interests across Europe and around the world. All neutral research points out the economic damage - and frankly the majority of British business is furious that our clear concerns have been been dismissed out of hand by post truth politicians.
Dismiss these clear warnings as "project fear" all you like- but be in no doubt there will be a very large price to pay for a withdrawal from the EU. It really is even a risk to the system of collective security- as your previous threat to link NATO to EU negotiations makes crystal clear. The damage is being done today, now. Even after a Remain vote it will take some time to restore the image of Brand UK, and a Brexit will cost years and billions of Pounds before any recovery would come.
You can't complain about someone walking away if they say to you "we need something different" and you effectively laugh in their face and dismiss them.
Cameron asked for almost nothing and got less.
And the EU loses more votes in Council than any other country in the EU. So your claim that we are in the majority more often than most other states is simply wrong.
The British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
Wrong? Yes, I am: the UK wins 95% of the time, not 80%.0 -
If we are apparently so important to the continuance of European civilisation it is a shame we weren't offered an EU renegotiation deal worth a damn.Casino_Royale said:Jesus. What's wrong with these people?
And I thought Tusk was supposed to be the sensible one.
0 -
No shi*rcs1000 said:
(Iceland does have the distinct advantage of having a lot of territorial waters for its small population.)TCPoliticalBetting said:
1. Fish are attracted to them?HurstLlama said:
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
2. They do not permit over fishing in their areas.
0 -
Desperate stuff. Unelected elite speak.
"Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has suggested the House of Commons could use its pro-EU majority to trigger a second referendum if there is a vote for Brexit next week."0 -
And what are the respective head-counts in the UK, France and Germany today?Alanbrooke said:
That;s just bollocks. The same multinat isn't making any discenible attempt to move jobs from it's German and French subsidiaries because it's too expensive.williamglenn said:
UK government policies have for a long time contributed to driving up the cost of living. In the end that will always price us out of jobs that can go overseas. If we weren't in the EU it would be one less factor to justify a multinational paying our inflated wages and the shift to other countries would accelerate.Alanbrooke said:
They're doing it already, and that's when they're already in the EU. My wife and malc work for the same US IT multinat and they have a policy of more or less reducing their UK footprint by a third. So where's the great benefit in staying in the EU ?williamglenn said:On topic, I think a more pertinent point is that the major US tech companies will be more likely to scale down their operations in the UK and scale up in Amsterdam, Paris or the A10 countries.
The EU just makes it easier to kill UK jobs.
In other words the ideal scenario is to move UK jobs overseas to Poland and Hungary while keeping UK prices levels intact.0 -
'I wouldn't be surprised ' suggests around 2/1 to me.John_N4 said:
At the right price, yes. I don't think it's more probable than not; I am just highly sceptical of treating it as a foregone conclusion that Leave will do worse in S than in E&W.Theuniondivvie said:
Are you interested in betting on that proposition?John_N4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if Leave does even better in Scotland than in England and Wales.
I think you originally suggested that Leave in Scotland would be no more than 4 pts below Leave in rUK, what price that? Evens?0 -
logical_song said:
Great to see some FACTS in this debate.
The Brexit campaign is a kind of "post-facts", emotionally-led campaign. They will make little difference, sadly.logical_song said:
Great to see some FACTS in this debate.Cicero said:
Let's look at the facts shall we?Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I never ceased to be amazed just how divorced from reality some of the Remainders are on here.Cicero said:
Cameron got virtually all he asked for. He was not laughed at- it was taken very seriously. The fact was that the negotiations were extremely tough. The idea that the UK was derided is a product of paranoia. Mostly the UK goes with the majority in the EU- up to 80% of the time, which is a higher percentage than most other states. Do you expect that it should be 100% of the time, and that no other national interests should be respected expect those of the UK?Philip_Thompson said:
If the rest of the EU wanted us in then they should have given Cameron a much better "deal" than the incredibly weak one we were given.Cicero said:Well of course we did!!!!
