Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Last stop before the midterms: Virginia 2021 – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880

    Lighthearted Covid anecdote:

    I was talking to a chap earlier in the week who said that he doesn't mind wearing a face mask because he doesn't like the way his chin looks.

    I have nothing to say on the fish debate.

    There’s plenty of us who quite like them because it means shaving less often, or who are self-conscious about their appearance, or prefer not be be recognised in the street.

    And now, to more important things in life. Watching cricket (while wearing a mask).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,012
    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, what was the compelling French case?

    Not a clue really. It is just I don't assume that because they are French they don't have one.

    That is not quite true. The representative this morning on the Today programme said there were a handful of small boats that regularly fished the waters but couldn't provide the information required and I assume in the format needed. I would guess it is a case of not meeting the wording of the agreement rather than the intent as otherwise there is no case. And secondly there was an issue with a few boats that had been sold and the replacement boats could therefore not provide the evidence in the manner required and the experts on this site with sod all knowledge come up with all sorts of reasons why that can't be the case with damn all knowledge of the particular cases.

    The French may well be trying it on. I don't know, but neither does anyone else here.
    I'm going from the viewpoint that getting rid of the information in logbooks doesn't pass the sniff test, given the information they apparently hold.

    There have been maritime conservation laws for decades, restricting what fishermen can do. It's very (ahem) convenient for one of the prime records of what a boat's been doing to disappear into the æther.

    "Oh sorry taxman/marine ecologist/fisheries officer, I no longer have any record of that as I sold the boat to my son, after he sold it to me last year."

    (Timescale for dramatic effect.)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,028
    edited October 2021
    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
    I'm not talking about tax records (for which I believe it is now 5 years) I am talking about records for which there is no requirement to be kept. See my post 'And if there is no requirement to do so?'

    If you are not required to keep a record it is unreasonable to then expect someone to have done so just because it may be prudent to do so.
    Isn't the issue that the French boats were exploiting a loophole that the TCA closed?
    I have not a clue, which @Dura_Ace put very well in his post has neither anyone else here on the whole topic.
    One issue is that M Macron made a firm promise that anyone who had a license would get one.

    Then signed a treaty basing it on record of fishing not a past license that has not been used.

    And is trying to avoid taking responsibility for the difference.

    It's interesting that Euro Twitter is being a little less shouty than usual over this one.

    The most interesting claim this morning is: but but but the letter has not been translated properly.
  • I mean what's the point of having Trident, it is designed for the situations like this.

    UK could trigger legal action over French fishing row, Boris Johnson warns.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/30/uk-could-trigger-legal-action-french-fishing-row-boris-johnson/

    Still, things always get better when the lawyers get involved.
  • On topic, I've been on the GOP here thanks to @Alistair's magnificent tipping.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,028

    On topic, I've been on the GOP here thanks to @Alistair's magnificent tipping.

    Oh, is that the topic? :smiley:
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,895
    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    This is extremely desperate. You just can't admit that the "rules based organisation" you've supported for so long is now on the brink of condoning France breaking the rules they just signed up to. You've condemned Boris for doing so wrt NI and yet you can't do it for France who have knowingly breached the TCA and are now retrospectively asking for the EU to sign up to what is not their fight. Worse still France are now trying to impose France specific tariffs on the UK which not only breaks the rules of the TCA but the also breach EU treaties.

    You love the EU so much that you're willing to see your own country impoverished and to blame the "daily express" mentality rather than see what the French are trying to do which is break the rules and get away with it.
    Max you must have me mixed up with someone else because none of what you have said above applies to me. Not sure where you got any of that from.

    And I have repeated said I am not arguing the French are right. I am simply saying nobody here knows. And nobody does.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,207

    I mean what's the point of having Trident, it is designed for the situations like this.

    UK could trigger legal action over French fishing row, Boris Johnson warns.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/10/30/uk-could-trigger-legal-action-french-fishing-row-boris-johnson/

    Still, things always get better when the lawyers get involved.

    Certainly for the lawyers bank balance.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,104
    edited October 2021
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
    I'm not talking about tax records (for which I believe it is now 5 years) I am talking about records for which there is no requirement to be kept. See my post 'And if there is no requirement to do so?'

