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

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1337508040900284417

If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be

Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.

Many will

Not many read the FT.
I thought also you had your own mind.

I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

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

Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.

It’s pathetic and sickening that the Mail should publish a headline about gunboats on the eve of a critical deal with the EU.

Were you saying the same thing yesterday when the EU threatened to ground all our planes unless we gave them unilateral access to our fishing waters in the event of No Deal?

I thought it an inept and unwelcome contribution, if not quite at the gunboats level.

How else do we enforce control of our waters to show we won't accept this?

Look, I want a Deal. It's possible Boris is being totally reckless and disingenuous here (and it wouldn't be the first time) but it's more likely the wider reports that the EU still hasn't compromised on fish are accurate and that needs to happen in the political sweet spot, which is the 30-40% share zone.

I would have thought the correct answer was for the EU to buy a share of our quotas for a limited period of time.

Or perhaps trade our share of the quotas for, I don't know, access to the single market?

The performance of the government is underwhelming.

Now, I have been very critical of the uk government (and especially the Internal Markets Bill), but on this they are completely in the right.

Principle matters. And a stronger party attempting to use the threat of No Deal to get something they have no right to is very poor behavior.

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/MattGarrahan/status/1337508040900284417

If all the EU can offer is blackmail then no deal it will be

Again, read the article (admittedly behind a paywall). I’m not clear how you are construing this blackmail.

Many will

Not many read the FT.
I thought also you had your own mind.

I have and to be honest the rhetoric from both sides needs dialing down

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

Because it's laughable we're even in this position. It's especially laughable that the reaction of those who said it was "all going to be fine" in 2016 is not "let's rationally sort this out" but instead "fire up the Royal Navy".

It's the continued WW2 war fantasy on steroids and it's frankly pathetic.

It’s pathetic and sickening that the Mail should publish a headline about gunboats on the eve of a critical deal with the EU.

Were you saying the same thing yesterday when the EU threatened to ground all our planes unless we gave them unilateral access to our fishing waters in the event of No Deal?

I thought it an inept and unwelcome contribution, if not quite at the gunboats level.

How else do we enforce control of our waters to show we won't accept this?

Look, I want a Deal. It's possible Boris is being totally reckless and disingenuous here (and it wouldn't be the first time) but it's more likely the wider reports that the EU still hasn't compromised on fish are accurate and that needs to happen in the political sweet spot, which is the 30-40% share zone.

I would have thought the correct answer was for the EU to buy a share of our quotas for a limited period of time.

Nah, I think the French fishermen will just blockade the ferry ports if they cannot fish, while Le Flic just stand there and shrug.

Gallowgate said:

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

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

We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there isde deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.

Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.

Two immediate idiocies in what you have posted. We almost certainly import bananas and avocados from Belgium rather than from Israel or Ivory Coast. The EU is a vast market, so bulk imports come into a port for warehousing and then onward distribution to the final market like the UK. The Daily Mail puts these on their list because they are EU imports.

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

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

'Yes that is a chippy. Yes those are fishing boats. No they haven't caught the cod the chippy across the road is preparing for you because Cod don't swing in these waters you dumb bastards.'

There may be some modest price rises because bananas and avocados now have to go direct to Felixstowe in a different boat rather than to Rotterdam and then Felixstowe in the same boat but there will be no problems with supply as we have free trade deals with all the source countries.

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

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

Is there anything we can't source from elsewhere except tulips ?

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

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

Snip

If we're going into a trade war after no deal we need to be prepared to make life as hard as possible for the EU without mercy and without second thought for their economy.

So now you want a trade war.

Christ on a bike. None of this was on the side of that bus.

Snip

lol

No thank you. I'm not interested in a trade war.

We can end this right now by simply joining the EEA/EFTA as we should have done all along.

This is is the government's doing.

No one wants a war, but being prepared for one is necessary at this point in time. The EU is clearly preparing for one and ready to strike first with economic blockades like stopping flights.

If they do that it is a trade war and we need to reciprocate with all guns blazing.

Nuke them from orbit... it is the only way to be sure!

@MikeSmithson - we REALLY need a "rolls eyes" smiley.....

🙄...

Oooo! Where did you get that from?

iPhone.

@FrancisUrquhart will be agitating.

On Windows 10 you can press the windows button + "." and the emoji keyboard will pop up.

Command-Control-Space on a Mac 😉

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

IshmaelZ said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

I'm not a logistics expert. But the argument being made

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Flatlander said:

alex_ said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1337503342122192896

And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?

A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.

You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?

The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems

Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.

If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.

And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members

Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage

It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities

I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!

As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...

The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's

People who support the mines use the same rubbish argument. "bUt tHEy wERe PrOfITable"

The fact is that Thatcher, despite her many faults, moved us on as a nation to bigger and better things than fishing and mining.

Hang on - some of them WERE profitable. They weren't shut to benefit the environment. We shifted to coal imported half way round the world. Its only in recent years that the coal power stations have stopped burning foreign coal.

What he means by bigger and better thing is services like his don't forget he is training to be a lawyer. A definition of that being someone who produces nothing but tears of fury.

Did you get mugged in the divorce? Sympathies.

Shrugs I am happy with my record, I have spent 3 years of my life being an arse when I played cards for a living....4 years as a trawler man, 10 years as an industrial chemist making things people wanted, and 20 years writing stuff people wanted software wise from sat nav stuff to medical software....a lawyer produces what?

