politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Laundering Reputations: China and its Uighurs
Comments
-
Really, that seems very unlikely given the extra effort that would be required to check the ownership of a company (which can be easily hidden)..Richard_Tyndall said:
That is already included in the NEF numbers I quoted.DavidL said:
And a lot of the British registered companies holding the quota are foreign owned because our fishermen sold them.rcs1000 said:
You do need to include wet leases, where the quota is owned by a British firm (or other entity) but the actual boat is neither owned nor operated by Brits.Richard_Tyndall said:
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.eek said:
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.0 -
I see very little love coming from nationalistsStuartDickson said:
Indeed. Hatred won in 2014. Love lost.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just a reminder, you lost in 2014StuartDickson said:
Hatred is not Sturgeon’s modus operandi. She fought Glasgow Labour for many long years before first winning. They taught her that hatred, in which they specialised (eg. George Galloway), was a one-way route to failure.CorrectHorseBattery said:Starmer making the case for the Union is to win seats in England, not Scotland. That's the play.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades0 -
That is what happens when you have no policies to discussScott_xP said:1 -
Very large areas were themselves an innovation, and one that the UK fought against because it meant losing fishing rights in Icelandic waters.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry Robert but this is wrong. Or at least misleading. Prior to the UK/Denmark/Ireland accession there was no CFP for the existing EEC countries fishing in the North Sea, the Baltic or the Med. They were perfectly happy for fishing to be a national competence before then. It was only when those countries with very large fishing areas - the UK, Ireland and Norway - were looking to join that the CFP was devised. That gave quotas for fishing in British and Irish waters (the Norwegians had more sense than to join in the end) to other EEC countries from the very start.rcs1000 said:
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.welshowl said:
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.Gallowgate said:
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.algarkirk said:
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?Gallowgate said:
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?welshowl said:
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.nichomar said:
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotascontrarian said:
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communitiesGallowgate said:
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My Scottish family do and with a passion.Gallowgate said:Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
Their communities were founded on fishing
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.0 -
On fishing, I'd be very surprised if Boris gave way. It may not be economically important, but it's hugely useful in Scotland politically. And we've seen BJ waking up to the Scottish problem. SNP hate it when they are accused of wanting to hand fishing back to the EU - no plausible answer to the charge.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry Robert but this is wrong. Or at least misleading. Prior to the UK/Denmark/Ireland accession there was no CFP for the existing EEC countries fishing in the North Sea, the Baltic or the Med. They were perfectly happy for fishing to be a national competence before then. It was only when those countries with very large fishing areas - the UK, Ireland and Norway - were looking to join that the CFP was devised. That gave quotas for fishing in British and Irish waters (the Norwegians had more sense than to join in the end) to other EEC countries from the very start.rcs1000 said:
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.welshowl said:
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.Gallowgate said:
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.algarkirk said:
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?Gallowgate said:
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?welshowl said:
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.nichomar said:
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotascontrarian said:
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communitiesGallowgate said:
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My Scottish family do and with a passion.Gallowgate said:Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
Their communities were founded on fishing
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
On Indy, generally. I'm struck how strong Starmer and his Shadow SoS for Scotland, Ian Murray are on the subject. They are not going to allow themselves to be stitched up as Sturgeon puppets as Miliband was. Boris can rule out IndyRef2 with impunity.
Another counter-intuitive thought at a time of Sturgeon worship. The SNP's strength is its ability to draw support from Left and Right in Scotland. But that can also be its weakness. Beyond a hardcore of, say, 20% or so, who put Indy above all else, they are vulnerable to being squeezed if politics becomes about economics and services. We saw in 2017 how they were rattled by Scots Tory revival. Labour, if they get their act together, are far more dangerous than the Tories as most Scots feel fairly benign to the party. They could revive. Stranger things have happened (as we have seen).4 -
Cummings loathed the MSM before DurhamScott_xP said:
We can only imagine how he thinks about them now.1 -
Since 2014 England has come down with a bad case of the Johnsons.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just a reminder, you lost in 2014StuartDickson said:
Hatred is not Sturgeon’s modus operandi. She fought Glasgow Labour for many long years before first winning. They taught her that hatred, in which they specialised (eg. George Galloway), was a one-way route to failure.CorrectHorseBattery said:Starmer making the case for the Union is to win seats in England, not Scotland. That's the play.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades0 -
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.0 -
Dan Hodges is making excuses to come back to Labour. Welcome back Dan, we'll have you0
-
A better indication comes from here: https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/Richard_Tyndall said:
That is already included in the NEF numbers I quoted.DavidL said:
And a lot of the British registered companies holding the quota are foreign owned because our fishermen sold them.rcs1000 said:
You do need to include wet leases, where the quota is owned by a British firm (or other entity) but the actual boat is neither owned nor operated by Brits.Richard_Tyndall said:
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.eek said:
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.
"The three other EU Member States landing the most value from UK waters were:
France (120,000 tonnes, £171 million)
Netherlands (177,000 tonnes, £92 million)
Denmark (237,000 tonnes, £90 million)"
This is fish scooped (perfectly legally) from UK waters but not landed here because the fish are processed elsewhere. I have to say that I was surprised that Spain was not on that list but maybe that is more of a Scottish issue. The same piece contains the figures for fish taken from other EU waters by the UK fleet. It is much smaller.
As I have said before there are many thousand more jobs at stake in the processing of the fish than there is in the fishing. Any new quotas for the UK should require the fish caught to be landed here.0 -
LOL. I mean there is delusion and there is complete fantasy.StuartDickson said:
Indeed. Hatred won in 2014. Love lost.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just a reminder, you lost in 2014StuartDickson said:
Hatred is not Sturgeon’s modus operandi. She fought Glasgow Labour for many long years before first winning. They taught her that hatred, in which they specialised (eg. George Galloway), was a one-way route to failure.CorrectHorseBattery said:Starmer making the case for the Union is to win seats in England, not Scotland. That's the play.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades3 -
But the numbers you have quoted there are for French, Dutch and Danish quotas to fish legally in UK waters, not for what we were talking about which is fish taken by foreign owned vessels under UK quotas.DavidL said:
A better indication comes from here: https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/Richard_Tyndall said:
That is already included in the NEF numbers I quoted.DavidL said:
And a lot of the British registered companies holding the quota are foreign owned because our fishermen sold them.rcs1000 said:
You do need to include wet leases, where the quota is owned by a British firm (or other entity) but the actual boat is neither owned nor operated by Brits.Richard_Tyndall said:
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.eek said:
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.
"The three other EU Member States landing the most value from UK waters were:
France (120,000 tonnes, £171 million)
Netherlands (177,000 tonnes, £92 million)
Denmark (237,000 tonnes, £90 million)"
This is fish scooped (perfectly legally) from UK waters but not landed here because the fish are processed elsewhere. I have to say that I was surprised that Spain was not on that list but maybe that is more of a Scottish issue. The same piece contains the figures for fish taken from other EU waters by the UK fleet. It is much smaller.
As I have said before there are many thousand more jobs at stake in the processing of the fish than there is in the fishing. Any new quotas for the UK should require the fish caught to be landed here.
0 -
Yes, you too. Definitely. Sorry for missing you out there.Richard_Tyndall said:
I would hope he does fetishize it. The Nation State with an accountable government is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.kinabalu said:
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.Philip_Thompson said:
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
0 -
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.0 -
Depends who is calling and why surely?Scott_xP said:
Maybe the PMs office has more to deal with during a pandemic and Brexit negotiations etc than the LOTO does?0 -
Its fish from UK waters that is landed in other countries.Richard_Tyndall said:
But the numbers you have quoted there are for French, Dutch and Danish quotas to fish legally in UK waters, not for what we were talking about which is fish taken by foreign owned vessels under UK quotas.DavidL said:
A better indication comes from here: https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/Richard_Tyndall said:
That is already included in the NEF numbers I quoted.DavidL said:
And a lot of the British registered companies holding the quota are foreign owned because our fishermen sold them.rcs1000 said:
You do need to include wet leases, where the quota is owned by a British firm (or other entity) but the actual boat is neither owned nor operated by Brits.Richard_Tyndall said:
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.eek said:
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.
