EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
'You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to'
If, of course, you sell below production, or in this case, catching, costs you are heading for disaster. Remember Mr Micawber. And building a new market, once one's original one is lost, takes time.
True but it won't happen. Its not like magically tonnes of new stock are going to be created to displace these sales.
Instead prices will adjust like you said.
As Mr Z points out a 5% tariff is feared to be crippling. A 20% one would be disastrous. If I find that a food product I like has gone up 20% I avoid it. For a while at any rate, and chose something else. I might come back to it eventually, but almost certainly not at the same level of consumption.
There are as many Debenhams employees as fishermen in the UK.
There used to be a lot more fishermen in the uk before the eu became a thing. I know as was one of them. We are often told quotas were sold and it's true. What they don't say though is why quota's were sold. It got to the point when the trawler I was on could only fish 6 weeks of the year because of quota's. People like me couldnt afford to be employed only 6 weeks of the year. People owning the trawler in our case our skipper couldnt afford the upkeep on a boat that could only work 6 weeks a year. We were just a small beam trawler not a massive factory ship
Of course the whole point of a quota is to preserve fishing stocks.
That doesn't explain the justification for the rest of Europe to be given much of what should be our quotas.
Which preceded any sales btw. "British" quotas owned by Spanish fleets aren't what is being debated between the two sides since they're classed as British quotas.
There are as many Debenhams employees as fishermen in the UK.
There used to be a lot more fishermen in the uk before the eu became a thing. I know as was one of them. We are often told quotas were sold and it's true. What they don't say though is why quota's were sold. It got to the point when the trawler I was on could only fish 6 weeks of the year because of quota's. People like me couldnt afford to be employed only 6 weeks of the year. People owning the trawler in our case our skipper couldnt afford the upkeep on a boat that could only work 6 weeks a year. We were just a small beam trawler not a massive factory ship
Of course the whole point of a quota is to preserve fishing stocks.
Anyone like you that thinks the CFP the EU instituted is about preserving fish stocks shows they are talking from a position of ignorance. The CFP has been round castigated by fishery scientists as being a big steaming pile of shit. Before the eu there were fishery policies in the uk that were actually working
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
'You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to'
If, of course, you sell below production, or in this case, catching, costs you are heading for disaster. Remember Mr Micawber. And building a new market, once one's original one is lost, takes time.
True but it won't happen. Its not like magically tonnes of new stock are going to be created to displace these sales.
Instead prices will adjust like you said.
As Mr Z points out a 5% tariff is feared to be crippling. A 20% one would be disastrous. If I find that a food product I like has gone up 20% I avoid it. For a while at any rate, and chose something else. I might come back to it eventually, but almost certainly not at the same level of consumption.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
If only as much ingenuity could be applied to resisting the virus instead of resisting our defences.
Why aren't you a business consultant charging £20,000 per day plus VAT and disbursements ?
I mean you clearly know more about, inter alia, road haulage, fishing, supermarkets, and financial services than those who work and the recognised trade bodies in those sectors.
You should be out there earning serious wonga.
Wowsers. So when the Road Haulage Association came out and said No Deal would be "between shocking and a catastrophe" thats them speaking in favour of no deal.
It must be exhausting Philip, tying yourself up in these knots
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
'You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to'
If, of course, you sell below production, or in this case, catching, costs you are heading for disaster. Remember Mr Micawber. And building a new market, once one's original one is lost, takes time.
True but it won't happen. Its not like magically tonnes of new stock are going to be created to displace these sales.
Instead prices will adjust like you said.
As Mr Z points out a 5% tariff is feared to be crippling. A 20% one would be disastrous. If I find that a food product I like has gone up 20% I avoid it. For a while at any rate, and chose something else. I might come back to it eventually, but almost certainly not at the same level of consumption.
That's just fear.
Pound sterling fluctuates by more than 5%.
I admire your ability to discount fear! AIUI, currency fluctuations can be priced in when 'making' something. In this case, perhaps, a restaurant dish.
Why aren't you a business consultant charging £20,000 per day plus VAT and disbursements ?
I mean you clearly know more about, inter alia, road haulage, fishing, supermarkets, and financial services than those who work and the recognised trade bodies in those sectors.
You should be out there earning serious wonga.
Wowsers. So when the Road Haulage Association came out and said No Deal would be "between shocking and a catastrophe" thats them speaking in favour of no deal.
It must be exhausting Philip, tying yourself up in these knots
I never said that, I said that's them lobbying and to take lobbyists with a pinch of salt. They exaggerate dramatically in order to get their own vested interests taken into account.
Excellent as always, Cyclefree. The big reason why not much changes is that power corrupts. It corrupts in two ways. The powerful are corrupted directly; they do stuff and get away with stuff because they can.
Ordinary people are corrupted indirectly. They know from experience that taking an independent stand can mean that what you say and do may well be distorted, ignored, misrepresented and mocked.
Saying stuff which is true about the powerful is dangerous. They also know that the powerless getting involved with the powerful is painful, uphill, complicated and there is, to coin a phrase, no level playing field.
So the safest course is to do what everyone else does, whatever it is.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
"Ian Perkes is sitting at his computer screen by the harbour buying sole in an online auction to sell to markets across Europe. He fears that if Mr Johnson allows EU trade talks to collapse in a dispute about fisheries, the industry will face crippling tariffs in its main market on January 1 when the UK’s Brexit transition period ends.
“If the tariff was only 5 per cent we would be killed,” said Mr Perkes, the founder of a £5m-a-year fish exporting company. In fact, if trade talks collapse, the EU will soon be levying tariffs of 20 per cent on key catches like scallops."
What a jerk.
Not a jerk. Just lobbying for his sector.
Mr Portus on your link has a completely different opinion.
You agree with Mr Perkes, I agree with Mr Portus. Both covered by the same article.
PS Mr Perkes never said what you said.
But he isn't, he is talking about his own business. The lobbyist is Portus who produces two entirely evidence-free bits of speculation about what might happen "in months"
Face it: you know so little about this you think the frozen shellfish industry is just like the fresh shellfish industry, but a bit nippier.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
"Ian Perkes is sitting at his computer screen by the harbour buying sole in an online auction to sell to markets across Europe. He fears that if Mr Johnson allows EU trade talks to collapse in a dispute about fisheries, the industry will face crippling tariffs in its main market on January 1 when the UK’s Brexit transition period ends.