A lawyer produces help.

Besides I want to work on the high street with everyday people. I did not do this for the money.

A lawyer produces help for people that can afford it, thats not everyday people

That isn't true. Everyday people need legal help when they are moving house for example.

Thats a solicitor not a lawyer, which area of law are you studying for?

A solicitor is a type of lawyer and I'm training to be a solicitor, as opposed to a barrister.

The exact type of law I end up practicing in will depend on who (if anyone) is willing to employ me. However, there is apparently a shortage of conveyancers in the North East so that bodes well because I enjoy property law.

Doesnt change the arguement as you have pontificated on here in the past that ordinary people cant afford to buy a house anymore so just admit you work for those with money

House prices here in the North East are much more affordable.

The only data I can find is that 62% of people in the "North" are owner occupiers so I don't think it's entire true that "most ordinary people can't afford to buy a house".

Ah so you are saying 38% of people are priced out of your services nods

Well even fewer people could afford to buy the products I was involved in manufacturing so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The point I am making is you are a leftie but consistently go into things that only benefits the richer yet you call out things like british fishing which was never subsudised and only became uneconomic because gits like you traded it off for you ability to go work in the eu.....yet you claim people like me only care about ourselves

I don't really claim to be a leftie. I'm more of a Blairite centrist as I am a child of New Labour after all.

And FYI I wasn't even born when "gits like me trading fishing" for whatever.

rcs1000 said:

Now, I have been very critical of the uk government (and especially the Internal Markets Bill), but on this they are completely in the right.

Principle matters. And a stronger party attempting to use the threat of No Deal to get something they have no right to is very poor behavior.

The worst one from them was the idea that they would cut off the energy interconnectors without realising that we sell that same energy to Ireland and the UK Ireland interconnects are used to balance energy over the island of Ireland.

The flight blockade is another one that amounts to a declaration of a trade war. It's honestly difficult to describe the EU as anything other than a formal enemy if they go down this route.

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Flatlander said:

alex_ said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1337503342122192896

And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?

A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.

You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?

The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems

Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.

If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.

And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members

Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage

It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities

I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!

As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...

The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's

People who support the mines use the same rubbish argument. "bUt tHEy wERe PrOfITable"

The fact is that Thatcher, despite her many faults, moved us on as a nation to bigger and better things than fishing and mining.

Flipping hamburgers and flipping houses?

Why do you think the people of places like Mansfield voted Tory? Because they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that their lives are now better and because they now have well paid jobs. I am not saying this is because of the Tories or the mine closures but the idea that many of these former mining towns are now poorer because of the closure of the mines is simply wrong.

Personally I have no problem with Thatcher breaking the mining unions. Unions should not be able to override the democratic vote and bring down Governments. I do have a problem with Major and Heseltine deciding to go much further and shut down the profitable mines that remained because they wanted to punish the miners themselves.

When it gets cold again - as it inevitably will - I hope people remember that we have many hundreds of years worth of coal sitting under our feet.

Is full access to the single market in return for some fish the worst deal in the world?

Thinking about NPxMP's header the other night, I thought it a simplification, or trade policy has always been a complex mix of unilateral and multilateral.

My simplification is that the zone now is to find the proper exchange rate between a quantum of level playing field and a quantum of access. I suspect the 27 nation states have set that exchange rate towards the high end in their negotiating brief, prioritising single market protection, and I do suspect it is a slightly higher exchange rate than for, say, Canada (albeit we want much freer access, so I cannot be certain that is the case).

I think the EU do now think they'll get closer to their desired exchange rate in the spring, but it's not guaranteed by any means that the UK won't harden its position in adversity. The negotiation aspect will be interesting.

Benpointer said:

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Sunday really the deadline?

Of course not.

311220235959 is the deadline.

And even then it might get extended until everyone is sober.

311220225959 I think

Brilliant. You are right! CET 2359.

Pedanticbetting.com cheque book and pen heading your way

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

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

We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there isde deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.

Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.

Two immediate idiocies in what you have posted. We almost certainly import bananas and avocados from Belgium rather than from Israel or Ivory Coast. The EU is a vast market, so bulk imports come into a port for warehousing and then onward distribution to the final market like the UK. The Daily Mail puts these on their list because they are EU imports.

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

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

'Yes that is a chippy. Yes those are fishing boats. No they haven't caught the cod the chippy across the road is preparing for you because Cod don't swing in these waters you dumb bastards.'

There may be some modest price rises because bananas and avocados now have to go direct to Felixstowe in a different boat rather than to Rotterdam and then Felixstowe in the same boat but there will be no problems with supply as we have free trade deals with all the source countries.

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

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

Is there anything we can't source from elsewhere except tulips ?

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

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

Snip

If we're going into a trade war after no deal we need to be prepared to make life as hard as possible for the EU without mercy and without second thought for their economy.

So now you want a trade war.

Christ on a bike. None of this was on the side of that bus.

Snip

lol

No thank you. I'm not interested in a trade war.

We can end this right now by simply joining the EEA/EFTA as we should have done all along.

This is is the government's doing.

No one wants a war, but being prepared for one is necessary at this point in time. The EU is clearly preparing for one and ready to strike first with economic blockades like stopping flights.

If they do that it is a trade war and we need to reciprocate with all guns blazing.