"The three other EU Member States landing the most value from UK waters were:
France (120,000 tonnes, £171 million)
Netherlands (177,000 tonnes, £92 million)
Denmark (237,000 tonnes, £90 million)"
This is fish scooped (perfectly legally) from UK waters but not landed here because the fish are processed elsewhere. I have to say that I was surprised that Spain was not on that list but maybe that is more of a Scottish issue. The same piece contains the figures for fish taken from other EU waters by the UK fleet. It is much smaller.
As I have said before there are many thousand more jobs at stake in the processing of the fish than there is in the fishing. Any new quotas for the UK should require the fish caught to be landed here.0 -
The NEF seem to have done a lot of work on this.eek said:
Really, that seems very unlikely given the extra effort that would be required to check the ownership of a company (which can be easily hidden)..Richard_Tyndall said:
That is already included in the NEF numbers I quoted.DavidL said:
And a lot of the British registered companies holding the quota are foreign owned because our fishermen sold them.rcs1000 said:
You do need to include wet leases, where the quota is owned by a British firm (or other entity) but the actual boat is neither owned nor operated by Brits.Richard_Tyndall said:
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.eek said:
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.0 -
That is true but as Robert has already pointed out those policies require to be compatible with EU law in respect of freedom of movement for people and businesses. You cannot discriminate in favour of your own population to the detriment of other EU citizens.williamglenn said:
How fishing quotas are allocated is up to national governments under the CFP and different member states have very different policies.DavidL said:
Its not that unusual in the EU though. Various rights which transferred for large sums of money such as Milk quota and the right to various subsidies re livestock have either disappeared or been materially changed in their operation as policies changed. Fishing quota is a man made artificial construct and it is up to us to determine how it is allocated once we are free of CFP commitments.contrarian said:
Indeed but what about if you had bought a fishing licence in good faith from someone and were suddenly told it was worthless and you couldn't fish. Its a bit like buying farming land from someone in, say, France, and being told you couldn;t farm, isn;t it?Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.0 -
And is something that will be dealt with directly by the negotiations or, if they fail, will revert to the UK with those quotas being lost to those countries. What we are talking about are the claims that it will be difficult to regain control of UK quotas that have been sold on to other owners. That is what the discussion has been about.DavidL said:
Its fish from UK waters that is landed in other countries.Richard_Tyndall said:
But the numbers you have quoted there are for French, Dutch and Danish quotas to fish legally in UK waters, not for what we were talking about which is fish taken by foreign owned vessels under UK quotas.DavidL said:
A better indication comes from here: https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/Richard_Tyndall said:
That is already included in the NEF numbers I quoted.DavidL said:
And a lot of the British registered companies holding the quota are foreign owned because our fishermen sold them.rcs1000 said:
You do need to include wet leases, where the quota is owned by a British firm (or other entity) but the actual boat is neither owned nor operated by Brits.Richard_Tyndall said:
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.eek said:
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.
"The three other EU Member States landing the most value from UK waters were:
France (120,000 tonnes, £171 million)
Netherlands (177,000 tonnes, £92 million)
Denmark (237,000 tonnes, £90 million)"
This is fish scooped (perfectly legally) from UK waters but not landed here because the fish are processed elsewhere. I have to say that I was surprised that Spain was not on that list but maybe that is more of a Scottish issue. The same piece contains the figures for fish taken from other EU waters by the UK fleet. It is much smaller.
As I have said before there are many thousand more jobs at stake in the processing of the fish than there is in the fishing. Any new quotas for the UK should require the fish caught to be landed here.
Bear in mind that the UK is unusual in that in many other countries, as William rightly points out below, they have different systems where quotas are held by the Government not by the boats and therefore cannot be bought and sold. In that case it would have to be an EU government suing the UK not an individual. It then becomes politics rather than law.0 -
Does Number 10 pay you for your time? They really should.Philip_Thompson said:
Depends who is calling and why surely?Scott_xP said:
Maybe the PMs office has more to deal with during a pandemic and Brexit negotiations etc than the LOTO does?0 -
I am genuinely sorry that you do not hold the Nation State in the same respect. Without it we would be hard pressed to maintain our democracy.kinabalu said:
Yes, you too. Definitely. Sorry for missing you out there.Richard_Tyndall said:
I would hope he does fetishize it. The Nation State with an accountable government is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.kinabalu said:
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.Philip_Thompson said:
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.2 -
Maintain? Based on your definition we have never been a democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am genuinely sorry that you do not hold the Nation State in the same respect. Without it we would be hard pressed to maintain our democracy.kinabalu said:
Yes, you too. Definitely. Sorry for missing you out there.Richard_Tyndall said:
I would hope he does fetishize it. The Nation State with an accountable government is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.kinabalu said:
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.Philip_Thompson said:
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.0 -
And yet there is practically no foreign ownership of French or Dutch fishing quotas.DavidL said:
That is true but as Robert has already pointed out those policies require to be compatible with EU law in respect of freedom of movement for people and businesses. You cannot discriminate in favour of your own population to the detriment of other EU citizens.williamglenn said:
How fishing quotas are allocated is up to national governments under the CFP and different member states have very different policies.DavidL said:
Its not that unusual in the EU though. Various rights which transferred for large sums of money such as Milk quota and the right to various subsidies re livestock have either disappeared or been materially changed in their operation as policies changed. Fishing quota is a man made artificial construct and it is up to us to determine how it is allocated once we are free of CFP commitments.contrarian said:
Indeed but what about if you had bought a fishing licence in good faith from someone and were suddenly told it was worthless and you couldn't fish. Its a bit like buying farming land from someone in, say, France, and being told you couldn;t farm, isn;t it?Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.0 -
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.0 -
They've already been gradually imposing their will, and needed only wait to be able to do so completely, but have been impatient and started ramping up. I think resistance will be briefer than many would hope, so brutal suppression will be limited by that more than anything else.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
0 -
It would be grossly immoral, disgraceful, if we gave any hint to the brave people of HK that we were going to intervene in any way to save them when that is beyond our power. And I fear that is what is going to happen when they read too much into our leaders highly principled nonsense. I think we are going to end up with blood on our hands.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.0 -
We are well used to that kind of stupidity and ignorance re Scotland on here.TimT said:
Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?Fishing said:
No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.StuartDickson said:Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.
(Ducks and takes cover)0 -
You don't pick up the phone.Big_G_NorthWales said:That is what happens when you have no policies to discuss
Worrying0 -
-
I'm happy to contemplate a world of peacefully co-existing Nation States none of whom are seeking to "make themselves great" or any of that nationalistic nonsense.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am genuinely sorry that you do not hold the Nation State in the same respect. Without it we would be hard pressed to maintain our democracy.kinabalu said:
Yes, you too. Definitely. Sorry for missing you out there.Richard_Tyndall said:
I would hope he does fetishize it. The Nation State with an accountable government is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.kinabalu said:
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.Philip_Thompson said:
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
Unfortunately some of them - including the two biggest and most powerful - do not seem to share my vision at the present time.0 -
F Off you stupid tosser, funniest thing is plonkers like you that think you are special.Richard_Nabavi said:
One the many hilarious things about Scottish nationalism is the attempt to pretend that the British Empire had nothing to do with Scots.kle4 said:
Oh please, you think the English invented imperialism or something? That they have patented a version of it?StuartDickson said:Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.