“If the tariff was only 5 per cent we would be killed,” said Mr Perkes, the founder of a £5m-a-year fish exporting company. In fact, if trade talks collapse, the EU will soon be levying tariffs of 20 per cent on key catches like scallops."
What a jerk.
Philip: These professional fish traders know nothing about the trade of fish. We've had enough of experts HYUFD: His business must be closed down as he voted to close his business and if we don't he will vote for Farage
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
'You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to'
If, of course, you sell below production, or in this case, catching, costs you are heading for disaster. Remember Mr Micawber. And building a new market, once one's original one is lost, takes time.
True but it won't happen. Its not like magically tonnes of new stock are going to be created to displace these sales.
Instead prices will adjust like you said.
As Mr Z points out a 5% tariff is feared to be crippling. A 20% one would be disastrous. If I find that a food product I like has gone up 20% I avoid it. For a while at any rate, and chose something else. I might come back to it eventually, but almost certainly not at the same level of consumption.
That's just fear.
Pound sterling fluctuates by more than 5%.
Have you ever heard of a futures contract or an FX forward? Neither of which are an effective hedge against a permanent increase in sales costs of 20%.
There are as many Debenhams employees as fishermen in the UK.
There used to be a lot more fishermen in the uk before the eu became a thing. I know as was one of them. We are often told quotas were sold and it's true. What they don't say though is why quota's were sold. It got to the point when the trawler I was on could only fish 6 weeks of the year because of quota's. People like me couldnt afford to be employed only 6 weeks of the year. People owning the trawler in our case our skipper couldnt afford the upkeep on a boat that could only work 6 weeks a year. We were just a small beam trawler not a massive factory ship
Of course the whole point of a quota is to preserve fishing stocks.
Anyone like you that thinks the CFP the EU instituted is about preserving fish stocks shows they are talking from a position of ignorance. The CFP has been round castigated by fishery scientists as being a big steaming pile of shit. Before the eu there were fishery policies in the uk that were actually working
Read an unnatural history of the sea by professor Callun roberts for example
A quote “The track record of fisheries managment in Europe has been disasterous. The number of fish stocks classified as seriously overfished rose from 10 per cent in 1970 to 50 per cent by 2000. With so much expertise, how did things go so badly wrong?” (p 346)
10 percent to 50 percent under the cfp you probably think thats a success
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
'You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to'
If, of course, you sell below production, or in this case, catching, costs you are heading for disaster. Remember Mr Micawber. And building a new market, once one's original one is lost, takes time.
True but it won't happen. Its not like magically tonnes of new stock are going to be created to displace these sales.
Instead prices will adjust like you said.
As Mr Z points out a 5% tariff is feared to be crippling. A 20% one would be disastrous. If I find that a food product I like has gone up 20% I avoid it. For a while at any rate, and chose something else. I might come back to it eventually, but almost certainly not at the same level of consumption.
That's just fear.
Pound sterling fluctuates by more than 5%.
I admire your ability to discount fear! AIUI, currency fluctuations can be priced in when 'making' something. In this case, perhaps, a restaurant dish.
Of course they can and there are multiple layers of costs all the way through the chain, which can help absorb price fluctuations too.
The raw cost of seafood from import price of the raw fish to the final price of a restaurant dish is in the region of about 20%. A 5% change in fish costs (reduced by pound sterling absorbing much of that) could end up as a 1% change on the plate.
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
'You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to'
If, of course, you sell below production, or in this case, catching, costs you are heading for disaster. Remember Mr Micawber. And building a new market, once one's original one is lost, takes time.
True but it won't happen. Its not like magically tonnes of new stock are going to be created to displace these sales.
Instead prices will adjust like you said.
As Mr Z points out a 5% tariff is feared to be crippling. A 20% one would be disastrous. If I find that a food product I like has gone up 20% I avoid it. For a while at any rate, and chose something else. I might come back to it eventually, but almost certainly not at the same level of consumption.
That's just fear.
Pound sterling fluctuates by more than 5%.
Have you ever heard of a futures contract or an FX forward? Neither of which are an effective hedge against a permanent increase in sales costs of 20%.
Self-appointed "experts" strike again.
Indeed I have.
And I think you'll find that certain commodities or even ingredients on a restaurant plate can vary by over 20% in a normal year too.
Why aren't you a business consultant charging £20,000 per day plus VAT and disbursements ?
I mean you clearly know more about, inter alia, road haulage, fishing, supermarkets, and financial services than those who work and the recognised trade bodies in those sectors.
You should be out there earning serious wonga.
Wowsers. So when the Road Haulage Association came out and said No Deal would be "between shocking and a catastrophe" thats them speaking in favour of no deal.
It must be exhausting Philip, tying yourself up in these knots
You remember the Somebody Else's Problem Field from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
If your job is selling fish, No Deal Brexit a nightmare.
If your job is catching fish, it's brilliant; more fish for you to catch, and if somebody else can't sell them as profitably as before... well, that's Somebody Else's Problem. (At least, it's SEP until you can't sell your fish to the markets at a viable price.)
EU’s Brexit playbook going according to plan. String everything out until the last possible moment, then a little bit longer, using friendly British media to hype up the disruption to put pressure on the UK government to roll over on key red line items like future governance and state aid.
I too suspect the risks of "No Deal" are much higher than anticipated. To get a deal will require bold political leadership on both sides - not much evidence on either.
I think the EU side now sees no-deal as a positive, with the disruption being good PR for not leaving, and the expectation that the UK government will come back and sign up to anything after the ports get clogged in January.
I think the UK side sees no-deal as sub-optimal but manageable, with January’s disruption worked around in a few weeks and more future freedom of manoeuvre as a result.
Call the EU's bluff and get through the disruption. On 1/1/21 they have zero fish quota whatsoever, zero influence on our laws, zero level playing field. We hold all the cards.
Nothing left but trolling, is there?
You can't get over the fact that nobody agrees with your hive mind can you?
Four consecutive election results including a referendum have permitted Brexit, any single one of them going differently would have killed the project, and still you can't comprehend the fact that people disagree with you.
One of us is right, one of us is wrong. The objective truth is that we do not and can not know who is right until it has happened. At the moment it is Shrodinger's Brexit. The cat could be alive or dead post-No Deal but we don't know.
If the EU won't compromise then its time to get on with it and open the box.
Its the statement "we hold the cards" that is funny. You cite 4 elections as proof that your statement is true. How do you work that one out - does someone voting Tory in 2019 prove that the UK will triumph?