Nuke them from orbit... it is the only way to be sure!

@MikeSmithson - we REALLY need a "rolls eyes" smiley.....

🙄...

Oooo! Where did you get that from?

iPhone.

@FrancisUrquhart will be agitating.

Now I obviously love to joke about the Apple products, but they are normally beautifully designed and revolutionize the sector....but what happened with the new headphones, it appears they decided to take the current market leaders and take away the good bits e.g. You can't fold them away, and so they have to carry them via a handbag, where the handle is the weakest part of the headphone.

https://twitter.com/graeme_from_IT/status/1336363429267972098?s=20

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Flatlander said:

alex_ said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1337503342122192896

And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?

A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.

You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?

The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems

Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.

If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.

And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members

So what?

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

Fishing as you remember it is the past and will remain in the past.

No it is not by any stretch of the imagination and frankly your remarks are absurd

This happened when we joined the EU and after and most certainly was not in our childhood

You might want to recall why the evil EU and many other countries around the world imposed fishing quotas. It was called the "collapse of fish stocks". Basically, the fishing fleets of the world hoovered the seas clean of fish.

Until the EU got their hands on it the Irish Box was one of the best - and best managed - fishing grounds in the world. In a few years they destroyed it.

This actually brings me round to my point about fishing. Boris is wrong on this and so are the EU. We should not be arguing per se over the nationality of the boats doing the fishing. We should be agreeing to ban the big supertrawlers from places like Lithuania and Spain which are devastating North Sea fisheries. The EU seems to be unwilling to do this but it is something we could do - and could perhaps drag the EU along with us in return for better access for the smaller fishing boats.

Gallowgate said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

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

We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there isde deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.

Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.

Two immediate idiocies in what you have posted. We almost certainly import bananas and avocados from Belgium rather than from Israel or Ivory Coast. The EU is a vast market, so bulk imports come into a port for warehousing and then onward distribution to the final market like the UK. The Daily Mail puts these on their list because they are EU imports.

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

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

'Yes that is a chippy. Yes those are fishing boats. No they haven't caught the cod the chippy across the road is preparing for you because Cod don't swing in these waters you dumb bastards.'

There may be some modest price rises because bananas and avocados now have to go direct to Felixstowe in a different boat rather than to Rotterdam and then Felixstowe in the same boat but there will be no problems with supply as we have free trade deals with all the source countries.

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

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

Is there anything we can't source from elsewhere except tulips ?

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

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

Snip

If we're going into a trade war after no deal we need to be prepared to make life as hard as possible for the EU without mercy and without second thought for their economy.

So now you want a trade war.

Christ on a bike. None of this was on the side of that bus.

Snip

lol

No thank you. I'm not interested in a trade war.

We can end this right now by simply joining the EEA/EFTA as we should have done all along.

This is is the government's doing.

No one wants a war, but being prepared for one is necessary at this point in time. The EU is clearly preparing for one and ready to strike first with economic blockades like stopping flights.

If they do that it is a trade war and we need to reciprocate with all guns blazing.

Nuke them from orbit... it is the only way to be sure!

@MikeSmithson - we REALLY need a "rolls eyes" smiley.....

🙄...

Oooo! Where did you get that from?

iPhone.

@FrancisUrquhart will be agitating.

Now I obviously love to joke about the Apple products, but they are normally beautifully designed and revolutionize the sector....what happened with the new headphones, it appears they decided to take the current market leaders and take away the good bits. You can't fold them away, and so they have to carry them via a handbag.

And yet the reviews are pretty positive and they're completely sold out.

Marques Brownlee, who is a huge Apple fan, was shall we say "confused" by many of the design choices.

Also, they were one of the first to have tap controls on the actual headphones, again they ditched them on these headphones.

I have the Sony 1000XM4, and its great to be able to tap / swipe to do a load of things. I also have older Sennheiser noise cancelling ones, and when I use those, I really miss the ability to do that.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

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

We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there isde deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.

Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.

Two immediate idiocies in what you have posted. We almost certainly import bananas and avocados from Belgium rather than from Israel or Ivory Coast. The EU is a vast market, so bulk imports come into a port for warehousing and then onward distribution to the final market like the UK. The Daily Mail puts these on their list because they are EU imports.

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

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

'Yes that is a chippy. Yes those are fishing boats. No they haven't caught the cod the chippy across the road is preparing for you because Cod don't swing in these waters you dumb bastards.'

There may be some modest price rises because bananas and avocados now have to go direct to Felixstowe in a different boat rather than to Rotterdam and then Felixstowe in the same boat but there will be no problems with supply as we have free trade deals with all the source countries.

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

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

Is there anything we can't source from elsewhere except tulips ?

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

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

Snip

If we're going into a trade war after no deal we need to be prepared to make life as hard as possible for the EU without mercy and without second thought for their economy.

So now you want a trade war.

Christ on a bike. None of this was on the side of that bus.

Snip

lol

No thank you. I'm not interested in a trade war.

We can end this right now by simply joining the EEA/EFTA as we should have done all along.

This is is the government's doing.

No one wants a war, but being prepared for one is necessary at this point in time. The EU is clearly preparing for one and ready to strike first with economic blockades like stopping flights.

If they do that it is a trade war and we need to reciprocate with all guns blazing.

Nuke them from orbit... it is the only way to be sure!