That's so absurdly ridiculous it cannot even be taken seriously as an attempt to troll.0 -
Everything worries you ScottScott_xP said:
You don't pick up the phone.Big_G_NorthWales said:That is what happens when you have no policies to discuss
Worrying0 -
It's not like Boris answers the phones himself, and HMG's media team will be orders of magnitude bigger than Labour's.Philip_Thompson said:
Depends who is calling and why surely?Scott_xP said:
Maybe the PMs office has more to deal with during a pandemic and Brexit negotiations etc than the LOTO does?0 -
They will huff and puff and do nothing other than leave them in the lurch.DavidL said:
It would be grossly immoral, disgraceful, if we gave any hint to the brave people of HK that we were going to intervene in any way to save them when that is beyond our power. And I fear that is what is going to happen when they read too much into our leaders highly principled nonsense. I think we are going to end up with blood on our hands.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.0 -
Might be updated later
Diagnosticados últimas 24 horas: 971 Diagnosticados últimos 7 días: 10220 Diagnosticados últimos 14 días: 16410 Incidencia Acumulada (IA): 34,9 Número reproductivo básico (Rt): 0,9
Fallecidos:28.429
Fallecidos últimos 7 días: 7
Recuperados:18-05-2020150.376
Hospitalizados: 126.241 Hospitalizados últimos 7 días: 296 UCI: 11.741 UCI últimos 7 días: 15
PCR totales: 2.536.234
PCR/1000 hab: 53,8 Incremento capacidad PCR última semana:0 -
-
Who will UK fishermen sell to given the EU buys most especially in terms of seafood . So no trade deal and those will be hit with large tariffs . Some seem to think it’s Brexit heresy to allow any EU boats in UK waters.0
-
Does Labour really need to improve its favourability among students any further?
Labour would 'rescue any university going bust'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-535186510 -
-snip-
Absolutely right. In fact I was offered a job in the "cabinet" of Finn Olav Gundelach, the first fishing commissioner in 1973.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry Robert but this is wrong. Or at least misleading. Prior to the UK/Denmark/Ireland accession there was no CFP for the existing EEC countries fishing in the North Sea, the Baltic or the Med. They were perfectly happy for fishing to be a national competence before then. It was only when those countries with very large fishing areas - the UK, Ireland and Norway - were looking to join that the CFP was devised. That gave quotas for fishing in British and Irish waters (the Norwegians had more sense than to join in the end) to other EEC countries from the very start.
1 -
LOL, more bollox on how SNP are doomed, you must be kidding , I can just see Labour reviving with Tory Murray leading the charge. When will next big beast come up from down south to quell the natives.Burgessian said:
On fishing, I'd be very surprised if Boris gave way. It may not be economically important, but it's hugely useful in Scotland politically. And we've seen BJ waking up to the Scottish problem. SNP hate it when they are accused of wanting to hand fishing back to the EU - no plausible answer to the charge.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry Robert but this is wrong. Or at least misleading. Prior to the UK/Denmark/Ireland accession there was no CFP for the existing EEC countries fishing in the North Sea, the Baltic or the Med. They were perfectly happy for fishing to be a national competence before then. It was only when those countries with very large fishing areas - the UK, Ireland and Norway - were looking to join that the CFP was devised. That gave quotas for fishing in British and Irish waters (the Norwegians had more sense than to join in the end) to other EEC countries from the very start.rcs1000 said:
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.welshowl said:
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.Gallowgate said:
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.algarkirk said:
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?Gallowgate said:
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?welshowl said:
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.nichomar said:
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotascontrarian said:
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communitiesGallowgate said:
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My Scottish family do and with a passion.Gallowgate said:Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
Their communities were founded on fishing
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
On Indy, generally. I'm struck how strong Starmer and his Shadow SoS for Scotland, Ian Murray are on the subject. They are not going to allow themselves to be stitched up as Sturgeon puppets as Miliband was. Boris can rule out IndyRef2 with impunity.
Another counter-intuitive thought at a time of Sturgeon worship. The SNP's strength is its ability to draw support from Left and Right in Scotland. But that can also be its weakness. Beyond a hardcore of, say, 20% or so, who put Indy above all else, they are vulnerable to being squeezed if politics becomes about economics and services. We saw in 2017 how they were rattled by Scots Tory revival. Labour, if they get their act together, are far more dangerous than the Tories as most Scots feel fairly benign to the party. They could revive. Stranger things have happened (as we have seen).1 -
Fishing in UK waters is a matter for HMG to agree post Brexitnico67 said:Who will UK fishermen sell to given the EU buys most especially in terms of seafood . So no trade deal and those will be hit with large tariffs . Some seem to think it’s Brexit heresy to allow any EU boats in UK waters.
1 -
That has very little to do with getting support from students!kle4 said:Does Labour really need to improve its favourability among students any further?
Labour would 'rescue any university going bust'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-535186510 -
I think prolonged mass resistance would probably work - i.e. force concessions - but HK is part of China and its integration over time is surely inevitable.kle4 said:
They've already been gradually imposing their will, and needed only wait to be able to do so completely, but have been impatient and started ramping up. I think resistance will be briefer than many would hope, so brutal suppression will be limited by that more than anything else.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
As for whether there will be prolonged mass resistance, I don't know. I don't have a good sense of that.0 -
Back to the 50% mantra.tlg86 said:
That has very little to do with getting support from students!kle4 said:Does Labour really need to improve its favourability among students any further?
Labour would 'rescue any university going bust'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53518651
This is a nonsense for post covid1 -
No, it isn't, not solely [edit]. The devolved nations have control of their waters under the devoluition settlement, in Scotland's case at least. "Marine Scotland is responsible for controlling the activities of all fishing vessels operating within the Scottish zone, as defined by the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and the Scotland Act 1998. This covers the North Sea and west of Scotland out to 200 nautical miles. It is also responsible for managing and controlling the activities of Scottish vessels wherever they may fish – including fishing effort and quota. To do this Marine Scotland works with the UK Government in negotiating fishing opportunities through the European Union and in other international negotiations."Big_G_NorthWales said:
Fishing in UK waters is a matter for HMG to agree post Brexitnico67 said:Who will UK fishermen sell to given the EU buys most especially in terms of seafood . So no trade deal and those will be hit with large tariffs . Some seem to think it’s Brexit heresy to allow any EU boats in UK waters.
Also, anyone discussing fishing inj Scotland - bear in mind that the interests and politics of the big east coast barons (those who havent' sold out) are very different from the ones we don't hear so kmuch about, the coastal fishermen who are also important employment wise.0 -
It's integration was already inevitable, which is why their recent actions make little sense to me. Reports from around the time of their local elections last year suggested Beijing was completely convinced by their own comments about how the majority backed their view of the protests going on and was genuinely surprised by the outcome. If that is true, I wonder if their upping the ante is a sign they still believe their own bull, or they realised their mistake and realised their grip was not tight enough.kinabalu said:
I think prolonged mass resistance would probably work - i.e. force concessions - but HK is part of China and its integration over time is surely inevitable.kle4 said:
They've already been gradually imposing their will, and needed only wait to be able to do so completely, but have been impatient and started ramping up. I think resistance will be briefer than many would hope, so brutal suppression will be limited by that more than anything else.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
As for whether there will be prolonged mass resistance, I don't know. I don't have a good sense of that.0 -
They are very brave. Those who risk their lives and welfare opposing powerful oppressive regimes are amazing people.DavidL said:
It would be grossly immoral, disgraceful, if we gave any hint to the brave people of HK that we were going to intervene in any way to save them when that is beyond our power. And I fear that is what is going to happen when they read too much into our leaders highly principled nonsense. I think we are going to end up with blood on our hands.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
And that would indeed be appalling if we were to foment a rebellion and then seek to wash our hands of it.1 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
Fishing in UK waters is a matter for HMG to agree post Brexitnico67 said:Who will UK fishermen sell to given the EU buys most especially in terms of seafood . So no trade deal and those will be hit with large tariffs . Some seem to think it’s Brexit heresy to allow any EU boats in UK waters.