As for people disagreeing with others, I think this one is fairly straightforward. Whilst its perfectly acceptable for you to disagree with the professional opinion of the Road Haulage Association about the impact of No Deal on Road Haulage, your opinion does not carry the same weight as their opinion. One of you works in the industry and knows the facts, the other does not.
We do hold the cards. On all the two remaining issues we hold Pocket Aces. So long as we hold our nerve then we can play those Aces.
Fish: If there's no deal we get all the quota they get none of it. Ace for the UK.
Level playing field: If there's no deal then we get total sovereignty, they get no level playing field. Ace for the UK.
As a Poker player I know full well that Pocket Aces don't always win, but so long as we hold our nerve and don't fold that is what we have. We have a pair of Aces.
And then what?
If you are of the view that not having any sort of trade deal with the EU isn't a problem, you can go ahead and do that.
If you are of the view (like the Bank of England) that no deal Brexit is a massive problem for the UK economy, then maybe those aces need to stay in your pocket.
Then there'll be some disruption but we will get over that.
Their key Ace is our fear of that disruption. If we call their bluff and play our pair of Aces then that fear is realised and goes away as we get over the disruption.
Long term it would still be ideal to get a deal but we can do so from a position of strength. Their fishermen will either be wiped out or begging for a return of some quota. We can do whatever we want to boost competition in the meantime to get through the disruption since there's no LPF.
As FDR said there is nothing to fear except fear itself.
The problem is not quota. The problem is that it becomes irrelevant how many or few fish you are allowed to catch if there is no one you can sell them to.
Which would be a problem if it were true.
Spoiler: It is not.
If the price to the end user rises, in this case, I suspect to chefs and consumers on the continent, then several things will happen. The consumers may not pay the increase. The chefs may source their ingredients elsewhere. The dock price may fall to allow for the tariffs imposed. None of these are to advantage of the guy who brings the fish to the dock.
Yes that is the market in action. The goods will find their way to the customers because the market finds a way, prices may adjust and a new price equilibrium will be found because that is how markets work.
That is an entirely different concept to @IshmaelZ 's infantile suggestion (which I dismissed with an infantile mocking "Spoiler") that there is "no one you can sell them to".
You might sell at a different price but there will always be someone you can sell to. There already is since not 100% of our sales go to the EU anyway.
"Ian Perkes is sitting at his computer screen by the harbour buying sole in an online auction to sell to markets across Europe. He fears that if Mr Johnson allows EU trade talks to collapse in a dispute about fisheries, the industry will face crippling tariffs in its main market on January 1 when the UK’s Brexit transition period ends.
“If the tariff was only 5 per cent we would be killed,” said Mr Perkes, the founder of a £5m-a-year fish exporting company. In fact, if trade talks collapse, the EU will soon be levying tariffs of 20 per cent on key catches like scallops."
What a jerk.
Philip: These professional fish traders know nothing about the trade of fish. We've had enough of experts HYUFD: His business must be closed down as he voted to close his business and if we don't he will vote for Farage
Quite rightly UK politicians are pleased numbers are dropping but there appears early signs that they are dropping across Europe, what makes this virus seem to act in a coordinated way or is it that we all use the same tactics. Still think Xmas relaxation a severe error I think Spain is going for one day with up to ten family members getting together is better.
Basically, waves seem to take 3 months or so. I suspect a lot is due to changes in behaviour, either by law or by caution rather than immunity. These waves burn themselves out, before the next one builds. Christmas is clearly a risk.
Personally, I would have gone with 48 hours from 1800 on 24/12, with the rule of six plus kids. I suspect many or even most would have smaller numbers.
Given the way that so many people seem to be focussing on pushing the boundaries of whatever restrictions are set up, a shorter period with fewer numbers might have been advisable. It seems we can't see a barrier without wanting to get past it, even if that means we fall down a precipice.
I've often wondered about the principle of 14 days' self-isolation when someone you live with contracts the virus. (I was glad to read on the previous thread that your self-isolation period has ended and you're still OK.)
The 14 days seems to assume that if one doesn't catch the virus from one's house-mate right at the start, one won't catch it at all. Can you tell me how that works, please? As a child, I'm sure I remember children picking up illnesses, not at the start of their sibling's illness, but right at the end of the infectious period. Doesn't Covid work like that?
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
Do you have any evidence for point 2? Or just a hunch?
Quite rightly UK politicians are pleased numbers are dropping but there appears early signs that they are dropping across Europe, what makes this virus seem to act in a coordinated way or is it that we all use the same tactics. Still think Xmas relaxation a severe error I think Spain is going for one day with up to ten family members getting together is better.
Basically, waves seem to take 3 months or so. I suspect a lot is due to changes in behaviour, either by law or by caution rather than immunity. These waves burn themselves out, before the next one builds. Christmas is clearly a risk.
Personally, I would have gone with 48 hours from 1800 on 24/12, with the rule of six plus kids. I suspect many or even most would have smaller numbers.
Given the way that so many people seem to be focussing on pushing the boundaries of whatever restrictions are set up, a shorter period with fewer numbers might have been advisable. It seems we can't see a barrier without wanting to get past it, even if that means we fall down a precipice.
I've often wondered about the principle of 14 days' self-isolation when someone you live with contracts the virus. (I was glad to read on the previous thread that your self-isolation period has ended and you're still OK.)
The 14 days seems to assume that if one doesn't catch the virus from one's house-mate right at the start, one won't catch it at all. Can you tell me how that works, please? As a child, I'm sure I remember children picking up illnesses, not at the start of their sibling's illness, but right at the end of the infectious period. Doesn't Covid work like that?
Good morning, everybody.
I think that's where the 14 days comes from? Approximately 7 days for the person you live with to be infectious and for you to catch it, plus a further 7 days for you to develop symptoms.
"When in future some scandal erupts – at a world-famous hospital, say, or in building control or anywhere really – and this was, in part, because of a poor work culture with no-one willing to speak up about misconduct, will MPs and party members remember how they’ve behaved in recent months defending similar behaviour when done by “their side”? Will they realise that they too played a part in creating and justifying that dysfunctional culture?"
I am not sure the behaviour of MPs had much to do with creating a dysfunctional work culture. Rather, MPs' behaviour is just a symptom of a wider national maIaise.
Gross & serious mismanagement of a company or an institution is always hugely rewarded in the UK.
If you incentivise bad behaviour ... then more and more people behave badly.