@MikeSmithson - we REALLY need a "rolls eyes" smiley.....

🙄...

Oooo! Where did you get that from?

iPhone.

@FrancisUrquhart will be agitating.

Now I obviously love to joke about the Apple products, but they are normally beautifully designed and revolutionize the sector....but what happened with the new headphones, it appears they decided to take the current market leaders and take away the good bits e.g. You can't fold them away, and so they have to carry them via a handbag, where the handle is the weakest part of the headphone.

I don't doubt it – I'm sure they are shite. I am now on my second iPhone 6s Plus (the best phone ever made) because I have no desire to get drawn into the tech-for-tech's-sake nextgen iPhones.

I use old-school headphones hardwired via 3.5mm jack which require no battery. WTF would I change?

Supreme Court rejects Texas standing .

Richard_Tyndall said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Flatlander said:

alex_ said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1337503342122192896

And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?

A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.

You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?

The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems

Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.

If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.

And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members

So what?

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

Fishing as you remember it is the past and will remain in the past.

No it is not by any stretch of the imagination and frankly your remarks are absurd

This happened when we joined the EU and after and most certainly was not in our childhood

You might want to recall why the evil EU and many other countries around the world imposed fishing quotas. It was called the "collapse of fish stocks". Basically, the fishing fleets of the world hoovered the seas clean of fish.

Until the EU got their hands on it the Irish Box was one of the best - and best managed - fishing grounds in the world. In a few years they destroyed it.

This actually brings me round to my point about fishing. Boris is wrong on this and so are the EU. We should not be arguing per se over the nationality of the boats doing the fishing. We should be agreeing to ban the big supertrawlers from places like Lithuania and Spain which are devastating North Sea fisheries. The EU seems to be unwilling to do this but it is something we could do - and could perhaps drag the EU along with us in return for better access for the smaller fishing boats.

EU cfp is captured by what big fishing states want its why I said even if we allow eu boats in our waters must be under british fishing policy.....maybe ours wont be better but cant be worse

Benpointer said:

alex_ said:

Supreme Court rejects Texas standing .

Link anyone?

CNN

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1337540757100564480

kle4 said:

I do think if there is a plan to wait for the UK to suffer the no deal consequences before making any further moves from the EU it would be a rather strange plan.

One, because we're told over and over the EU is already in a very strong position, and the UK will suffer from Brexit regardless, so there's no need for the EU to take the hit of no deal to maximise advantage even for a short time, and two, because crossing the rubicon is a thing. People in a crappy situation even of their own making don't always magically see the light and change their tune, not quick enough anyway, and there's every chance the UK's intransigence will increase if there is no deal, rather than decrease.

I would hope such talk is not their actual plan, even if no deal does still happen regardless.

You have to bear in mind that they are completely baffled by the irrationality of the UK, and most especially that they think that Boris Johnson is a complete buffoon. They know him of old, of course, so they won't be particularly surprised by that. but the indications are that, even so, they are surprised by the degree to which he's acting the fool in this, and by the degree to which the once highly-respected UK political and civil establishment has collapsed into absurdity. In addition, bear in mind that, from their point of view, this is all just an enormous waste of their time, and that they are (reasonably enough) fed up with four years of psychodrama from the UK, culminating in the buffoon wanting to renege on the deal he not only signed, but praised to the skies, just a few months ago.

Given all that, they've been incredibly patient. The urge to just say 'Sod it, let's just tell them to go stuff their sovereignty in a pile of their rotting fish' must be very hard to resist, but they have resisted it, and will continue to do so. In the event that Boris crashes us out in chaos, they'll make sympathetic noises and emphasise that they are still willing to talk. Over to us, once we've come to our senses, for however long that takes

alex_ said:

Supreme Court rejects Texas standing .

Hardly surprising, but good to hear it confirmed.

It was a batshit-crazy challenge.

Even the two justices who would have heard the case stressed they wouldn’t have granted any of the relief the plaintiffs wanted so effectively the court have said by 9 to 0 that they will not overturn the voters verdict .

Trump needs to just fuck off . The GOP and Trump are a cancer on America .

FrancisUrquhart said:

NickPalmer said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is Sunday really the deadline?

Not really. On Sunday they will announce that some progress has been made but gaps still remain, and announce a further deadline. Nobody wants to be the one who walks out of the talks.

What is the final realistic date when it just isn't possible to get the deal through the UK and all the EU nation parliaments before 31th Dec.

311220225959 GMT. (h/t @Benpointer)

They can keep going until then, even if it's "not possible to get the deal through" with one second remaining they can just agree to retain the status quo until 4/5 January.

So 311220225959 GMT is the only real deadline.

Mortimer said:

Anabobazina said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Anabobazina said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Gallowgate said:

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pagan2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

RochdalePioneers said:

A handy guide to food post Brexit in the Daily Mail

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

We don't import bananas or avocados from the EU so there isde deal signed with them which will reduce tariffs compared to the current EU tariffs.

Norway and Iceland are not in the EU and particularly are not in the Customs Union so do not have to abide by any EU/UK tariff regime. More to the point the UK, Iceland and Norway have already signed a deal to continue to trade in exactly the same way as they do now until a proper trade deal is concluded next year.