Further to this - an example of the latter.Carnyx said:
No, it isn't, not solely [edit]. The devolved nations have control of their waters under the devoluition settlement, in Scotland's case at least. "Marine Scotland is responsible for controlling the activities of all fishing vessels operating within the Scottish zone, as defined by the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and the Scotland Act 1998. This covers the North Sea and west of Scotland out to 200 nautical miles. It is also responsible for managing and controlling the activities of Scottish vessels wherever they may fish – including fishing effort and quota. To do this Marine Scotland works with the UK Government in negotiating fishing opportunities through the European Union and in other international negotiations."Big_G_NorthWales said:
Fishing in UK waters is a matter for HMG to agree post Brexitnico67 said:Who will UK fishermen sell to given the EU buys most especially in terms of seafood . So no trade deal and those will be hit with large tariffs . Some seem to think it’s Brexit heresy to allow any EU boats in UK waters.
Also, anyone discussing fishing inj Scotland - bear in mind that the interests and politics of the big east coast barons (those who havent' sold out) are very different from the ones we don't hear so kmuch about, the coastal fishermen who are also important employment wise.
https://www.berwickshirenews.co.uk/news/d-r-collin-facing-reality-brexit-1141940 -
I think that there is a big gap between the UK speaking out about what is going on there and trying to do something (and possibly over promising) and suggesting the UK has such influence that its actions could count as 'fomenting a rebellion'. That would seem to place far too high a responsibility on the UK over both the chinese authorities and the agency of the people of Hong Kong. We're clearly involved and I think DavidL's concerns about most things beyond our power and people potentially suffering as a result is not unfounded, but there is a danger of ascribing too much influence to our politicians and thus blaming them unfairly when things go very bad.kinabalu said:
They are very brave. Those who risk their lives and welfare opposing powerful oppressive regimes are amazing people.DavidL said:
It would be grossly immoral, disgraceful, if we gave any hint to the brave people of HK that we were going to intervene in any way to save them when that is beyond our power. And I fear that is what is going to happen when they read too much into our leaders highly principled nonsense. I think we are going to end up with blood on our hands.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
And that would indeed be appalling if we were to foment a rebellion and then seek to wash our hands of it.0 -
So you want a world of mediocrity?kinabalu said:
I'm happy to contemplate a world of peacefully co-existing Nation States none of whom are seeking to "make themselves great" or any of that nationalistic nonsense.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am genuinely sorry that you do not hold the Nation State in the same respect. Without it we would be hard pressed to maintain our democracy.kinabalu said:
Yes, you too. Definitely. Sorry for missing you out there.Richard_Tyndall said:
I would hope he does fetishize it. The Nation State with an accountable government is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.kinabalu said:
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.Philip_Thompson said:
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
Unfortunately some of them - including the two biggest and most powerful - do not seem to share my vision at the present time.
How uninspiring.0 -
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
Don't be silly, I think we all know the Northern Irish would always be the first to be sold out.malcolmg said:
@Charles The one certain thing Charles is that the Tories will happily sell out Scotland , we will be first overboard.Charles said:
Darn you! Now there’s no chance of @malcolmg coming up with a thoughtful and reasoned response...kle4 said:
Both sides professing astonishment and confusion at what the other is offering or not compromising on is extremely false and tedious. I would find it hard to work in an environment where I'd have to constantly repeat such nonsense.Charles said:
What is unreasonable about the U.K. position on fishing and on dynamic level playing field regulations?malcolmg said:
No shit Sherlock, it has been plan all along for the clowns, just make unreasonable demands and try to blame it on EU.Philip_Thompson said:Barnier still expecting us to compromise not him.
We should prepare for no deal.
I only do that on my free time.0 -
Once again we see the ignorance of Scottish matters on here, it is endemic, everything is supposedly under ownership of London, we are merely serfs.Carnyx said:
No, it isn't, not solely [edit]. The devolved nations have control of their waters under the devoluition settlement, in Scotland's case at least. "Marine Scotland is responsible for controlling the activities of all fishing vessels operating within the Scottish zone, as defined by the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and the Scotland Act 1998. This covers the North Sea and west of Scotland out to 200 nautical miles. It is also responsible for managing and controlling the activities of Scottish vessels wherever they may fish – including fishing effort and quota. To do this Marine Scotland works with the UK Government in negotiating fishing opportunities through the European Union and in other international negotiations."Big_G_NorthWales said:
Fishing in UK waters is a matter for HMG to agree post Brexitnico67 said:Who will UK fishermen sell to given the EU buys most especially in terms of seafood . So no trade deal and those will be hit with large tariffs . Some seem to think it’s Brexit heresy to allow any EU boats in UK waters.
Also, anyone discussing fishing inj Scotland - bear in mind that the interests and politics of the big east coast barons (those who havent' sold out) are very different from the ones we don't hear so kmuch about, the coastal fishermen who are also important employment wise.0 -
Will it have pineapple as wellCarnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
The zeal of the convert eh?Scott_xP said:
Have you got any tweets from Nandy or Starmer criticising this policy please?0 -
Not your most creative put-down, Malcolm. Are you out of sorts?malcolmg said:
F Off you stupid tosser, funniest thing is plonkers like you that think you are special.Richard_Nabavi said:
One the many hilarious things about Scottish nationalism is the attempt to pretend that the British Empire had nothing to do with Scots.kle4 said:
Oh please, you think the English invented imperialism or something? That they have patented a version of it?StuartDickson said:Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.
That's so absurdly ridiculous it cannot even be taken seriously as an attempt to troll.2 -
The Chinese will be having a good laugh at Raab and company. Not even paper tigers.kle4 said:
I think that there is a big gap between the UK speaking out about what is going on there and trying to do something (and possibly over promising) and suggesting the UK has such influence that its actions could count as 'fomenting a rebellion'. That would seem to place far too high a responsibility on the UK over both the chinese authorities and the agency of the people of Hong Kong. We're clearly involved and I think DavidL's concerns about most things beyond our power and people potentially suffering as a result is not unfounded, but there is a danger of ascribing too much influence to our politicians and thus blaming them unfairly when things go very bad.kinabalu said:
They are very brave. Those who risk their lives and welfare opposing powerful oppressive regimes are amazing people.DavidL said:
It would be grossly immoral, disgraceful, if we gave any hint to the brave people of HK that we were going to intervene in any way to save them when that is beyond our power. And I fear that is what is going to happen when they read too much into our leaders highly principled nonsense. I think we are going to end up with blood on our hands.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
And that would indeed be appalling if we were to foment a rebellion and then seek to wash our hands of it.0 -
Me neither. Not sure what they're playing it. The geopolitical stuff re China is not one of my Hot Topics. But I was keen to make this one point where I do have a sense of things and which is maybe contrary to what many think. Being -kle4 said:
It's integration was already inevitable, which is why their recent actions make little sense to me. Reports from around the time of their local elections last year suggested Beijing was completely convinced by their own comments about how the majority backed their view of the protests going on and was genuinely surprised by the outcome. If that is true, I wonder if their upping the ante is a sign they still believe their own bull, or they realised their mistake and realised their grip was not tight enough.kinabalu said:
I think prolonged mass resistance would probably work - i.e. force concessions - but HK is part of China and its integration over time is surely inevitable.kle4 said:
They've already been gradually imposing their will, and needed only wait to be able to do so completely, but have been impatient and started ramping up. I think resistance will be briefer than many would hope, so brutal suppression will be limited by that more than anything else.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
As for whether there will be prolonged mass resistance, I don't know. I don't have a good sense of that.
If there IS prolonged mass resistance in Hong Kong, imo China will make concessions rather than attempt a Tiananmen Square type bloody repression.0 -
"Damn, they are big anchovies...."Carnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
At best it would be close run.kle4 said:
Don't be silly, I think we all know the Northern Irish would always be the first to be sold out.malcolmg said:
@Charles The one certain thing Charles is that the Tories will happily sell out Scotland , we will be first overboard.Charles said:
Darn you! Now there’s no chance of @malcolmg coming up with a thoughtful and reasoned response...kle4 said:
Both sides professing astonishment and confusion at what the other is offering or not compromising on is extremely false and tedious. I would find it hard to work in an environment where I'd have to constantly repeat such nonsense.Charles said:
What is unreasonable about the U.K. position on fishing and on dynamic level playing field regulations?malcolmg said:
No shit Sherlock, it has been plan all along for the clowns, just make unreasonable demands and try to blame it on EU.Philip_Thompson said:Barnier still expecting us to compromise not him.