In fact, she has been rewarded for stupidity and incompetence with a CBE. She is chair of a NHS healthcare trust which runs St Mary's, Hammersmith, Queen Charlotte's, Charing Cross and the Western Eye Hospital. She is on the board of two big companies (Morrisons & Dunelm). She advised the Church of England on ethical investment (she eventually took voluntary leave of absence). And here is the Church of England defending her:
It would be hard to think of a more serious example of someone presiding over grotesque misconduct, poor work culture and gross mismanagement than Vennells. There have been almost no consequences for her whatsoever. Rather the reverse. More & more rewards have been heaped upon her.
Notice both Tory and Labour MPs have been furious with Vennells and demanded she be held to account. But nothing has actually happened. The top people never go to prison in the UK, they never really pay for any scandal or mismanagement.
They are protected because -- in the room at the top -- it is not in anyone's interest to send someone to prison. After all, you might be next yourself.
Failure is promoted, given more money, given an honour, and still more responsibility.
There are as many Debenhams employees as fishermen in the UK.
There used to be a lot more fishermen in the uk before the eu became a thing. I know as was one of them. We are often told quotas were sold and it's true. What they don't say though is why quota's were sold. It got to the point when the trawler I was on could only fish 6 weeks of the year because of quota's. People like me couldnt afford to be employed only 6 weeks of the year. People owning the trawler in our case our skipper couldnt afford the upkeep on a boat that could only work 6 weeks a year. We were just a small beam trawler not a massive factory ship
Of course the whole point of a quota is to preserve fishing stocks.
Anyone like you that thinks the CFP the EU instituted is about preserving fish stocks shows they are talking from a position of ignorance. The CFP has been round castigated by fishery scientists as being a big steaming pile of shit. Before the eu there were fishery policies in the uk that were actually working
I didn't say anything about the CFP. I was talking about quotas generally.
There are as many Debenhams employees as fishermen in the UK.
There used to be a lot more fishermen in the uk before the eu became a thing. I know as was one of them. We are often told quotas were sold and it's true. What they don't say though is why quota's were sold. It got to the point when the trawler I was on could only fish 6 weeks of the year because of quota's. People like me couldnt afford to be employed only 6 weeks of the year. People owning the trawler in our case our skipper couldnt afford the upkeep on a boat that could only work 6 weeks a year. We were just a small beam trawler not a massive factory ship
Of course the whole point of a quota is to preserve fishing stocks.
Anyone like you that thinks the CFP the EU instituted is about preserving fish stocks shows they are talking from a position of ignorance. The CFP has been round castigated by fishery scientists as being a big steaming pile of shit. Before the eu there were fishery policies in the uk that were actually working
I didn't say anything about the CFP. I was talking about quotas generally.
There were quota's before the eu cfp they merely weren't so egregious as we werent having to share our fishing waters with continentals
Why aren't you a business consultant charging £20,000 per day plus VAT and disbursements ?
I mean you clearly know more about, inter alia, road haulage, fishing, supermarkets, and financial services than those who work and the recognised trade bodies in those sectors.
You should be out there earning serious wonga.
Wowsers. So when the Road Haulage Association came out and said No Deal would be "between shocking and a catastrophe" thats them speaking in favour of no deal.
It must be exhausting Philip, tying yourself up in these knots
I never said that, I said that's them lobbying and to take lobbyists with a pinch of salt. They exaggerate dramatically in order to get their own vested interests taken into account.
They are lobbyists for the industry. They represent the industry. They express the factual reality that is understood by the people whose job this is as opposed to internet experts like yourself.
The imposition of checks and tariffs - whether by a deal or by no deal - will be "between shocking or a catastrophe".
Two questions for you: 1. Are they right or are you right when you insist neither is true? 2. What is your personal professional experience which drives your viewpoint?
You are - as always on this subject - saying what you think based on how you want things to be. When the people who do the actual work explain in great detail why the opposite is true you always have some explanation why they are wrong. Its always you claiming to know more about logistics or fishing or manufacturing or customs than the people whose profession is logistics or fishing or manufacturing or customs. They are "exaggerating dramatically" - also known as lying - says you because what you say is right and not what they say.
Or in other words "fuck business". At least HYUFD is open about his desire to throw these people on the dole, blame them for it and then ask for their vote.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
Do you have any evidence for point 2? Or just a hunch?
Simon Clarke MP is on the radio right now having the same hunch. When challenged he began to waffle about Churchill and the war... Yes. It stands to reason. But so does lockdown increases suicides.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
If only as much ingenuity could be applied to resisting the virus instead of resisting our defences.
Yeah, it really is annoying. It's as if they are willfully ignoring the point of the restrictions.
Re my attempt to contact the Gambling Commission about Betfair's failure to settle the outstanding Presidential markets, it seems that due to Covid their lines are not open today. Will try again tomorrow. Meanwhile I would appreciate any information and updates concerning the status of legal challenges etc affecting the unsettled markets.
Please email if it's easier: arklebar@gmail.com
Thanks
I normally look on twitter at this chap -- twitter.com/marceelias
Why aren't you a business consultant charging £20,000 per day plus VAT and disbursements ?
I mean you clearly know more about, inter alia, road haulage, fishing, supermarkets, and financial services than those who work and the recognised trade bodies in those sectors.
You should be out there earning serious wonga.
Wowsers. So when the Road Haulage Association came out and said No Deal would be "between shocking and a catastrophe" thats them speaking in favour of no deal.
It must be exhausting Philip, tying yourself up in these knots
I never said that, I said that's them lobbying and to take lobbyists with a pinch of salt. They exaggerate dramatically in order to get their own vested interests taken into account.
They are lobbyists for the industry. They represent the industry. They express the factual reality that is understood by the people whose job this is as opposed to internet experts like yourself.
The imposition of checks and tariffs - whether by a deal or by no deal - will be "between shocking or a catastrophe".
Two questions for you: 1. Are they right or are you right when you insist neither is true? 2. What is your personal professional experience which drives your viewpoint?
You are - as always on this subject - saying what you think based on how you want things to be. When the people who do the actual work explain in great detail why the opposite is true you always have some explanation why they are wrong. Its always you claiming to know more about logistics or fishing or manufacturing or customs than the people whose profession is logistics or fishing or manufacturing or customs. They are "exaggerating dramatically" - also known as lying - says you because what you say is right and not what they say.
Or in other words "fuck business". At least HYUFD is open about his desire to throw these people on the dole, blame them for it and then ask for their vote.
No, lobbyists do not reflect the "factual reality".
Lobbyists exaggerate for effect to reflect the interests of their industry.