Two immediate idiocies in what you have posted. We almost certainly import bananas and avocados from Belgium rather than from Israel or Ivory Coast. The EU is a vast market, so bulk imports come into a port for warehousing and then onward distribution to the final market like the UK. The Daily Mail puts these on their list because they are EU imports.

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

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

'Yes that is a chippy. Yes those are fishing boats. No they haven't caught the cod the chippy across the road is preparing for you because Cod don't swing in these waters you dumb bastards.'

There may be some modest price rises because bananas and avocados now have to go direct to Felixstowe in a different boat rather than to Rotterdam and then Felixstowe in the same boat but there will be no problems with supply as we have free trade deals with all the source countries.

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

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

Is there anything we can't source from elsewhere except tulips ?

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

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

Snip

If we're going into a trade war after no deal we need to be prepared to make life as hard as possible for the EU without mercy and without second thought for their economy.

So now you want a trade war.

Christ on a bike. None of this was on the side of that bus.

Snip

lol

No thank you. I'm not interested in a trade war.

We can end this right now by simply joining the EEA/EFTA as we should have done all along.

This is is the government's doing.

No one wants a war, but being prepared for one is necessary at this point in time. The EU is clearly preparing for one and ready to strike first with economic blockades like stopping flights.

If they do that it is a trade war and we need to reciprocate with all guns blazing.

Nuke them from orbit... it is the only way to be sure!

@MikeSmithson - we REALLY need a "rolls eyes" smiley.....

🙄...

Oooo! Where did you get that from?

iPhone.

@FrancisUrquhart will be agitating.

Now I obviously love to joke about the Apple products, but they are normally beautifully designed and revolutionize the sector....but what happened with the new headphones, it appears they decided to take the current market leaders and take away the good bits e.g. You can't fold them away, and so they have to carry them via a handbag, where the handle is the weakest part of the headphone.

I don't doubt it – I'm sure they are shite. I am now on my second iPhone 6s Plus (the best phone ever made) because I have no desire to get drawn into the tech-for-tech's-sake nextgen iPhones.

I use old-school headphones hardwired via 3.5mm jack which require no battery. WTF would I change?

Frankly I would lose the Airpods within about 3 days.

The advantage of a cabled set is when they fall out, they're still connected to your phone....

Indeed, you sound like me! And surely worse sound quality? The word of God in audio is that hardwire beats airwaves every time. Bluetooth is a triumph of flexibility over quality.

nico679 said:

Even the two justices who would have heard the case stressed they wouldn’t have granted any of the relief the plaintiffs wanted so effectively the court have said by 9 to 0 that they will not overturn the voters verdict .

Trump needs to just fuck off . The GOP and Trump are a cancer on America .

I'm not entirely sure Trump's raging against the dying of the light is having the effect he intends. I suspect more and more people just think he's a mad, bad loser.

edmundintokyo said:

Benpointer said:

alex_ said:

Supreme Court rejects Texas standing .

Link anyone?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

Alito and Thomas sort-of dissent but only to the extent that they think Texas should be given permission to file a stupid lawsuit that they will then throw out, rather than being told not to even bother filing.

Arguably, in their manner of dissenting, Alito and Thomas actually went further in their rejection of the basis of the case. The others didn't need to express an opinion on the merits. Alito and Thomas were on the record as saying that they wouldn't have granted relief.

SouthamObserver said:

As we prepare for war with France ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/08/exclusive-military-cuts-1bn-next-year-navy-reservists-suspended/

We are hardly going to war with France when we are deploying troops via a UN operation against ISIS and Al Qaida affiliates in Mali led by France, simply protecting our fishing waters to ensure only boats with permission from the UK government fish there

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/03/uk-starts-deployment-of-300-troops-to-mali-as-part-of-un-mission-minusma

"Four Royal Navy boats to patrol UK fishing waters as no-deal Brexit looms"

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/four-royal-navy-boats-patrol-uk-fishing-waters-deal-brexit-looms/

Presumably now that Trump has lost in the Supreme Court he and his batshit lawyers will take their case to a higher power.

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

As we prepare for war with France ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/08/exclusive-military-cuts-1bn-next-year-navy-reservists-suspended/

We are hardly going to war with France when we are deploying troops via a UN operation against ISIS and Al Qaida affiliates in Mali led by France, simply protecting our fishing waters to ensure only boats with permission from the UK government fish there

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/03/uk-starts-deployment-of-300-troops-to-mali-as-part-of-un-mission-minusma

Why are we deploying troops with france in mali, its an ex french colony they can deal with it and we withdraw our troops

As we are NATO allies, both permanent members of the UN security council and both have an interest in defeating radical ISIS affiliated terrorism

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

As we prepare for war with France ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/08/exclusive-military-cuts-1bn-next-year-navy-reservists-suspended/

We are hardly going to war with France when we are deploying troops via a UN operation against ISIS and Al Qaida affiliates in Mali led by France, simply protecting our fishing waters to ensure only boats with permission from the UK government fish there

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/03/uk-starts-deployment-of-300-troops-to-mali-as-part-of-un-mission-minusma

Why are we deploying troops with france in mali, its an ex french colony they can deal with it and we withdraw our troops

As we are NATO allies, both permanent members of the UN security council and both have an interest in defeating radical ISIS affiliated terrorism

Ah but this
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-freezes-mali-training-missions-after-military-coup/a-54710608