As soon as it become clear that there was a real risk, all of the European Chambers spoke out- just because we were dismissed as just a another bunch or irrelevant "experts" does not make our warnings any the less. COBCOE and other umbrella organisations have spoken out in the strongest possible terms. We have no doubt: even the threat of Brexit is causing damage. A Brexit reality would be drastically more difficult for British business and British interests across Europe and around the world. All neutral research points out the economic damage - and frankly the majority of British business is furious that our clear concerns have been been dismissed out of hand by post truth politicians.
Dismiss these clear warnings as "project fear" all you like- but be in no doubt there will be a very large price to pay for a withdrawal from the EU. It really is even a risk to the system of collective security- as your previous threat to link NATO to EU negotiations makes crystal clear. The damage is being done today, now. Even after a Remain vote it will take some time to restore the image of Brand UK, and a Brexit will cost years and billions of Pounds before any recovery would come.
You can't complain about someone walking away if they say to you "we need something different" and you effectively laugh in their face and dismiss them.
Cameron asked for almost nothing and got less.
And the EU loses more votes in Council than any other country in the EU. So your claim that we are in the majority more often than most other states is simply wrong.
The British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
Wrong? Yes, I am: the UK wins 95% of the time, not 80%.0 -
The only second referendum question should be "All out or EFTA?"TCPoliticalBetting said:Desperate stuff. Unelected elite speak.
"Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has suggested the House of Commons could use its pro-EU majority to trigger a second referendum if there is a vote for Brexit next week."0 -
I'll go 5-2, just for John_N. Max bet £200. Cash to be lodged with a reputable poster as his post count is lowish.Theuniondivvie said:
'I wouldn't be surprised ' suggests around 2/1 to me.John_N4 said:
At the right price, yes. I don't think it's more probable than not; I am just highly sceptical of treating it as a foregone conclusion that Leave will do worse in S than in E&W.Theuniondivvie said:
Are you interested in betting on that proposition?John_N4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if Leave does even better in Scotland than in England and Wales.
I think you originally suggested that Leave in Scotland would be no more than 4 pts below Leave in rUK, what price that? Evens?
Leave in Scotland > Leave in England and Wales as a % is the bet ^_~0 -
Perhaps the EU and Frau Merkel should have had a sensible renegotiation instead of taking us all for fools then... ?John_N4 said:Donald Tusk says Brexit would threaten western civilisation.
"A so-called Brexit vote would provide a major boost to radical anti-European forces who he said would be 'drinking champagne'."
When he says champagne, he means vodka.
The following quote is lovely:
"As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilisation in its entirety."0 -
The EU depends on horse-trading. National governments push their priorities. The fact UK fishing does badly from the EU is down simply to it being dispensible as far as the succession of UK governments is concerned. They have traded fishing for other more important things. Stopping the horse-trading will presumably disadvantage all those other priorities, but it should help fishing in the UK.HurstLlama said:
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.0 -
what's that got to do with the price of fish ? UK is the largest but also the largest turnover, Germany next then France.williamglenn said:
And what are the respective head-counts in the UK, France and Germany today?Alanbrooke said:
That;s just bollocks. The same multinat isn't making any discenible attempt to move jobs from it's German and French subsidiaries because it's too expensive.williamglenn said:
UK government policies have for a long time contributed to driving up the cost of living. In the end that will always price us out of jobs that can go overseas. If we weren't in the EU it would be one less factor to justify a multinational paying our inflated wages and the shift to other countries would accelerate.Alanbrooke said:
They're doing it already, and that's when they're already in the EU. My wife and malc work for the same US IT multinat and they have a policy of more or less reducing their UK footprint by a third. So where's the great benefit in staying in the EU ?williamglenn said:On topic, I think a more pertinent point is that the major US tech companies will be more likely to scale down their operations in the UK and scale up in Amsterdam, Paris or the A10 countries.
The EU just makes it easier to kill UK jobs.
In other words the ideal scenario is to move UK jobs overseas to Poland and Hungary while keeping UK prices levels intact.
The issue has nothing to do with relative size and everything to do with ease of moving jobs. If we want to stay in the EU then we need to adopt in full EU social policy and all it's commitments.