Its like haggling. If something is going to be damaging by 1% and you want to stop it then say it is going to be damaging by 10%.
Remember all the times we were told by lobbyists that Nissan and car manufacturers would vanish from these shores if we didn't join the Euro? Then we didn't join the euro and nothing actually changed? Or have you forgotten that?
Thank God it seems the FTPA will be scrapped soon.
So how do we prevent the prime minister of the day from going to the country at a moment of his own choosing?
No problem with that, of course, if we want to live under a permanent dictatorship.
Like we did for most of the last 200 years or so?
From what I've read they just want to restore it to as it was pre-FTPA. There were restrictions on the maximum duration of a Parliament then (although sometimes extended due to war).
Thank God it seems the FTPA will be scrapped soon.
So how do we prevent the prime minister of the day from going to the country at a moment of his own choosing?
No problem with that, of course, if we want to live under a permanent dictatorship.
Like we did for most of the last 200 years or so?
I can't believe that returning to a time when the likes of Gordon could play silly buggers - hinting during the Tory conference that he was about to call a GE etc. - is seen by many as something great.
There's a lot that is right in this piece, though I suspect there also exists a sense of "there but for the Grace of God..." for all of us. I have no idea how I would perform in a similar set of circs. Which brings us back to Churchill on Democracy, and checks and balances.
A word of praise for those number of MPs who were not fiddling or exploiting expenses. Such as Paul Flynn and John Mann.
I find that pretty shocking, particularly for the Indian and Chinese groups where the common perception is that they are actually among the most successful (however you measure that - generally do fairly well on SES measures).
Interesting that mixed group has much lower perceptions of ethnic group being a problem in Britain.
It would also be interesting to have a 'white' group to see what the baseline figure would be, for a group that probably isn't held back by ethnic group, but many of whom have opportunities limited by other factors - i.e. how much of it is really a proxy for other issues.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
If only as much ingenuity could be applied to resisting the virus instead of resisting our defences.
Yeah, it really is annoying. It's as if they are willfully ignoring the point of the restrictions.
And the media are giving hundreds of column inches this morning to the parting singer, who clearly saw a £10k fine as just another line item on the cost of her expensive birthday party.
No doubt a fair few others are looking at following the same idea for lavish birthday and Christmas parties - until someone gets dragged into court, and sensibly punished according to their means.
Quite rightly UK politicians are pleased numbers are dropping but there appears early signs that they are dropping across Europe, what makes this virus seem to act in a coordinated way or is it that we all use the same tactics. Still think Xmas relaxation a severe error I think Spain is going for one day with up to ten family members getting together is better.
Basically, waves seem to take 3 months or so. I suspect a lot is due to changes in behaviour, either by law or by caution rather than immunity. These waves burn themselves out, before the next one builds. Christmas is clearly a risk.
Personally, I would have gone with 48 hours from 1800 on 24/12, with the rule of six plus kids. I suspect many or even most would have smaller numbers.
Given the way that so many people seem to be focussing on pushing the boundaries of whatever restrictions are set up, a shorter period with fewer numbers might have been advisable. It seems we can't see a barrier without wanting to get past it, even if that means we fall down a precipice.
I've often wondered about the principle of 14 days' self-isolation when someone you live with contracts the virus. (I was glad to read on the previous thread that your self-isolation period has ended and you're still OK.)
The 14 days seems to assume that if one doesn't catch the virus from one's house-mate right at the start, one won't catch it at all. Can you tell me how that works, please? As a child, I'm sure I remember children picking up illnesses, not at the start of their sibling's illness, but right at the end of the infectious period. Doesn't Covid work like that?
Good morning, everybody.
I think that's where the 14 days comes from? Approximately 7 days for the person you live with to be infectious and for you to catch it, plus a further 7 days for you to develop symptoms.
I thought I'd read, in the early days of the global spread, that infected people had been found to be shedding virus for much longer than 14 days. Isn't that what contributed to the spread of illness in care homes, when people were discharged from hospitals?
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
If only as much ingenuity could be applied to resisting the virus instead of resisting our defences.
Yeah, it really is annoying. It's as if they are willfully ignoring the point of the restrictions.
And the media are giving hundreds of column inches this morning to the parting singer, who clearly saw a £10k fine as just another line item on the cost of her expensive birthday party.
No doubt a fair few others are looking at following the same idea for lavish birthday and Christmas parties - until someone gets dragged into court, and sensibly punished according to their means.
Well there were wedding venues in the summer that added a £10k deposit to their hire charge to pay the fine. I know two weddings that had over 100 people that went ahead, one made the news because it got shut down and they paid the £10k fine. I'm told that the total cost of the wedding was £70-80k and they are pretty well off so the additional £10k wasn't a deal breaker for them. Jail time would have been though, I'm sure, as one of the couple couldn't afford to have any kind of criminal record.
As usual the restrictions dont make sense and therefore people ignore them
They don't make sense, but you have to draw the line somewhere and that line is always going to appear nonsensical given the tightrope we seem to be walking in health vs freedom.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
If only as much ingenuity could be applied to resisting the virus instead of resisting our defences.
Yeah, it really is annoying. It's as if they are willfully ignoring the point of the restrictions.
And the media are giving hundreds of column inches this morning to the parting singer, who clearly saw a £10k fine as just another line item on the cost of her expensive birthday party.
No doubt a fair few others are looking at following the same idea for lavish birthday and Christmas parties - until someone gets dragged into court, and sensibly punished according to their means.
Well there were wedding venues in the summer that added a £10k deposit to their hire charge to pay the fine. I know two weddings that had over 100 people that went ahead, one made the news because it got shut down and they paid the £10k fine. I'm told that the total cost of the wedding was £70-80k and they are pretty well off so the additional £10k wasn't a deal breaker for them. Jail time would have been though, I'm sure, as one of the couple couldn't afford to have any kind of criminal record.
The neighbours of my in-laws recently attended such an event. Their daughter's wedding. Their punishment? Well. They are now both quite sick with Covid.
I find that pretty shocking, particularly for the Indian and Chinese groups where the common perception is that they are actually among the most successful (however you measure that - generally do fairly well on SES measures).
Interesting that mixed group has much lower perceptions of ethnic group being a problem in Britain.
It would also be interesting to have a 'white' group to see what the baseline figure would be, for a group that probably isn't held back by ethnic group, but many of whom have opportunities limited by other factors - i.e. how much of it is really a proxy for other issues.