    If you are not required to keep a record it is unreasonable to then expect someone to have done so just because it may be prudent to do so.
    It's very difficult in general to provide evidence from the past when you were never aware that you had to provide it in the future..if you see what I mean..

    :smile:
    Absolutely. A point I kept meaning to make. However I suspect that some smart arse would suggest that the fisherman should have anticipated that and kept abreast of all the treaties.
    No. They should have kept the evidence to demonstrate compliance with the treaty in force at the time
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,198
    Leon said:

    The leaking of the Castex letter remains rather curious. It does not help France.

    It's the comission laying a bit of smackdown on France and telling them to shut up. I mean the idea of France applying unilateral tariffs on UK imports is laughable. It must have got so many eye rolls in the commission.
  • Shocking behaviour from the Sri Lankans.

    They should be chucked out of the T20 world cup for this.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, what was the compelling French case?

    Not a clue really. It is just I don't assume that because they are French they don't have one.

    That is not quite true. The representative this morning on the Today programme said there were a handful of small boats that regularly fished the waters but couldn't provide the information required and I assume in the format needed. I would guess it is a case of not meeting the wording of the agreement rather than the intent as otherwise there is no case. And secondly there was an issue with a few boats that had been sold and the replacement boats could therefore not provide the evidence in the manner required and the experts on this site with sod all knowledge come up with all sorts of reasons why that can't be the case with damn all knowledge of the particular cases.

    The French may well be trying it on. I don't know, but neither does anyone else here.
    Cheers for the like @Morris_Dancer It has been the most sane exchange I have had this morning and hopefully I have made it clear that I don't necessarily believe the French are not at fault. I just don't know, unlike several here who are absolutely certain having seen only one side of the argument.
    I have no idea if you are including me in the list of people who have only seen one side of the argument?

    If you are then maybe you will appreciate that when this fishing nonsense kicked off earlier this year I instinctively presumed it was the Jersey government and fishers who were being dicks. A lot of the fishers are bolshy pains in the arse and I bow to nobody in my disdain for the useless pile of crap Jersey has for a government.

    I have gone from presuming “we” were being idiots to the opposite view because I have followed the story very closely, I know personally parties involved to different degrees with different motivations and I’ve followed the facts on the ground.

    It is really not a complicated situation - there are rules laid out in a treaty, most French fishermen have managed to get their licences and some haven’t - the reaction and threats from the French has been crazy but the fault lies in those who drew up the rules and those who cannot provide the proof required by the treaty the EU signed on behalf of the government elected by those fishermen.

    It’s very easy to say that someone who has a different opinion from you doesn’t know what they are talking about or have bad motives however in this case you cannot lay either accusation at me.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,028

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    I'm surprised you aren't being accused of Treason by some elements on here...

    edit: "being a traitor"
    Have I done enough to get an EU passport yet?
    A French one...?
    We've all got French passports.

    My passport says "Dieu et mon droit" and "Honi soit qui mal y pense" on the front of it.

    Instead of focussing on the colour of the passport we should be getting rid of that.
    "Dieu et mon droit" is Franglish for "God and Me are right".

    Eh, Rene?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,631
    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    This is extremely desperate. You just can't admit that the "rules based organisation" you've supported for so long is now on the brink of condoning France breaking the rules they just signed up to. You've condemned Boris for doing so wrt NI and yet you can't do it for France who have knowingly breached the TCA and are now retrospectively asking for the EU to sign up to what is not their fight. Worse still France are now trying to impose France specific tariffs on the UK which not only breaks the rules of the TCA but the also breach EU treaties.

    You love the EU so much that you're willing to see your own country impoverished and to blame the "daily express" mentality rather than see what the French are trying to do which is break the rules and get away with it.
    Max you must have me mixed up with someone else because none of what you have said above applies to me. Not sure where you got any of that from.

    And I have repeated said I am not arguing the French are right. I am simply saying nobody here knows. And nobody does.
    We do know, because we can see how each side is behaving. The French have tried the legal/Brussels route and been rebuffed, so we know their case is weak. Hence the latest French letter slipped between the thighs of UVDL, asking her to ignore the legal chaff and focus on the need to show damage to Britain from Brexit

    Incidentally, I don’t believe the British government is behaving any better in NI. Both sides are trying to squirm out of treaty commitments they don’t like
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,905
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.