Currently the EU works for multinats in that it allows them to maximise profits while walking away from their commitments to host countries.0 -
Mr. glw, quite.
Our membership of the EU is apparently the cornerstone of Western civilisation.
Who knew?0 -
I would expect that following a Brexit vote, that pro-EU majority might not be a majority for long.TCPoliticalBetting said:Desperate stuff. Unelected elite speak.
"Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has suggested the House of Commons could use its pro-EU majority to trigger a second referendum if there is a vote for Brexit next week."
Not unless a lot of MPs had a death wish when it came to the next election.0 -
What has been the movement in Leave odds since 9am?0
-
Similar to Trump's campaign.RealBritain said:logical_song said:
Great to see some FACTS in this debate.
The Brexit campaign is a kind of "post-facts", emotionally-led campaign. They will make little difference, sadly.logical_song said:
Great to see some FACTS in this debate.Cicero said:
Let's look at the facts shall we?Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I never ceased to be amazed just how divorced from reality some of the Remainders are on here.Cicero said:
Cameron got virtually all he asked for. He was not laughed at- it was taken very seriously. The fact was that the negotiations were extremely tough. The idea that the UK was derided is a product of paranoia. Mostly the UK goes with the majority in the EU- up to 80% of the time, which is a higher percentage than most other states. Do you expect that it should be 100% of the time, and that no other national interests should be respected expect those of the UK?Philip_Thompson said:
If the rest of the EU wanted us in then they should have given Cameron a much better "deal" than the incredibly weak one we were given.Cicero said:Well of course we did!!!!
As soon as it become clear that there was a real risk, all of the European Chambers spoke out- just because we were dismissed as just a another bunch or irrelevant "experts" does not make our warnings any the less. COBCOE and other umbrella organisations have spoken out in the strongest possible terms. We have no doubt: even the threat of Brexit is causing damage. A Brexit reality would be drastically more difficult for British business and British interests across Europe and around the world. All neutral research points out the economic damage - and frankly the majority of British business is furious that our clear concerns have been been dismissed out of hand by post truth politicians.
Dismiss these clear warnings as "project fear" all you like- but be in no doubt there will be a very large price to pay for a withdrawal from the EU. It really is even a risk to the system of collective security- as your previous threat to link NATO to EU negotiations makes crystal clear. The damage is being done today, now. Even after a Remain vote it will take some time to restore the image of Brand UK, and a Brexit will cost years and billions of Pounds before any recovery would come.
You can't complain about someone walking away if they say to you "we need something different" and you effectively laugh in their face and dismiss them.
Cameron asked for almost nothing and got less.
And the EU loses more votes in Council than any other country in the EU. So your claim that we are in the majority more often than most other states is simply wrong.
The British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
Wrong? Yes, I am: the UK wins 95% of the time, not 80%.0 -
And what proportion of that is generated by these fabled IT start-ups in the East End? Come to that how many of the silicon roundabout companies actually make money?SouthamObserver said:
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.chestnut said:
Perhaps people don't believe it?SouthamObserver said:
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.chestnut said:
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.FrankBooth said:The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
What about everyone else?
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn.
Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-248d9ac7-9784-4769-936a-8d3b435857a8
The idea that national policy should be adjusted to take into account the supposed needs of a tiny sector of the economy is laughable.0 -
Well doing it absolute numbers of votes wouldn't be very enlightening, would it :PPulpstar said:
I'll go 5-2, just for John_N. Max bet £200. Cash to be lodged with a reputable poster as his post count is lowish.Theuniondivvie said:
'I wouldn't be surprised ' suggests around 2/1 to me.John_N4 said:
At the right price, yes. I don't think it's more probable than not; I am just highly sceptical of treating it as a foregone conclusion that Leave will do worse in S than in E&W.Theuniondivvie said:
Are you interested in betting on that proposition?John_N4 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if Leave does even better in Scotland than in England and Wales.
I think you originally suggested that Leave in Scotland would be no more than 4 pts below Leave in rUK, what price that? Evens?