Though 9% more Chinese people think their race has not held them back than say it has
Quite rightly UK politicians are pleased numbers are dropping but there appears early signs that they are dropping across Europe, what makes this virus seem to act in a coordinated way or is it that we all use the same tactics. Still think Xmas relaxation a severe error I think Spain is going for one day with up to ten family members getting together is better.
Basically, waves seem to take 3 months or so. I suspect a lot is due to changes in behaviour, either by law or by caution rather than immunity. These waves burn themselves out, before the next one builds. Christmas is clearly a risk.
Personally, I would have gone with 48 hours from 1800 on 24/12, with the rule of six plus kids. I suspect many or even most would have smaller numbers.
Given the way that so many people seem to be focussing on pushing the boundaries of whatever restrictions are set up, a shorter period with fewer numbers might have been advisable. It seems we can't see a barrier without wanting to get past it, even if that means we fall down a precipice.
I've often wondered about the principle of 14 days' self-isolation when someone you live with contracts the virus. (I was glad to read on the previous thread that your self-isolation period has ended and you're still OK.)
The 14 days seems to assume that if one doesn't catch the virus from one's house-mate right at the start, one won't catch it at all. Can you tell me how that works, please? As a child, I'm sure I remember children picking up illnesses, not at the start of their sibling's illness, but right at the end of the infectious period. Doesn't Covid work like that?
Good morning, everybody.
I think that's where the 14 days comes from? Approximately 7 days for the person you live with to be infectious and for you to catch it, plus a further 7 days for you to develop symptoms.
I thought I'd read, in the early days of the global spread, that infected people had been found to be shedding virus for much longer than 14 days. Isn't that what contributed to the spread of illness in care homes, when people were discharged from hospitals?
I believe the problem is the other end, that people can appear not to be infected so be discharged then carry the virus in with them and then become symptomatic or shedding.
Its only reason care homes are still getting the virus re-introduced, that someone can be tested today and show as negative then 2-3 days later be positive.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
How is it the media's fault that the government didn't get their line straight on this from the off? As soon as Eustace said it a memo should have gone to all Tory MPs either saying yes they are or no they aren't.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
If only as much ingenuity could be applied to resisting the virus instead of resisting our defences.
Yeah, it really is annoying. It's as if they are willfully ignoring the point of the restrictions.
And the media are giving hundreds of column inches this morning to the parting singer, who clearly saw a £10k fine as just another line item on the cost of her expensive birthday party.
No doubt a fair few others are looking at following the same idea for lavish birthday and Christmas parties - until someone gets dragged into court, and sensibly punished according to their means.
Well there were wedding venues in the summer that added a £10k deposit to their hire charge to pay the fine. I know two weddings that had over 100 people that went ahead, one made the news because it got shut down and they paid the £10k fine. I'm told that the total cost of the wedding was £70-80k and they are pretty well off so the additional £10k wasn't a deal breaker for them. Jail time would have been though, I'm sure, as one of the couple couldn't afford to have any kind of criminal record.
Where such events are clearly planned and organised in contravention of the rules, because the people involved think the rules don’t apply to them and the fine is insignificant, I think a prosecution is appropriate. Reckless endangerment?
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Compared to battery chickens it is a good deal more expensive. What would 100g of edible north sea prawns set you back?
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
If only as much ingenuity could be applied to resisting the virus instead of resisting our defences.
Yeah, it really is annoying. It's as if they are willfully ignoring the point of the restrictions.
And the media are giving hundreds of column inches this morning to the parting singer, who clearly saw a £10k fine as just another line item on the cost of her expensive birthday party.
No doubt a fair few others are looking at following the same idea for lavish birthday and Christmas parties - until someone gets dragged into court, and sensibly punished according to their means.
Well there were wedding venues in the summer that added a £10k deposit to their hire charge to pay the fine. I know two weddings that had over 100 people that went ahead, one made the news because it got shut down and they paid the £10k fine. I'm told that the total cost of the wedding was £70-80k and they are pretty well off so the additional £10k wasn't a deal breaker for them. Jail time would have been though, I'm sure, as one of the couple couldn't afford to have any kind of criminal record.
Where such events are clearly planned and organised in contravention of the rules, because the people involved think the rules don’t apply to them and the fine is insignificant, I think a prosecution is appropriate. Reckless endangerment?
Completely agree, but as the rules are written it's a £10k fine which for a certain section of society can be added as the cost of doing business. Jail time would be a much better deterrent.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Compared to battery chickens it is a good deal more expensive. What would 100g of edible north sea prawns set you back?
Part of that is the current restriction on supply. If the UK caught all of the fish in its territorial waters then fish would be significantly cheaper than it is now.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Good idea.
Could I suggest Rick Stein as someone to front it?
Isn't it the case that the UK isn't asking for tariff free single market access though? I know tariffs have been agreed in a few areas of the current deal so I don't see how this is anything more than PR for remainers to feel good about themselves.
How is it the media's fault that the government didn't get their line straight on this from the off? As soon as Eustace said it a memo should have gone to all Tory MPs either saying yes they are or no they aren't.
Quite so. It would not have been difficult for the government to scotch the rumour that an egg constituted a meal; instead they let it rumble on. It's a yolk.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
If only as much ingenuity could be applied to resisting the virus instead of resisting our defences.
Yeah, it really is annoying. It's as if they are willfully ignoring the point of the restrictions.
And the media are giving hundreds of column inches this morning to the parting singer, who clearly saw a £10k fine as just another line item on the cost of her expensive birthday party.
No doubt a fair few others are looking at following the same idea for lavish birthday and Christmas parties - until someone gets dragged into court, and sensibly punished according to their means.
Well there were wedding venues in the summer that added a £10k deposit to their hire charge to pay the fine. I know two weddings that had over 100 people that went ahead, one made the news because it got shut down and they paid the £10k fine. I'm told that the total cost of the wedding was £70-80k and they are pretty well off so the additional £10k wasn't a deal breaker for them. Jail time would have been though, I'm sure, as one of the couple couldn't afford to have any kind of criminal record.
Where such events are clearly planned and organised in contravention of the rules, because the people involved think the rules don’t apply to them and the fine is insignificant, I think a prosecution is appropriate. Reckless endangerment?
Completely agree, but as the rules are written it's a £10k fine which for a certain section of society can be added as the cost of doing business. Jail time would be a much better deterrent.
It also puts the venues in a horrible position, where they’re effectively being bribed to co-operate and putting their staff at risk.