We should prepare for no deal.
I only do that on my free time.0 -
Anything connect these places, bar a lot of covid spreading?Scott_xP said:0 -
Why wouldn't we just export it? The people currently buying the fish presumably will continue to want to do so.Carnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
Short of time as I have been too busy at work , so have to make do and mend.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not your most creative put-down, Malcolm. Are you out of sorts?malcolmg said:
F Off you stupid tosser, funniest thing is plonkers like you that think you are special.Richard_Nabavi said:
One the many hilarious things about Scottish nationalism is the attempt to pretend that the British Empire had nothing to do with Scots.kle4 said:
Oh please, you think the English invented imperialism or something? That they have patented a version of it?StuartDickson said:Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.
That's so absurdly ridiculous it cannot even be taken seriously as an attempt to troll.0 -
all the extra costs, tariffs etc , they will get it elsewhere or stick to local.Philip_Thompson said:
Why wouldn't we just export it? The people currently buying the fish presumably will continue to want to do so.Carnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
Extremely optimistic on that I think.kinabalu said:
Me neither. Not sure what they're playing it. The geopolitical stuff re China is not one of my Hot Topics. But I was keen to make this one point where I do have a sense of things and which is maybe contrary to what many think. Being -kle4 said:
It's integration was already inevitable, which is why their recent actions make little sense to me. Reports from around the time of their local elections last year suggested Beijing was completely convinced by their own comments about how the majority backed their view of the protests going on and was genuinely surprised by the outcome. If that is true, I wonder if their upping the ante is a sign they still believe their own bull, or they realised their mistake and realised their grip was not tight enough.kinabalu said:
I think prolonged mass resistance would probably work - i.e. force concessions - but HK is part of China and its integration over time is surely inevitable.kle4 said:
They've already been gradually imposing their will, and needed only wait to be able to do so completely, but have been impatient and started ramping up. I think resistance will be briefer than many would hope, so brutal suppression will be limited by that more than anything else.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
As for whether there will be prolonged mass resistance, I don't know. I don't have a good sense of that.
If there IS prolonged mass resistance in Hong Kong, imo China will make concessions rather than attempt a Tiananmen Square type bloody repression.1 -
No they won't, it'll end up as cat food or fertiliser.Carnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
It was a joke, and if you'd read the thread, you'd have seen that I happily admitted my ignorance on this issue and sought good sources to enlighten me. But you are still an arsehole.malcolmg said:
We are well used to that kind of stupidity and ignorance re Scotland on here.TimT said:
Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?Fishing said:
No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.StuartDickson said:Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.
(Ducks and takes cover)0 -
I don't see why. It's a natural resource so they presumably can't just magic up schools of new fish in their waters to replace the stuff they were buying from our waters.malcolmg said:
all the extra costs, tariffs etc , they will get it elsewhere or stick to local.Philip_Thompson said:
Why wouldn't we just export it? The people currently buying the fish presumably will continue to want to do so.Carnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
Texas seems to be avoiding the Covid apocalypse. Houston hospital occupancy rate is falling but their hospitalisation death rate keeps rising.0
-
I will forgive you as not had time to read whole thread, I am a very likeable and sociable arsehole though. A pleasant evening to you.TimT said:
It was a joke, and if you'd read the thread, you'd have seen that I happily admitted my ignorance on this issue and sought good sources to enlighten me. But you are still an arsehole.malcolmg said:
We are well used to that kind of stupidity and ignorance re Scotland on here.TimT said:
Wasn't the reason for the Union failed Scottish imperialism?Fishing said:
No, Chinese imperialism existed long before the British (Scots were imperialists, just like the English) variety. Indeed, long before the English were even a nation.StuartDickson said:Chinese imperialism is modelled on English imperialism. It was you guys who learnt them the ropes.
(Ducks and takes cover)0 -
And logistics. Spanish trawler catches North Sea fish and lands it at Spanish port is one thing, Aberdeen trawler ditto and then puts it into trucks to drive to Dover to sit in customs queue to cross channel to drive to Spain is another, fish being fish.malcolmg said:
all the extra costs, tariffs etc , they will get it elsewhere or stick to local.Philip_Thompson said:
Why wouldn't we just export it? The people currently buying the fish presumably will continue to want to do so.Carnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
1 -
It was inevitable the death rate would rise given the hospitalisation rates but hopefully not too much. Do you think they've peaked if it's falling again? Deaths are rather a lagging indicator.Alistair said:Texas seems to be avoiding the Covid apocalypse. Houston hospital occupancy rate is falling but their hospitalisation death rate keeps rising.
0 -
Simply speaking out does not equate to fomenting trouble. But I think David meant something more than this. He meant giving people in HK the idea that we would do a whole lot more than talk. That we - GREAT Britain - were in some way capable of rescuing them from their ultimate fate as being an integral part of China.kle4 said:
I think that there is a big gap between the UK speaking out about what is going on there and trying to do something (and possibly over promising) and suggesting the UK has such influence that its actions could count as 'fomenting a rebellion'. That would seem to place far too high a responsibility on the UK over both the chinese authorities and the agency of the people of Hong Kong. We're clearly involved and I think DavidL's concerns about most things beyond our power and people potentially suffering as a result is not unfounded, but there is a danger of ascribing too much influence to our politicians and thus blaming them unfairly when things go very bad.kinabalu said:
They are very brave. Those who risk their lives and welfare opposing powerful oppressive regimes are amazing people.DavidL said:
It would be grossly immoral, disgraceful, if we gave any hint to the brave people of HK that we were going to intervene in any way to save them when that is beyond our power. And I fear that is what is going to happen when they read too much into our leaders highly principled nonsense. I think we are going to end up with blood on our hands.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
And that would indeed be appalling if we were to foment a rebellion and then seek to wash our hands of it.0 -
Hmm. Whilst I get your point, it is as nothing compared to the fact that fish is currently sent from the UK to China to be filleted, processed, packaged and sent back for sale in UK supermarkets as 'British' fish.IshmaelZ said:
And logistics. Spanish trawler catches North Sea fish and lands it at Spanish port is one thing, Aberdeen trawler ditto and then puts it into trucks to drive to Dover to sit in customs queue to cross channel to drive to Spain is another, fish being fish.malcolmg said:
all the extra costs, tariffs etc , they will get it elsewhere or stick to local.Philip_Thompson said:
Why wouldn't we just export it? The people currently buying the fish presumably will continue to want to do so.Carnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
Also worth pointing out that Scotland has by far the biggest interest in this being done properly. Not only do they have a much more valuable fishing industry than England but it is also far more locally owned.Carnyx said:
No, it isn't, not solely [edit]. The devolved nations have control of their waters under the devoluition settlement, in Scotland's case at least. "Marine Scotland is responsible for controlling the activities of all fishing vessels operating within the Scottish zone, as defined by the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and the Scotland Act 1998. This covers the North Sea and west of Scotland out to 200 nautical miles. It is also responsible for managing and controlling the activities of Scottish vessels wherever they may fish – including fishing effort and quota. To do this Marine Scotland works with the UK Government in negotiating fishing opportunities through the European Union and in other international negotiations."Big_G_NorthWales said:
Fishing in UK waters is a matter for HMG to agree post Brexitnico67 said:Who will UK fishermen sell to given the EU buys most especially in terms of seafood . So no trade deal and those will be hit with large tariffs . Some seem to think it’s Brexit heresy to allow any EU boats in UK waters.