Leave in Scotland > Leave in England and Wales as a % is the bet ^_~0 -
The Brexit campaign has many faces, but it is winning because things as they are do not work for a lot of people in this country. That this is in no small part down to many of those leading the Leave campaign is neither here nor there. Leave is promising something different and something better. Remain is offering more of the same. When times are tough, that is not going to be a successful message. Of course, once the vote happens and Boris and co take over they then have to deliver the substantial reductions in immigration, higher wages, more public spending and cheaper housing that they have been promising. It would be fantastic if they could. I have my doubts. It's not as if they have a history of being keen to do any of these things. But maybe they'll change.RealBritain said:logical_song said:
Great to see some FACTS in this debate.
The Brexit campaign is a kind of "post-facts", emotionally-led campaign. They will make little difference, sadly.logical_song said:
Great to see some FACTS in this debate.Cicero said:
Let's look at the facts shall we?Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. I never ceased to be amazed just how divorced from reality some of the Remainders are on here.Cicero said:
Cameron got virtually all he asked for. He was not laughed at- it was taken very seriously. The fact was that the negotiations were extremely tough. The idea that the UK was derided is a product of paranoia. Mostly the UK goes with the majority in the EU- up to 80% of the time, which is a higher percentage than most other states. Do you expect that it should be 100% of the time, and that no other national interests should be respected expect those of the UK?Philip_Thompson said:
If the rest of the EU wanted us in then they should have given Cameron a much better "deal" than the incredibly weak one we were given.Cicero said:Well of course we did!!!!
As soon as it become clear that there was a real risk, all of the European Chambers spoke politicians.
Dismiss these clear warnings as "project fear" all you like- but be in no doubt there will be a a Brexit will cost years and billions of Pounds before any recovery would come.
You can't complain about someone walking away if they say to you "we need something different" and you effectively laugh in their face and dismiss them.
Cameron asked for almost nothing and got less.
And the EU loses more votes in Council than any other country in the EU. So your claim that we are in the majority more often than most other states is simply wrong.
The British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, according to UK in a Changing Europe Fellows Sara Hagemann and Simon Hix.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
Wrong? Yes, I am: the UK wins 95% of the time, not 80%.
0 -
The link I gave is correct but seems to load very slowly - perhaps there's some problem with Nature's servers. You should be able to find the paper by googling:Richard_Tyndall said:
The link you linked to doesn't work.FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
Here is Isabella Lövin, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Swedish Green Party. Lövin is the team leader on the Fisheries Committee for the Green Group of MEPs, and has published a book on the subject.
Her view on the CFP
"In fact, it’s been a disaster on an unimaginable scale. Due to political pressure, we have been subsidising overfishing. Our boats are simply too effective at what they do, which has created political pressure to increase the quota for catches, and politicians have given in to that. They have been exceeding scientific advice by 50% on average. They are not taking responsibility for our common resource, which is the fish.
The CFP is also affecting the marine environment in a wider sense. We’re seeing more and more scientific reports published on the connections between overfishing of predatory fish from the marine ecosystems and algae blooming.
Overfishing can be curbed, and it has been in the US, Australia and New Zealand. In Norway, it’s not as evident as in EU waters"
Or read the EU's own commissioned report into the CFP. It states:
"Status of stocks- The fisheries subject to the CFP suffer a much higher rate of overfishing than occurs on average worldwide and in a comparable developed country."
http://www.greenpeace.org/greece/PageFiles/97797/reflections-on-the-common-fish.pdf
"The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries" by Ruth H. Thurstan, Simon Brockington & Callum M. Roberts
There is no dispute that UK fisheries were already in very serious trouble before the CFP came into force. While there is certainly a need for both further reform of the CFP and its proper implementation by member states, simply withdrawing from the CFP because it has not worked as well as hoped would be highly irresponsible and likely to have a very negative outcome for fish stocks.0 -
Difficult to count fish stocks, but very easy to count fishing boats - what does the fishing boat count say on the advantage we see from the EU?0
-
I think that question should be asked as soon as practically possible post referendum (i).SandyRentool said:
The only second referendum question should be "All out or EFTA?"TCPoliticalBetting said:Desperate stuff. Unelected elite speak.