Remind me why our troops are in mali after the eu froze training missions please

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

As we prepare for war with France ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/08/exclusive-military-cuts-1bn-next-year-navy-reservists-suspended/

We are hardly going to war with France when we are deploying troops via a UN operation against ISIS and Al Qaida affiliates in Mali led by France, simply protecting our fishing waters to ensure only boats with permission from the UK government fish there

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/03/uk-starts-deployment-of-300-troops-to-mali-as-part-of-un-mission-minusma

Why are we deploying troops with france in mali, its an ex french colony they can deal with it and we withdraw our troops

As we are NATO allies, both permanent members of the UN security council and both have an interest in defeating radical ISIS affiliated terrorism

Ah but this
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-freezes-mali-training-missions-after-military-coup/a-54710608

Remind me why our troops are in mali after the eu froze training missions please

As France and the UK are the main military powers in Europe and after the US, China and Russia arguably the strongest militaries in the world, we left the EU if we recall, the EU mission is not strong enough to restore order in Mali and to defeat the militants, only the UK and French militaries are

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

The pound will fall off a cliff if we enter into a trade war with the EU. Just look at Turkey.

Literally insane.

Helps our exporters.

https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=some+like+it+hot+nobodys+perfect#id=3&vid=058250d80634ed46dce7da2ae25fc065&action=click

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

As we prepare for war with France ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/08/exclusive-military-cuts-1bn-next-year-navy-reservists-suspended/

We are hardly going to war with France when we are deploying troops via a UN operation against ISIS and Al Qaida affiliates in Mali led by France, simply protecting our fishing waters to ensure only boats with permission from the UK government fish there

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/03/uk-starts-deployment-of-300-troops-to-mali-as-part-of-un-mission-minusma

Why are we deploying troops with france in mali, its an ex french colony they can deal with it and we withdraw our troops

As we are NATO allies, both permanent members of the UN security council and both have an interest in defeating radical ISIS affiliated terrorism

Ah but this
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-freezes-mali-training-missions-after-military-coup/a-54710608

Remind me why our troops are in mali after the eu froze training missions please

As France and the UK are the main military powers in Europe and after the US, China and Russia arguably the strongest militaries in the world, we left the EU if we recall, the EU mission is not strong enough to restore order in Mali and to defeat the militants, only the UK and French militaries are

The eu quit missions there because they trained the people who peformed a coup d'etat...you think we should still be there because?

YBarddCwsc said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

As we prepare for war with France ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/08/exclusive-military-cuts-1bn-next-year-navy-reservists-suspended/

We are hardly going to war with France when we are deploying troops via a UN operation against ISIS and Al Qaida affiliates in Mali led by France, simply protecting our fishing waters to ensure only boats with permission from the UK government fish there

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/03/uk-starts-deployment-of-300-troops-to-mali-as-part-of-un-mission-minusma

Why are we deploying troops with france in mali, its an ex french colony they can deal with it and we withdraw our troops

As we are NATO allies, both permanent members of the UN security council and both have an interest in defeating radical ISIS affiliated terrorism

Ah but this
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-freezes-mali-training-missions-after-military-coup/a-54710608

Remind me why our troops are in mali after the eu froze training missions please

As France and the UK are the main military powers in Europe and after the US, China and Russia arguably the strongest militaries in the world, we left the EU if we recall, the EU mission is not strong enough to restore order in Mali and to defeat the militants, only the UK and French militaries are

British troops should not be in Mali -- there is no conceivable reason why we should be intervening in that country.

We are there with the French to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda sponsored militants before they train more militant terrorists to attack the West, Macron and Boris may not agree on Brexit but they do agree on defeating radical Islamic terrorism no matter what the cost, unlike wet whinging handwringers like you and Dura Ace and isolationist head in the sanders like Pagan 2!!!!

rcs1000 said:

alex_ said:

kle4 said:

Anabobazina said:

nico679 said:

Even the two justices who would have heard the case stressed they wouldn’t have granted any of the relief the plaintiffs wanted so effectively the court have said by 9 to 0 that they will not overturn the voters verdict .

Trump needs to just fuck off . The GOP and Trump are a cancer on America .

I'm not entirely sure Trump's raging against the dying of the light is having the effect he intends. I suspect more and more people just think he's a mad, bad loser.

I'm not sure if even he knows what effect he actually hoped for from it, he's just doing what come naturally and, scarily, probably what he believes to be true.

However, even if it is putting more and more people off him, it may well be binding a sizable core of supporters ever more tightly to him for when the rest of the party moves on, and securing that adoring, money donating and influence having minority committed to him as the 'real' President, may give him what he wants - continual recognition and attention.

I think he genuinely thought he had leverage over the Supreme Court and expected them to do his bidding. After all, he has managed to cow through fear almost everyone else. But he simply didn't realise that he has actually no power over people appointed for life, who's entire purpose is to uphold the rule of law.

Trump's entire modus operandi is transactional.

He gave you something. Therefore you owe him.

Indeed. Just look at our history of putting folk in the Lords.

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Flatlander said:

alex_ said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1337503342122192896

And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?

A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.

You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?

The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems

Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.

If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.

And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members

Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage

It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities

I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!

As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...

The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's

People who support the mines use the same rubbish argument. "bUt tHEy wERe PrOfITable"

The fact is that Thatcher, despite her many faults, moved us on as a nation to bigger and better things than fishing and mining.