Also, anyone discussing fishing inj Scotland - bear in mind that the interests and politics of the big east coast barons (those who havent' sold out) are very different from the ones we don't hear so kmuch about, the coastal fishermen who are also important employment wise.
2 -
If @ydoethur or any other decent historians are about, what are the best book(s) to read about the Black Death?
I currently have a working knowledge about the Great Pestilence of the 14th century.
I'm particularly keen to know more about the blame the Jews received for the (inaccurate) perception that they were the ones responsible for spreading the Black Death?0 -
Could be. But I do predict there will be one of two outcomes - either little mass resistance or serious mass resistance that leads to concessions from China rather than major bloodshed. I guess you hope I'm right even if you think I'm not.malcolmg said:
Extremely optimistic on that I think.kinabalu said:
Me neither. Not sure what they're playing it. The geopolitical stuff re China is not one of my Hot Topics. But I was keen to make this one point where I do have a sense of things and which is maybe contrary to what many think. Being -kle4 said:
It's integration was already inevitable, which is why their recent actions make little sense to me. Reports from around the time of their local elections last year suggested Beijing was completely convinced by their own comments about how the majority backed their view of the protests going on and was genuinely surprised by the outcome. If that is true, I wonder if their upping the ante is a sign they still believe their own bull, or they realised their mistake and realised their grip was not tight enough.kinabalu said:
I think prolonged mass resistance would probably work - i.e. force concessions - but HK is part of China and its integration over time is surely inevitable.kle4 said:
They've already been gradually imposing their will, and needed only wait to be able to do so completely, but have been impatient and started ramping up. I think resistance will be briefer than many would hope, so brutal suppression will be limited by that more than anything else.kinabalu said:
I wouldn't say I feel exactly optimistic about HK. It's part of China and will be integrated over time. But I don't see China brutally suppressing mass resistance if there is mass resistance. I think they'll need to find a way other than that to gradually impose their will. No Tiananmen Square in the offing.DavidL said:
I think that you are being seriously and indeed dangerously optimistic about HK. On trade the Chinese are very successfully implementing mercantilsm, something our free trade fanatics still tell us doesn't work.kinabalu said:
OTOH, "people power" can be awesome. Over time irresistible. For example, if the population of Hong Kong resist Chinese oppression en masse, I do not share the view of many that China will simply roll them over. I think China would have a big problem in such circumstances. I don't think they will do a Tiananmen in a place like HK in today's exposed world.DavidL said:And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from:
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
And a thought on (a). Yes, totally right as regards the USSR. But in the current wrangling with China there is a touch of the opposite - the inability of our mixed economy to compete with their state directed capitalism.
As for whether there will be prolonged mass resistance, I don't know. I don't have a good sense of that.
If there IS prolonged mass resistance in Hong Kong, imo China will make concessions rather than attempt a Tiananmen Square type bloody repression.0 -
"Peacefully co-existing, non-nationalistic nation states = A world of mediocrity" -Philip_Thompson said:
So you want a world of mediocrity?kinabalu said:
I'm happy to contemplate a world of peacefully co-existing Nation States none of whom are seeking to "make themselves great" or any of that nationalistic nonsense.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am genuinely sorry that you do not hold the Nation State in the same respect. Without it we would be hard pressed to maintain our democracy.kinabalu said:
Yes, you too. Definitely. Sorry for missing you out there.Richard_Tyndall said:
I would hope he does fetishize it. The Nation State with an accountable government is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.kinabalu said:
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.Philip_Thompson said:
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
Unfortunately some of them - including the two biggest and most powerful - do not seem to share my vision at the present time.
How uninspiring.
That's your problem right there.0 -
The Great Mortality by John Kelly is very readable and has (at least) a whole chapter on the Jewish theory and its horrible consequences.TheScreamingEagles said:If @ydoethur or any other decent historians are about, what are the best book(s) to read about the Black Death?
I currently have a working knowledge about the Great Pestilence of the 14th century.
I'm particularly keen to know more about the blame the Jews received for the (inaccurate) perception that they were the ones responsible for spreading the Black Death?0 -
Thank you.IshmaelZ said:
The Great Mortality by John Kelly is very readable and has (at least) a whole chapter on the Jewish theory and its horrible consequences.TheScreamingEagles said:If @ydoethur or any other decent historians are about, what are the best book(s) to read about the Black Death?
I currently have a working knowledge about the Great Pestilence of the 14th century.
I'm particularly keen to know more about the blame the Jews received for the (inaccurate) perception that they were the ones responsible for spreading the Black Death?
Edit - Hurrah, it is available on Amazon and the Kindle App.0 -
@kinabalu can you please explain why you want a world of mediocre nations rather than countries striving for greatness?
Do you extend that to other walks of life? Should I be disappointed Liverpool are great and want a return to mediocrity?0 -
I think I posted on here a while back the composition of EU countries fishing fleets by displacement / tonnage. The UK had the smallest boat size. Essentially, in most EU countries owner-operated small trawlers had been replaced by industrial fishing vessels, owned by corporations.Richard_Tyndall said:
And yet there is practically no foreign ownership of French or Dutch fishing quotas.DavidL said:
That is true but as Robert has already pointed out those policies require to be compatible with EU law in respect of freedom of movement for people and businesses. You cannot discriminate in favour of your own population to the detriment of other EU citizens.williamglenn said:
How fishing quotas are allocated is up to national governments under the CFP and different member states have very different policies.DavidL said:
Its not that unusual in the EU though. Various rights which transferred for large sums of money such as Milk quota and the right to various subsidies re livestock have either disappeared or been materially changed in their operation as policies changed. Fishing quota is a man made artificial construct and it is up to us to determine how it is allocated once we are free of CFP commitments.contrarian said:
Indeed but what about if you had bought a fishing licence in good faith from someone and were suddenly told it was worthless and you couldn't fish. Its a bit like buying farming land from someone in, say, France, and being told you couldn;t farm, isn;t it?Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
And because these vessels were more efficient, and because the companies didn't live hand to mouth, they could borrow to buy up British quotas.
Part of the problem we have is that we're not just trying to preserve British fish stocks for British fishermen, we're also trying to preserve a way of life.
And - really - the threats to that way of life, and the communities that depend on it, goes far beyond Brexit. To protect them, we need to not just have fishing quotas for British waters, but to also require that fish are landed in the UK, and that boats are limited to a maximum size.
Doing that, though, results in British fish being brought ashore at higher cost than those in Spain or France or wherever. And that then requires us to impose tariffs on fish imports, to allow the fishermen to fish economically.
We can do this - but doing this is part of a trade off in our negotiations with other countries over FTAs. How important is protecting a way of life that is economically marginal? And how does that compare to opportunities that might be lost in other parts of the economy?
There is also a longer-term existential threat: fish are being farmed more and more. This (Norwegian) project in Florida is going to provide 15% of the US's entire salmon consumption. Now, not all fish can be farmed, but an increasing proportion can, and people will choose farmed Chilean sea bass over wild haddock if the price difference is significant enough.
0 -
You cut out "none of whom are seeking to "make themselves great""kinabalu said:
"Peacefully co-existing, non-nationalistic nation states = A world of mediocrity" -Philip_Thompson said:
So you want a world of mediocrity?kinabalu said:
I'm happy to contemplate a world of peacefully co-existing Nation States none of whom are seeking to "make themselves great" or any of that nationalistic nonsense.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am genuinely sorry that you do not hold the Nation State in the same respect. Without it we would be hard pressed to maintain our democracy.kinabalu said:
Yes, you too. Definitely. Sorry for missing you out there.Richard_Tyndall said:
I would hope he does fetishize it. The Nation State with an accountable government is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.kinabalu said:
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.Philip_Thompson said:
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
Unfortunately some of them - including the two biggest and most powerful - do not seem to share my vision at the present time.
How uninspiring.
That's your problem right there.