"Former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has suggested the House of Commons could use its pro-EU majority to trigger a second referendum if there is a vote for Brexit next week."0 -
Who is asking for a change in policy? The plea is that things stay as they are. However, they won't. We are leaving the EU. Hopefully, that will not make much of a difference to London's start-up culture. Big companies, of course, all started small. It's a very lucky country that can dismiss the potential of start-ups. I am not sure we are that country. We will soon find out.HurstLlama said:
And what proportion of that is generated by these fabled IT start-ups in the East End? Come to that how many of the silicon roundabout companies actually make money?SouthamObserver said:
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.chestnut said:
Perhaps people don't believe it?SouthamObserver said:
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.chestnut said:
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.FrankBooth said:The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
What about everyone else?
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn.
Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-248d9ac7-9784-4769-936a-8d3b435857a8
The idea that national policy should be adjusted to take into account the supposed needs of a tiny sector of the economy is laughable.
0 -
I am not going to argue with that. The point I was trying to make is that another poster's point up-thread that without the CFP there would be a disaster may not be actually be true.FF43 said:
The EU depends on horse-trading. National governments push their priorities. The fact UK fishing does badly from the EU is down simply to it being dispensible as far as the succession of UK governments is concerned. They have traded fishing for other more important things. Stopping the horse-trading will presumably disadvantage all those other priorities, but it should help fishing in the UK.HurstLlama said:
Is Iceland covered by the CFP? Is Norway? Both seem to have successful fisheries. How is that possible?FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.0 -
On topic, move the business to Berlin. Historic location, good infrastructure, great dev talent from all over Europe, very affordable rent.0
-
I know, its terrible, all this giving the voters what they want, we should think if a name for it one day.SouthamObserver said:
Who is asking for a change in policy? The plea is that things stay as they are. However, they won't. We are leaving the EU. Hopefully, that will not make much of a difference to London's start-up culture. Big companies, of course, all started small. It's a very lucky country that can dismiss the potential of start-ups. I am not sure we are that country. We will soon find out.HurstLlama said:
And what proportion of that is generated by these fabled IT start-ups in the East End? Come to that how many of the silicon roundabout companies actually make money?SouthamObserver said:
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.chestnut said:
Perhaps people don't believe it?SouthamObserver said:
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.chestnut said:
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.FrankBooth said:The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
What about everyone else?
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn.
Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-248d9ac7-9784-4769-936a-8d3b435857a8
The idea that national policy should be adjusted to take into account the supposed needs of a tiny sector of the economy is laughable.0 -
Yep, Berlin will do very well from Brexit. So will Barcelona. The good news, though, is it turns out we don't really need "the second largest concentration of technology start-ups in the world, behind only the corridor between San Francisco and San Jose (“Silicon Valley”)".edmundintokyo said:On topic, move the business to Berlin. Historic location, good infrastructure, great dev talent from all over Europe, very affordable rent.
0 -
They might even have a new international airport before 2030. So streets ahead of London.edmundintokyo said:On topic, move the business to Berlin. Historic location, good infrastructure, great dev talent from all over Europe, very affordable rent.
0 -
I disagree. That implies we would do nothing ourselves to maintain our stocks. Given that straight away we would have fewer boats fishing our EEZ and that we have the excellent example of Norway next to us to show how stocks should be managed, it takes a real leap of faith to say that we would do things any worse than the CFP - particularly given that most of the comparable fisheries around the world are doing better in environmental terms than those controlled by the CFP.FeersumEnjineeya said:
The link I gave is correct but seems to load very slowly - perhaps there's some problem with Nature's servers. You should be able to find the paper by googling:Richard_Tyndall said:
The link you linked to doesn't work.FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
Here is Isabella Lövin, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Swedish Green Party. Lövin is the team leader on the Fisheries Committee for the Green Group of MEPs, and has published a book on the subject.