Flipping hamburgers and flipping houses?

Why do you think the people of places like Mansfield voted Tory? Because they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that their lives are now better and because they now have well paid jobs. I am not saying this is because of the Tories or the mine closures but the idea that many of these former mining towns are now poorer because of the closure of the mines is simply wrong.

Personally I have no problem with Thatcher breaking the mining unions. Unions should not be able to override the democratic vote and bring down Governments. I do have a problem with Major and Heseltine deciding to go much further and shut down the profitable mines that remained because they wanted to punish the miners themselves.

When it gets cold again - as it inevitably will - I hope people remember that we have many hundreds of years worth of coal sitting under our feet.

But we have millions of years of tidal energy sitting around our coast. Why would you go back to a source of energy that is so damned deadly/debilitating to those asked to go get it?

It isn't if you use the right technology. And as it stands tidal energy just doesn't cut it as yet. Hopefully it will at some point but right now it is a long way from being a fully viable alternative.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/adamkelsey/status/1337549501507264515?s=20

#texit

So I haven't been paying much attention to the Brexit thing but I'm thinking what if you let the immigrant boats cross the channel, but they have to bring some fish from the French half

Richard_Tyndall said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Flatlander said:

alex_ said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1337503342122192896

And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?

A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.

You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?

The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems

Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.

If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.

And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members

Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage

It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities

I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!

As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...

The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's

People who support the mines use the same rubbish argument. "bUt tHEy wERe PrOfITable"

The fact is that Thatcher, despite her many faults, moved us on as a nation to bigger and better things than fishing and mining.

Flipping hamburgers and flipping houses?

Why do you think the people of places like Mansfield voted Tory? Because they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that their lives are now better and because they now have well paid jobs. I am not saying this is because of the Tories or the mine closures but the idea that many of these former mining towns are now poorer because of the closure of the mines is simply wrong.

Personally I have no problem with Thatcher breaking the mining unions. Unions should not be able to override the democratic vote and bring down Governments. I do have a problem with Major and Heseltine deciding to go much further and shut down the profitable mines that remained because they wanted to punish the miners themselves.

When it gets cold again - as it inevitably will - I hope people remember that we have many hundreds of years worth of coal sitting under our feet.

But we have millions of years of tidal energy sitting around our coast. Why would you go back to a source of energy that is so damned deadly/debilitating to those asked to go get it?

It isn't if you use the right technology. And as it stands tidal energy just doesn't cut it as yet. Hopefully it will at some point but right now it is a long way from being a fully viable alternative.

You could build the Severn barrage for about £65/MwH, which is a third less than the cost of Hinckley Point C (c. £90/MwH and on a price escalator, but more than twice the market price of electricity in the UK.

With current natural gas prices (even for very long term supply contracts) it's *really* hard to compete with modern CCGTs.

dixiedean said:

This lack of interest in tidal and interest in fish seems strange. Almost as if the aim of Brexit is to reconstruct the 60s rather than forge a future.

I support looking at tidal and also fish where does that fit?

RobD said:

dixiedean said:

This lack of interest in tidal and interest in fish seems strange. Almost as if the aim of Brexit is to reconstruct the 60s rather than forge a future.

The former isn't really related to Brexit though, is it?

My understanding is that Boris is planning to give away 85% of our tides in return for the EU remaining ping-pong wiff-waff.

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

Pagan2 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

As we prepare for war with France ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/12/08/exclusive-military-cuts-1bn-next-year-navy-reservists-suspended/

We are hardly going to war with France when we are deploying troops via a UN operation against ISIS and Al Qaida affiliates in Mali led by France, simply protecting our fishing waters to ensure only boats with permission from the UK government fish there

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/03/uk-starts-deployment-of-300-troops-to-mali-as-part-of-un-mission-minusma

Why are we deploying troops with france in mali, its an ex french colony they can deal with it and we withdraw our troops

As we are NATO allies, both permanent members of the UN security council and both have an interest in defeating radical ISIS affiliated terrorism

Ah but this
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-freezes-mali-training-missions-after-military-coup/a-54710608

Remind me why our troops are in mali after the eu froze training missions please

As France and the UK are the main military powers in Europe and after the US, China and Russia arguably the strongest militaries in the world, we left the EU if we recall, the EU mission is not strong enough to restore order in Mali and to defeat the militants, only the UK and French militaries are

British troops should not be in Mali -- there is no conceivable reason why we should be intervening in that country.

We are there with the French to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda sponsored militants before they train more militant terrorists to attack the West, Macron and Boris may not agree on Brexit but they do agree on defeating radical Islamic terrorism no matter what the cost, unlike wet whinging handwringers like you and Dura Ace and isolationist head in the sanders like Pagan 2!!!!

You cannot defeat isis and al queda by invading middle eastern countries. You can only gather more recruits for them by doing so when they say look "westerners invading us". If you think differently then you are wrong as usual

While I agree with your point, Mali is not in the Middle East.

Middle east was sort of short hand there for islamic dominated country

It is pretty much in the middlish part of the Sahel and east of somewhere (Mauritania)

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1337584551023890434

Nigelb said:

https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1337584551023890434

Awfully rushed.

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Flatlander said:

alex_ said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1337503342122192896

And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?

A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.

You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?

The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems

Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.

If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.

And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members

Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage

It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities

I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!

As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...