So yes peaceful coexistence is all fine and dandy but you aspire to not even try to be great?0 -
Indeed. I too see very little love coming from British nationalists.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I see very little love coming from nationalistsStuartDickson said:
Indeed. Hatred won in 2014. Love lost.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just a reminder, you lost in 2014StuartDickson said:
Hatred is not Sturgeon’s modus operandi. She fought Glasgow Labour for many long years before first winning. They taught her that hatred, in which they specialised (eg. George Galloway), was a one-way route to failure.CorrectHorseBattery said:Starmer making the case for the Union is to win seats in England, not Scotland. That's the play.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades0 -
I'm afraid the difference is the Spanish like their fish really, really fresh, and the British will eat virtually anything.Richard_Tyndall said:
Hmm. Whilst I get your point, it is as nothing compared to the fact that fish is currently sent from the UK to China to be filleted, processed, packaged and sent back for sale in UK supermarkets as 'British' fish.IshmaelZ said:
And logistics. Spanish trawler catches North Sea fish and lands it at Spanish port is one thing, Aberdeen trawler ditto and then puts it into trucks to drive to Dover to sit in customs queue to cross channel to drive to Spain is another, fish being fish.malcolmg said:
all the extra costs, tariffs etc , they will get it elsewhere or stick to local.Philip_Thompson said:
Why wouldn't we just export it? The people currently buying the fish presumably will continue to want to do so.Carnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
Are we? What evidence is there that UK policy has been directed towards preserving a way of life?rcs1000 said:Part of the problem we have is that we're not just trying to preserve British fish stocks for British fishermen, we're also trying to preserve a way of life.
0 -
None of which is actually pertinent to the point that was being discussed and which you raised originally about the UK Government being sued if they remove all quotas from foreign vessels. Something that is very much overstated.rcs1000 said:
I think I posted on here a while back the composition of EU countries fishing fleets by displacement / tonnage. The UK had the smallest boat size. Essentially, in most EU countries owner-operated small trawlers had been replaced by industrial fishing vessels, owned by corporations.Richard_Tyndall said:
And yet there is practically no foreign ownership of French or Dutch fishing quotas.DavidL said:
That is true but as Robert has already pointed out those policies require to be compatible with EU law in respect of freedom of movement for people and businesses. You cannot discriminate in favour of your own population to the detriment of other EU citizens.williamglenn said:
How fishing quotas are allocated is up to national governments under the CFP and different member states have very different policies.DavidL said:
Its not that unusual in the EU though. Various rights which transferred for large sums of money such as Milk quota and the right to various subsidies re livestock have either disappeared or been materially changed in their operation as policies changed. Fishing quota is a man made artificial construct and it is up to us to determine how it is allocated once we are free of CFP commitments.contrarian said:
Indeed but what about if you had bought a fishing licence in good faith from someone and were suddenly told it was worthless and you couldn't fish. Its a bit like buying farming land from someone in, say, France, and being told you couldn;t farm, isn;t it?Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
And because these vessels were more efficient, and because the companies didn't live hand to mouth, they could borrow to buy up British quotas.
Part of the problem we have is that we're not just trying to preserve British fish stocks for British fishermen, we're also trying to preserve a way of life.
And - really - the threats to that way of life, and the communities that depend on it, goes far beyond Brexit. To protect them, we need to not just have fishing quotas for British waters, but to also require that fish are landed in the UK, and that boats are limited to a maximum size.
Doing that, though, results in British fish being brought ashore at higher cost than those in Spain or France or wherever. And that then requires us to impose tariffs on fish imports, to allow the fishermen to fish economically.
We can do this - but doing this is part of a trade off in our negotiations with other countries over FTAs. How important is protecting a way of life that is economically marginal? And how does that compare to opportunities that might be lost in other parts of the economy?
There is also a longer-term existential threat: fish are being farmed more and more. This (Norwegian) project in Florida is going to provide 15% of the US's entire salmon consumption. Now, not all fish can be farmed, but an increasing proportion can, and people will choose farmed Chilean sea bass over wild haddock if the price difference is significant enough.0 -
Unionist golden bullet #12,451Burgessian said:
On fishing, I'd be very surprised if Boris gave way. It may not be economically important, but it's hugely useful in Scotland politically. And we've seen BJ waking up to the Scottish problem. SNP hate it when they are accused of wanting to hand fishing back to the EU - no plausible answer to the charge.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry Robert but this is wrong. Or at least misleading. Prior to the UK/Denmark/Ireland accession there was no CFP for the existing EEC countries fishing in the North Sea, the Baltic or the Med. They were perfectly happy for fishing to be a national competence before then. It was only when those countries with very large fishing areas - the UK, Ireland and Norway - were looking to join that the CFP was devised. That gave quotas for fishing in British and Irish waters (the Norwegians had more sense than to join in the end) to other EEC countries from the very start.rcs1000 said:
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.welshowl said:
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.Gallowgate said:
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.algarkirk said:
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?Gallowgate said:
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?welshowl said:
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.nichomar said:
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotascontrarian said:
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communitiesGallowgate said:
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My Scottish family do and with a passion.Gallowgate said:Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
Their communities were founded on fishing
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
On Indy, generally. I'm struck how strong Starmer and his Shadow SoS for Scotland, Ian Murray are on the subject. They are not going to allow themselves to be stitched up as Sturgeon puppets as Miliband was. Boris can rule out IndyRef2 with impunity.
Another counter-intuitive thought at a time of Sturgeon worship. The SNP's strength is its ability to draw support from Left and Right in Scotland. But that can also be its weakness. Beyond a hardcore of, say, 20% or so, who put Indy above all else, they are vulnerable to being squeezed if politics becomes about economics and services. We saw in 2017 how they were rattled by Scots Tory revival. Labour, if they get their act together, are far more dangerous than the Tories as most Scots feel fairly benign to the party. They could revive. Stranger things have happened (as we have seen).
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present Roger’s cousin MP.0 -
I believe the UK is already world leading, world beating and oozing sheer might. Job done surely?Philip_Thompson said:@kinabalu can you please explain why you want a world of mediocre nations rather than countries striving for greatness?
Do you extend that to other walks of life? Should I be disappointed Liverpool are great and want a return to mediocrity?1 -
"Coronavirus: Excess deaths fall below five-year average in all but one England region"
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/coronavirus-death-toll-higher-ons-stats-a4504191.html0 -
Ben Gummer wrote a comprehensive history of the Black Death a few years ago.TheScreamingEagles said:If @ydoethur or any other decent historians are about, what are the best book(s) to read about the Black Death?
I currently have a working knowledge about the Great Pestilence of the 14th century.