Her view on the CFP
"In fact, it’s been a disaster on an unimaginable scale. Due to political pressure, we have been subsidising overfishing. Our boats are simply too effective at what they do, which has created political pressure to increase the quota for catches, and politicians have given in to that. They have been exceeding scientific advice by 50% on average. They are not taking responsibility for our common resource, which is the fish.
The CFP is also affecting the marine environment in a wider sense. We’re seeing more and more scientific reports published on the connections between overfishing of predatory fish from the marine ecosystems and algae blooming.
Overfishing can be curbed, and it has been in the US, Australia and New Zealand. In Norway, it’s not as evident as in EU waters"
Or read the EU's own commissioned report into the CFP. It states:
"Status of stocks- The fisheries subject to the CFP suffer a much higher rate of overfishing than occurs on average worldwide and in a comparable developed country."
http://www.greenpeace.org/greece/PageFiles/97797/reflections-on-the-common-fish.pdf
"The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries" by Ruth H. Thurstan, Simon Brockington & Callum M. Roberts
There is no dispute that UK fisheries were already in very serious trouble before the CFP came into force. While there is certainly a need for both further reform of the CFP and its proper implementation by member states, simply withdrawing from the CFP because it has not worked as well as hoped would be highly irresponsible and likely to have a very negative outcome for fish stocks.0 -
So are you in favour of a protectionist Brexit and making it much harder to make people redundant?Alanbrooke said:
what's that got to do with the price of fish ? UK is the largest but also the largest turnover, Germany next then France.williamglenn said:
And what are the respective head-counts in the UK, France and Germany today?Alanbrooke said:
That;s just bollocks. The same multinat isn't making any discenible attempt to move jobs from it's German and French subsidiaries because it's too expensive.williamglenn said:
UK government policies have for a long time contributed to driving up the cost of living. In the end that will always price us out of jobs that can go overseas. If we weren't in the EU it would be one less factor to justify a multinational paying our inflated wages and the shift to other countries would accelerate.Alanbrooke said:
They're doing it already, and that's when they're already in the EU. My wife and malc work for the same US IT multinat and they have a policy of more or less reducing their UK footprint by a third. So where's the great benefit in staying in the EU ?williamglenn said:On topic, I think a more pertinent point is that the major US tech companies will be more likely to scale down their operations in the UK and scale up in Amsterdam, Paris or the A10 countries.
The EU just makes it easier to kill UK jobs.
In other words the ideal scenario is to move UK jobs overseas to Poland and Hungary while keeping UK prices levels intact.
The issue has nothing to do with relative size and everything to do with ease of moving jobs. If we want to stay in the EU then we need to adopt in full EU social policy and all it's commitments.
Currently the EU works for multinats in that it allows them to maximise profits while walking away from their commitments to host countries.0 -
It's investment across the board. If you don't invest you die. If you can plug into the network in Poland, Ireland, Germany or Denmark, but not the UK - all other things being equal - which roughly speaking they will be - you will invest in one of those countries.HurstLlama said:
And what proportion of that is generated by these fabled IT start-ups in the East End? Come to that how many of the silicon roundabout companies actually make money?SouthamObserver said:
Perhaps. But that does not mean it isn't true.chestnut said:
Perhaps people don't believe it?SouthamObserver said:
Without London's contribution taxes would be higher and public spending much lower. A successful London is essential for the entire UK.chestnut said:
It's another Woe For London and well off Londoners argument as well.FrankBooth said:The trouble with an article like this and it's a good one, is that the message is about talking up the benefits of the status quo. It reminds me of the Scottish debate when a working class Glaswegian asked Alastair Darling 'What's better together about the status quo.' All he could do was mumble some vague response.
What about everyone else?
The capital generates 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. According to the Centre for Economic and Business Research, it makes a net contribution to the Exchequer of an astonishing £34bn.