Apparently several attendees at this singer’s party have been abroad recently and should have been quarantining, I hope that’s also followed up.
Isn't it the case that the UK isn't asking for tariff free single market access though? I know tariffs have been agreed in a few areas of the current deal so I don't see how this is anything more than PR for remainers to feel good about themselves.
Indeed, even a Canada style trade deal with the EU will see some tariffs, though minimal
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Good idea.
Could I suggest Rick Stein as someone to front it?
Couldn't agree more.
I remember once snorkelling off the Dorset coast and being struck by the abundance of spider crabs. I asked my mate why we never saw these in British fish shops and he told me the Brits won't touch them. 'They look funny.' So they all get scooped up and flogged to the Spanish, who apparently love them.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
It reminds me of the 1970s and the "Buy British Cars" campaign. Support our own industry. Of course, the cars were overpriced, unreliable cr*p.
The problem with the "Eat more British fish" idea is that most people have no idea how to cook anything if it does not come with instructions printed on the side of the box. Most people will not touch a fresh fish even if you give them one.
How is it the media's fault that the government didn't get their line straight on this from the off? As soon as Eustace said it a memo should have gone to all Tory MPs either saying yes they are or no they aren't.
Because it all started with questions about bloody Scotch eggs in the first place. The concept of a substantial meal is not something dreamt up in the last few weeks.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
Do you have any evidence for point 2? Or just a hunch?
Didn't a 10pm curfew for drinkers lead to crowds of drunken unmasked idiots massing on the streets in various parts of the UK? If drinkers could be trusted, surely they would have just dispersed.
Why aren't you a business consultant charging £20,000 per day plus VAT and disbursements ?
I mean you clearly know more about, inter alia, road haulage, fishing, supermarkets, and financial services than those who work and the recognised trade bodies in those sectors.
You should be out there earning serious wonga.
Wowsers. So when the Road Haulage Association came out and said No Deal would be "between shocking and a catastrophe" thats them speaking in favour of no deal.
It must be exhausting Philip, tying yourself up in these knots
I never said that, I said that's them lobbying and to take lobbyists with a pinch of salt. They exaggerate dramatically in order to get their own vested interests taken into account.
They are lobbyists for the industry. They represent the industry. They express the factual reality that is understood by the people whose job this is as opposed to internet experts like yourself.
The imposition of checks and tariffs - whether by a deal or by no deal - will be "between shocking or a catastrophe".
Two questions for you: 1. Are they right or are you right when you insist neither is true? 2. What is your personal professional experience which drives your viewpoint?
You are - as always on this subject - saying what you think based on how you want things to be. When the people who do the actual work explain in great detail why the opposite is true you always have some explanation why they are wrong. Its always you claiming to know more about logistics or fishing or manufacturing or customs than the people whose profession is logistics or fishing or manufacturing or customs. They are "exaggerating dramatically" - also known as lying - says you because what you say is right and not what they say.
Or in other words "fuck business". At least HYUFD is open about his desire to throw these people on the dole, blame them for it and then ask for their vote.
No, lobbyists do not reflect the "factual reality".
Lobbyists exaggerate for effect to reflect the interests of their industry.
Its like haggling. If something is going to be damaging by 1% and you want to stop it then say it is going to be damaging by 10%.
Remember all the times we were told by lobbyists that Nissan and car manufacturers would vanish from these shores if we didn't join the Euro? Then we didn't join the euro and nothing actually changed? Or have you forgotten that?
Fishermen and fish traders. Knowing their business. Looking at their books. Knowing their customers and prices and costs backwards. Are all lying. Says you. Knowing whatever it is you think you know.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Good idea.
Could I suggest Rick Stein as someone to front it?
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Compared to battery chickens it is a good deal more expensive. What would 100g of edible north sea prawns set you back?
Part of that is the current restriction on supply. If the UK caught all of the fish in its territorial waters then fish would be significantly cheaper than it is now.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
It reminds me of the 1970s and the "Buy British Cars" campaign. Support our own industry. Of course, the cars were overpriced, unreliable cr*p.
The problem with the "Eat more British fish" idea is that most people have no idea how to cook anything if it does not come with instructions printed on the side of the box. Most people will not touch a fresh fish even if you give them one.
I think you would find microwave meals are more crap than the wonders of the sea.
I love shellfish. If we get cheaper shellfish post Brexit then on a selfish shellfish level that's good news as far as I'm concerned.
How is it the media's fault that the government didn't get their line straight on this from the off? As soon as Eustace said it a memo should have gone to all Tory MPs either saying yes they are or no they aren't.
Because it all started with questions about bloody Scotch eggs in the first place. The concept of a substantial meal is not something dreamt up in the last few weeks.
Which is the media's prerogative, I don't think asking questions about what does and doesn't constitute a substantial meal is somehow wrong. It's also not the media's fault that the government didn't get a line ready on the specifics of scotch eggs after Eustace said they counted. We have Gove saying they aren't yesterday but today he's saying they are, how does the media take the blame there?
It's actually the kind of scrutiny that makes sense because it puts the fairly vague "substantial meal" into context of actual food. To my mind it's been useful to find out that a scotch egg is a substantial meal, and ideally that means pasties and sausage rolls are too. It's actually more clear now what constitutes a substantial meal because the media asked the questions, that the government fluffed it's lines isn't their fault.
Comments
If I find that a food product I like has gone up 20% I avoid it. For a while at any rate, and chose something else. I might come back to it eventually, but almost certainly not at the same level of consumption.
Which preceded any sales btw. "British" quotas owned by Spanish fleets aren't what is being debated between the two sides since they're classed as British quotas.
Pound sterling fluctuates by more than 5%.
It must be exhausting Philip, tying yourself up in these knots
AIUI, currency fluctuations can be priced in when 'making' something. In this case, perhaps, a restaurant dish.
Ordinary people are corrupted indirectly. They know from experience that taking an independent stand can mean that what you say and do may well be distorted, ignored, misrepresented and mocked.
Saying stuff which is true about the powerful is dangerous. They also know that the powerless getting involved with the powerful is painful, uphill, complicated and there is, to coin a phrase, no level playing field.
So the safest course is to do what everyone else does, whatever it is.
And the question to your final question is: No.
Face it: you know so little about this you think the frozen shellfish industry is just like the fresh shellfish industry, but a bit nippier.
HYUFD: His business must be closed down as he voted to close his business and if we don't he will vote for Farage
Self-appointed "experts" strike again.