The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's

People who support the mines use the same rubbish argument. "bUt tHEy wERe PrOfITable"

The fact is that Thatcher, despite her many faults, moved us on as a nation to bigger and better things than fishing and mining.

Flipping hamburgers and flipping houses?

Why do you think the people of places like Mansfield voted Tory? Because they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that their lives are now better and because they now have well paid jobs. I am not saying this is because of the Tories or the mine closures but the idea that many of these former mining towns are now poorer because of the closure of the mines is simply wrong.

Personally I have no problem with Thatcher breaking the mining unions. Unions should not be able to override the democratic vote and bring down Governments. I do have a problem with Major and Heseltine deciding to go much further and shut down the profitable mines that remained because they wanted to punish the miners themselves.

When it gets cold again - as it inevitably will - I hope people remember that we have many hundreds of years worth of coal sitting under our feet.

But we have millions of years of tidal energy sitting around our coast. Why would you go back to a source of energy that is so damned deadly/debilitating to those asked to go get it?

It isn't if you use the right technology. And as it stands tidal energy just doesn't cut it as yet. Hopefully it will at some point but right now it is a long way from being a fully viable alternative.

You could build the Severn barrage for about £65/MwH, which is a third less than the cost of Hinckley Point C (c. £90/MwH and on a price escalator, but more than twice the market price of electricity in the UK.

With current natural gas prices (even for very long term supply contracts) it's *really* hard to compete with modern CCGTs.

What financing cost do you use for those calculations ?

I don't remember, but I'm assuming it's based on a LCC of 6.5% or thereabouts.

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

Gallowgate said:

Pagan2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gallowgate said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pagan2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Pagan2 said:

alex_ said:

Flatlander said:

alex_ said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/donaeldunready/status/1337503342122192896

And why do we even care? What's going to happen to all these fish if the French don't get to fish them?

A big recovery of the coastal ecosystem.

If the damage trawling did was immediately visible it would have been banned years ago.

You think the message these Tory MPs are looking to sell to the fishing communities is "good news guys, we've got rid of the French, but don't get ahead of yourselves thinking you'll be able to take their place"?

The british fishing fleet will take several years to rebuild, if during that time fish stocks get a recovery period due to the lack of eu factory ships by the time its in place there will have been a significant increase in fish stocks. It is simple to work out apart from for you it seems

Surely British fishermen will do what they've always done: they'll get quotas and then rent them out to foreign firms. That's by far the easiest way to make money.

If I may use an anecdote here, there were two types of people in britain that sold quota's. Large corporations with fishing fleets. The other were boats like mine with a skipper who owned the boat. After we joined the cfp in the 70's the quota's we were given went ever downwards with the uk doing strict enforcement on us while spanish, french and belgian fisherman seemed to have a blind eye from their countries. When he sold his quota we had got down to being allowed to fish 6 weeks a year. His boat was no longer financially viable because instead of being able to catch 100% of the fish that was sustainable in british waters we had our share of about 18%.

And that happened to my brother in laws and other family members

Yes people make it sound like fisherman were queuing up to sell, I know our skipper was in tears the day he told us. His family had been running a boat for generations but the amount we were allowed to catch would no longer even pay to maintain the boat let alone pay of the crew on a voyage

It was deeply traumatic and accounts in a large way to the anger towards the EU from the Scottish fishing communities

I'm sure you felt the same empathy for the ex-mining communities in the 80s and 90s.

Let's open all the mines and make Britain great again!

As I have said before I find it ironic that the same people who attacked the closure of the mines are now immersed in the attacks on fossil fuels.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't actually want the mines to reopen...

The difference is mines were not economic and needed public subsidy compared to imports whereas british fishing was both profitable and flourishing until politicians gave the rights of 80% of our fish away to the eec in the 70's

People who support the mines use the same rubbish argument. "bUt tHEy wERe PrOfITable"

The fact is that Thatcher, despite her many faults, moved us on as a nation to bigger and better things than fishing and mining.

Flipping hamburgers and flipping houses?

Why do you think the people of places like Mansfield voted Tory? Because they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that their lives are now better and because they now have well paid jobs. I am not saying this is because of the Tories or the mine closures but the idea that many of these former mining towns are now poorer because of the closure of the mines is simply wrong.

Personally I have no problem with Thatcher breaking the mining unions. Unions should not be able to override the democratic vote and bring down Governments. I do have a problem with Major and Heseltine deciding to go much further and shut down the profitable mines that remained because they wanted to punish the miners themselves.

When it gets cold again - as it inevitably will - I hope people remember that we have many hundreds of years worth of coal sitting under our feet.

But we have millions of years of tidal energy sitting around our coast. Why would you go back to a source of energy that is so damned deadly/debilitating to those asked to go get it?

It isn't if you use the right technology. And as it stands tidal energy just doesn't cut it as yet. Hopefully it will at some point but right now it is a long way from being a fully viable alternative.

You could build the Severn barrage for about £65/MwH, which is a third less than the cost of Hinckley Point C (c. £90/MwH and on a price escalator, but more than twice the market price of electricity in the UK.

With current natural gas prices (even for very long term supply contracts) it's *really* hard to compete with modern CCGTs.

Do you have a link for that Severn Barrage claim?

The really depressing thing about the US situation is that Trump is probably thinking he appointed the wrong people to the Supreme Court.