Inner London's GDP per head was 328% of the European Union average in 2010, compared with 70% in west Wales - the biggest gap in any EU state, said the European Commission's statistics agency Eurostat. Among the next eight largest UK cities, only one other, Bristol, has a GDP that is above the national average.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-248d9ac7-9784-4769-936a-8d3b435857a8
The idea that national policy should be adjusted to take into account the supposed needs of a tiny sector of the economy is laughable.0 -
I clicked on the link to see who the source was an it was Reuters. So I'll take that as not too shabby at all as a source and so it seems he did say this.John_N4 said:Donald Tusk says Brexit would threaten western civilisation.
"A so-called Brexit vote would provide a major boost to radical anti-European forces who he said would be 'drinking champagne'."
When he says champagne, he means vodka.
The following quote is lovely:
"As a historian I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also of western political civilisation in its entirety."
We really are now in tin foil hat sat under the desk going "la, la la, I'm an orange, this isn't happening" territory. Does Tusk have the faintest idea how this is going to come over to so many here?
If you really believed the end of Western civilization was nigh in the event of Brexit surely bending just a tad more in February during the renegotiation would've been a good idea? Otherwise we might just feel free to draw some conclusions:-
1) Eurocrats really are in need of stronger medication and a nice stay somewhere with a view of an undulating meadow with calming baa lambs frolicking in the buttercups and where everything is lovely.
or
2) They weren't taking the British people remotely seriously.0 -
No one is suggesting you'd "simply withdaw from the CFP"FeersumEnjineeya said:
The link I gave is correct but seems to load very slowly - perhaps there's some problem with Nature's servers. You should be able to find the paper by googling:Richard_Tyndall said:
The link you linked to doesn't work.FeersumEnjineeya said:
If you bother reading the paper I quoted, you'll see that fishing stocks around the UK had been almost completely decimated before the introduction of the CFP. The CFP has considerably slowed that decline. It has, however, not yet managed to arrest the decline due, primarily, to the refusal of national governments to properly implement the proposals of the scientists involved. What we need is a CFP with more teeth; leaving the CFP can only lead to disaster.
Here is Isabella Lövin, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Swedish Green Party. Lövin is the team leader on the Fisheries Committee for the Green Group of MEPs, and has published a book on the subject.
Her view on the CFP
"In fact, it’s been a disaster on an unimaginable scale. Due to political pressure, we have been subsidising overfishing. Our boats are simply too effective at what they do, which has created political pressure to increase the quota for catches, and politicians have given in to that. They have been exceeding scientific advice by 50% on average. They are not taking responsibility for our common resource, which is the fish.
The CFP is also affecting the marine environment in a wider sense. We’re seeing more and more scientific reports published on the connections between overfishing of predatory fish from the marine ecosystems and algae blooming.
Overfishing can be curbed, and it has been in the US, Australia and New Zealand. In Norway, it’s not as evident as in EU waters"
Or read the EU's own commissioned report into the CFP. It states:
"Status of stocks- The fisheries subject to the CFP suffer a much higher rate of overfishing than occurs on average worldwide and in a comparable developed country."
http://www.greenpeace.org/greece/PageFiles/97797/reflections-on-the-common-fish.pdf
"The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries" by Ruth H. Thurstan, Simon Brockington & Callum M. Roberts
There is no dispute that UK fisheries were already in very serious trouble before the CFP came into force. While there is certainly a need for both further reform of the CFP and its proper implementation by member states, simply withdrawing from the CFP because it has not worked as well as hoped would be highly irresponsible and likely to have a very negative outcome for fish stocks.
You'd take back control of the fishing stock, and develop a mechanism that works better than the current one.
The issue is at the moment the fact that Spanish industrial trawlers own such a large percentage of the fishing rights* that the local communities find it very difficult to sustain their local industries, especially as the value added services are performed in Bilbao (I think).
It's not beyond the wit of man to come up with a system of sustainable fishing without the discard system, to regulate the size of nets so that small fish can escape more easily, to enforce market share constraints so that you have a diversified industrial base and to take action to mitigate against drag nets that destroy the sea bed.
All of this would be easier with the UK in control vs in the current system - where the Spanish get a lot of the benefits of fishing while the costs are borne by English communities
* of course that's the fault of the people who sold it to them0