A quote
“The track record of fisheries managment in Europe has been disasterous. The number of fish stocks classified as seriously overfished rose from 10 per cent in 1970 to 50 per cent by 2000. With so much expertise, how did things go so badly wrong?” (p 346)
10 percent to 50 percent under the cfp you probably think thats a success
The raw cost of seafood from import price of the raw fish to the final price of a restaurant dish is in the region of about 20%. A 5% change in fish costs (reduced by pound sterling absorbing much of that) could end up as a 1% change on the plate.
And I think you'll find that certain commodities or even ingredients on a restaurant plate can vary by over 20% in a normal year too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_else's_problem
If your job is selling fish, No Deal Brexit a nightmare.
If your job is catching fish, it's brilliant; more fish for you to catch, and if somebody else can't sell them as profitably as before... well, that's Somebody Else's Problem. (At least, it's SEP until you can't sell your fish to the markets at a viable price.)
I've often wondered about the principle of 14 days' self-isolation when someone you live with contracts the virus. (I was glad to read on the previous thread that your self-isolation period has ended and you're still OK.)
The 14 days seems to assume that if one doesn't catch the virus from one's house-mate right at the start, one won't catch it at all. Can you tell me how that works, please? As a child, I'm sure I remember children picking up illnesses, not at the start of their sibling's illness, but right at the end of the infectious period. Doesn't Covid work like that?
Good morning, everybody.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1333729702247337985
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf
The Wokerati are going to melt down.....
I am not sure the behaviour of MPs had much to do with creating a dysfunctional work culture. Rather, MPs' behaviour is just a symptom of a wider national maIaise.
Gross & serious mismanagement of a company or an institution is always hugely rewarded in the UK.
If you incentivise bad behaviour ... then more and more people behave badly.
Here is someone who should be in prison:
https://tinyurl.com/y2wobuqr
In fact, she has been rewarded for stupidity and incompetence with a CBE. She is chair of a NHS healthcare trust which runs St Mary's, Hammersmith, Queen Charlotte's, Charing Cross and the Western Eye Hospital. She is on the board of
two big companies (Morrisons & Dunelm). She advised the Church of England on ethical investment (she eventually took voluntary leave of absence). And here is the Church of England defending her:
https://www.stalbans.anglican.org/the-revd-paula-vennells/
It would be hard to think of a more serious example of someone presiding over grotesque misconduct, poor work culture and gross mismanagement than Vennells. There have been almost no consequences for her whatsoever. Rather the reverse. More & more rewards have been heaped upon her.
Notice both Tory and Labour MPs have been furious with Vennells and demanded she be held to account. But nothing has actually happened. The top people never go to prison in the UK, they never really pay for any scandal or mismanagement.
They are protected because -- in the room at the top -- it is not in anyone's interest to send someone to prison. After all, you might be next yourself.
Failure is promoted, given more money, given an honour, and still more responsibility.
Quite the cavalcade of wit & beauty:
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1333725595117740032?s=20
https://twitter.com/JacobMCampbell/status/1333692211461021696?s=20
The imposition of checks and tariffs - whether by a deal or by no deal - will be "between shocking or a catastrophe".
Two questions for you:
1. Are they right or are you right when you insist neither is true?
2. What is your personal professional experience which drives your viewpoint?
You are - as always on this subject - saying what you think based on how you want things to be. When the people who do the actual work explain in great detail why the opposite is true you always have some explanation why they are wrong. Its always you claiming to know more about logistics or fishing or manufacturing or customs than the people whose profession is logistics or fishing or manufacturing or customs. They are "exaggerating dramatically" - also known as lying - says you because what you say is right and not what they say.
Or in other words "fuck business". At least HYUFD is open about his desire to throw these people on the dole, blame them for it and then ask for their vote.
Yes. It stands to reason. But so does lockdown increases suicides.
Lobbyists exaggerate for effect to reflect the interests of their industry.
Its like haggling. If something is going to be damaging by 1% and you want to stop it then say it is going to be damaging by 10%.
Remember all the times we were told by lobbyists that Nissan and car manufacturers would vanish from these shores if we didn't join the Euro? Then we didn't join the euro and nothing actually changed? Or have you forgotten that?
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
A word of praise for those number of MPs who were not fiddling or exploiting expenses. Such as Paul Flynn and John Mann.
Interesting that mixed group has much lower perceptions of ethnic group being a problem in Britain.
It would also be interesting to have a 'white' group to see what the baseline figure would be, for a group that probably isn't held back by ethnic group, but many of whom have opportunities limited by other factors - i.e. how much of it is really a proxy for other issues.
No doubt a fair few others are looking at following the same idea for lavish birthday and Christmas parties - until someone gets dragged into court, and sensibly punished according to their means.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1333601919647035393?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1333602690648186881?s=20
I think it was somebody in the Blairite movement about PR, or about them. Something like:
"Draw a line, and define everything on the other side as wrong"
Thanks
https://twitter.com/Roger_Xanth_Day/status/1333748948176146432?s=20
Their punishment?
Well. They are now both quite sick with Covid.
Its only reason care homes are still getting the virus re-introduced, that someone can be tested today and show as negative then 2-3 days later be positive.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
Could I suggest Rick Stein as someone to front it?
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
George Eustice's family farm is well known for its scotch eggs, it has emerged....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9004591/Coronavirus-UK-tiers-Michael-Gove-wades-scotch-egg-substantial-meal-row.html
Apparently several attendees at this singer’s party have been abroad recently and should have been quarantining, I hope that’s also followed up.
I remember once snorkelling off the Dorset coast and being struck by the abundance of spider crabs. I asked my mate why we never saw these in British fish shops and he told me the Brits won't touch them. 'They look funny.' So they all get scooped up and flogged to the Spanish, who apparently love them.
The problem with the "Eat more British fish" idea is that most people have no idea how to cook anything if it does not come with instructions printed on the side of the box. Most people will not touch a fresh fish even if you give them one.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/generation
https://twitter.com/tobyperkinsmp/status/1333755975958990848
I love shellfish. If we get cheaper shellfish post Brexit then on a selfish shellfish level that's good news as far as I'm concerned.
It's actually the kind of scrutiny that makes sense because it puts the fairly vague "substantial meal" into context of actual food. To my mind it's been useful to find out that a scotch egg is a substantial meal, and ideally that means pasties and sausage rolls are too. It's actually more clear now what constitutes a substantial meal because the media asked the questions, that the government fluffed it's lines isn't their fault.