I'm particularly keen to know more about the blame the Jews received for the (inaccurate) perception that they were the ones responsible for spreading the Black Death?0 -
Some of us were even brought up on canned snoek.IshmaelZ said:
I'm afraid the difference is the Spanish like their fish really, really fresh, and the British will eat virtually anything.Richard_Tyndall said:
Hmm. Whilst I get your point, it is as nothing compared to the fact that fish is currently sent from the UK to China to be filleted, processed, packaged and sent back for sale in UK supermarkets as 'British' fish.IshmaelZ said:
And logistics. Spanish trawler catches North Sea fish and lands it at Spanish port is one thing, Aberdeen trawler ditto and then puts it into trucks to drive to Dover to sit in customs queue to cross channel to drive to Spain is another, fish being fish.malcolmg said:
all the extra costs, tariffs etc , they will get it elsewhere or stick to local.Philip_Thompson said:
Why wouldn't we just export it? The people currently buying the fish presumably will continue to want to do so.Carnyx said:
Quite. And who is going to buy it? There is a huge mismatch of UK fish catch with the UK internal market. People are going to end up having mackerel and potato for dinner rather than pizza. Or mackerel pizza.Pulpstar said:Just how much fish are we planning on catching to make up for the economic hit of hard Brexit
0 -
Well, who would have expected SCUP to put a spanner in the works in '17?. Things change. Will be interesting to see if the famous 54% poll is a trend (or not).StuartDickson said:
Unionist golden bullet #12,451Burgessian said:
On fishing, I'd be very surprised if Boris gave way. It may not be economically important, but it's hugely useful in Scotland politically. And we've seen BJ waking up to the Scottish problem. SNP hate it when they are accused of wanting to hand fishing back to the EU - no plausible answer to the charge.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry Robert but this is wrong. Or at least misleading. Prior to the UK/Denmark/Ireland accession there was no CFP for the existing EEC countries fishing in the North Sea, the Baltic or the Med. They were perfectly happy for fishing to be a national competence before then. It was only when those countries with very large fishing areas - the UK, Ireland and Norway - were looking to join that the CFP was devised. That gave quotas for fishing in British and Irish waters (the Norwegians had more sense than to join in the end) to other EEC countries from the very start.rcs1000 said:
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.welshowl said:
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.Gallowgate said:
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.algarkirk said:
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?Gallowgate said:
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?welshowl said:
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.nichomar said:
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotascontrarian said:
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communitiesGallowgate said:
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My Scottish family do and with a passion.Gallowgate said:Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
Their communities were founded on fishing
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
On Indy, generally. I'm struck how strong Starmer and his Shadow SoS for Scotland, Ian Murray are on the subject. They are not going to allow themselves to be stitched up as Sturgeon puppets as Miliband was. Boris can rule out IndyRef2 with impunity.
Another counter-intuitive thought at a time of Sturgeon worship. The SNP's strength is its ability to draw support from Left and Right in Scotland. But that can also be its weakness. Beyond a hardcore of, say, 20% or so, who put Indy above all else, they are vulnerable to being squeezed if politics becomes about economics and services. We saw in 2017 how they were rattled by Scots Tory revival. Labour, if they get their act together, are far more dangerous than the Tories as most Scots feel fairly benign to the party. They could revive. Stranger things have happened (as we have seen).
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present Roger’s cousin MP.0 -
The problem is this is not "normal" politics. It's about identity. Playing with fire.StuartDickson said:
Indeed. I too see very little love coming from British nationalists.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I see very little love coming from nationalistsStuartDickson said:
Indeed. Hatred won in 2014. Love lost.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just a reminder, you lost in 2014StuartDickson said:
Hatred is not Sturgeon’s modus operandi. She fought Glasgow Labour for many long years before first winning. They taught her that hatred, in which they specialised (eg. George Galloway), was a one-way route to failure.CorrectHorseBattery said:Starmer making the case for the Union is to win seats in England, not Scotland. That's the play.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades0 -
He did, but it is limited to the British Isles where England had just expelled its Jewish population.Andy_JS said:
Ben Gummer wrote a comprehensive history of the Black Death a few years ago.TheScreamingEagles said:If @ydoethur or any other decent historians are about, what are the best book(s) to read about the Black Death?
I currently have a working knowledge about the Great Pestilence of the 14th century.
I'm particularly keen to know more about the blame the Jews received for the (inaccurate) perception that they were the ones responsible for spreading the Black Death?1 -
My points are a bit more nuanced.Richard_Tyndall said:
None of which is actually pertinent to the point that was being discussed and which you raised originally about the UK Government being sued if they remove all quotas from foreign vessels. Something that is very much overstated.rcs1000 said:
I think I posted on here a while back the composition of EU countries fishing fleets by displacement / tonnage. The UK had the smallest boat size. Essentially, in most EU countries owner-operated small trawlers had been replaced by industrial fishing vessels, owned by corporations.Richard_Tyndall said:
And yet there is practically no foreign ownership of French or Dutch fishing quotas.DavidL said:
That is true but as Robert has already pointed out those policies require to be compatible with EU law in respect of freedom of movement for people and businesses. You cannot discriminate in favour of your own population to the detriment of other EU citizens.williamglenn said:
How fishing quotas are allocated is up to national governments under the CFP and different member states have very different policies.DavidL said:
Its not that unusual in the EU though. Various rights which transferred for large sums of money such as Milk quota and the right to various subsidies re livestock have either disappeared or been materially changed in their operation as policies changed. Fishing quota is a man made artificial construct and it is up to us to determine how it is allocated once we are free of CFP commitments.contrarian said:
Indeed but what about if you had bought a fishing licence in good faith from someone and were suddenly told it was worthless and you couldn't fish. Its a bit like buying farming land from someone in, say, France, and being told you couldn;t farm, isn;t it?Philip_Thompson said:On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
And because these vessels were more efficient, and because the companies didn't live hand to mouth, they could borrow to buy up British quotas.
Part of the problem we have is that we're not just trying to preserve British fish stocks for British fishermen, we're also trying to preserve a way of life.
And - really - the threats to that way of life, and the communities that depend on it, goes far beyond Brexit. To protect them, we need to not just have fishing quotas for British waters, but to also require that fish are landed in the UK, and that boats are limited to a maximum size.
Doing that, though, results in British fish being brought ashore at higher cost than those in Spain or France or wherever. And that then requires us to impose tariffs on fish imports, to allow the fishermen to fish economically.
We can do this - but doing this is part of a trade off in our negotiations with other countries over FTAs. How important is protecting a way of life that is economically marginal? And how does that compare to opportunities that might be lost in other parts of the economy?
There is also a longer-term existential threat: fish are being farmed more and more. This (Norwegian) project in Florida is going to provide 15% of the US's entire salmon consumption. Now, not all fish can be farmed, but an increasing proportion can, and people will choose farmed Chilean sea bass over wild haddock if the price difference is significant enough.
(1) If you strip quotas from one group of people, but leave them with others, then you open yourself up to legal challenge. If you completely abolished quotas then it's a very different situation. If you started from scratch, i.e. auctioning rights off each year, then you probably wouldn't have a problem. But it would be a disaster for fishing communities.
(2) Even if you made it so only British people and firms could own fishing quotas, you wouldn't necessarily change the amount of fish landed in the UK by Brits. Already a large chunk of British fish quotas are owned by Brits by effectively operated by others who never even dock at UK ports.
(3) We seem unclear as to our ultimate goal. Is it to protect British fishermen? Or is to have an efficient fishing industry? "Taking back control" - to a struggling fisherman - does not mean that rights become British but nothing changes.0 -
Each person, regardless of what country they live in, should aspire to be the best version of themselves and live the best life they can.Philip_Thompson said:
You cut out "none of whom are seeking to "make themselves great""kinabalu said:
"Peacefully co-existing, non-nationalistic nation states = A world of mediocrity" -Philip_Thompson said:
So you want a world of mediocrity?kinabalu said:
I'm happy to contemplate a world of peacefully co-existing Nation States none of whom are seeking to "make themselves great" or any of that nationalistic nonsense.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am genuinely sorry that you do not hold the Nation State in the same respect. Without it we would be hard pressed to maintain our democracy.kinabalu said:
Yes, you too. Definitely. Sorry for missing you out there.Richard_Tyndall said:
I would hope he does fetishize it. The Nation State with an accountable government is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.kinabalu said:
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.Philip_Thompson said:
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.CorrectHorseBattery said:I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
Unfortunately some of them - including the two biggest and most powerful - do not seem to share my vision at the present time.
How uninspiring.
That's your problem right there.
So yes peaceful coexistence is all fine and dandy but you aspire to not even try to be great?
The notion of Nation States trying to be "great" does not thrill me. Happy to leave that to fetishists like you and Tyndall.0 -
Yes, and remember it is winners' manifestos (Vote No to keep Scotland in the EU) that are put to the test afterwards.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Just a reminder, you lost in 2014StuartDickson said:
Hatred is not Sturgeon’s modus operandi. She fought Glasgow Labour for many long years before first winning. They taught her that hatred, in which they specialised (eg. George Galloway), was a one-way route to failure.CorrectHorseBattery said:Starmer making the case for the Union is to win seats in England, not Scotland. That's the play.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades1