    That was the point the Norwegian government made in their survey of Norwegian relations with the EU. As the smaller counterparty, protection is more important than freedom to act. The ECJ provides that protection to some extent because its job is to apply the law in an objective way. Absent the ECJ you are leaving it up to the whim of the more powerful party and they certainly won't be taking your interest into account.
    No, you have arbitration which is common in treaties. Rather than having a court stuffed with judges from one side of the agreement as the highest arbiter.
    You think arbitration will solve this kind of dispute?

    Let me refer you to the Boeing/Airbus dispute that has been under arbitration for 17 years, resulting in amongst other things the destruction of Scotch whisky sales in America due to countervailing tariffs. The current truce was arrived at through negotiation outside of arbitration and even so may not be permanent.
    A great example of an immediate Brexit dividend. The US dropped the Scotch Whisky tarrifs within days of the UK leaving the EU, as it was no longer party to the US-EU dispute.
    That's a very spun interpretation. Katherine Tai, USTR, swung by London on her way home from Brussels to pick up Liz Truss' signature to the truce that she had agreed with the EU.

    Incidental to the point about arbitration, however
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,905
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 said:

    RobD said:

    FF43 said:

    TimS said:

    The French situation is as commented above an example where recourse to the CJEU isn’t such a bad idea. Their record of rulings over the decades is generally one of sensible decisions based on facts. They also take out the bilateral silliness from disputes.

    That was the point the Norwegian government made in their survey of Norwegian relations with the EU. As the smaller counterparty, protection is more important than freedom to act. The ECJ provides that protection to some extent because its job is to apply the law in an objective way. Absent the ECJ you are leaving it up to the whim of the more powerful party and they certainly won't be taking your interest into account.
    No, you have arbitration which is common in treaties. Rather than having a court stuffed with judges from one side of the agreement as the highest arbiter.
    You think arbitration will solve this kind of dispute?

    Let me refer you to the Boeing/Airbus dispute that has been under arbitration for 17 years, resulting in amongst other things the destruction of Scotch whisky sales in America due to countervailing tariffs. The current truce was arrived at through negotiation outside of arbitration and even so may not be permanent.
    A great example of an immediate Brexit dividend. The US dropped the Scotch Whisky tarrifs within days of the UK leaving the EU, as it was no longer party to the US-EU dispute.
    That's a very spun interpretation. Katherine Tai, USTR, swung by London on her way home from Brussels to pick up Liz Truss' signature to the truce that she had agreed with the EU.

    Incidental to the point about arbitration, however
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,198
    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    This is extremely desperate. You just can't admit that the "rules based organisation" you've supported for so long is now on the brink of condoning France breaking the rules they just signed up to. You've condemned Boris for doing so wrt NI and yet you can't do it for France who have knowingly breached the TCA and are now retrospectively asking for the EU to sign up to what is not their fight. Worse still France are now trying to impose France specific tariffs on the UK which not only breaks the rules of the TCA but the also breach EU treaties.

    You love the EU so much that you're willing to see your own country impoverished and to blame the "daily express" mentality rather than see what the French are trying to do which is break the rules and get away with it.
    Max you must have me mixed up with someone else because none of what you have said above applies to me. Not sure where you got any of that from.

    And I have repeated said I am not arguing the French are right. I am simply saying nobody here knows. And nobody does.
    Other EU countries and the commission have decided the French aren't right. Hence the unilateral action from France and the begging letters from them to the commission. You just don't want to see it because your hatred of this country would be undermined. Your everyday assumption of the UK always being in the wrong is being shattered.
  • MattW said:


    One issue is that M Macron made a firm promise that anyone who had a lisense would get one.

    Then signed a treaty basing it on record of fishing not a past license that has not been used.

    And is trying to avoid taking responsibility for the difference.

    It's interesting that Euro Twitter is being a little less shouty than usual over this one.

    UKOK twitter otoh..






  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640
    Is Macron derangement syndrome a thing?
    Every time he gets mentioned there's enough foam coming off the brexiters that you could douse a trawler fire at 100ft.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,653
    Sandpit said:

    Lighthearted Covid anecdote:

    I was talking to a chap earlier in the week who said that he doesn't mind wearing a face mask because he doesn't like the way his chin looks.

    I have nothing to say on the fish debate.

    There’s plenty of us who quite like them because it means shaving less often, or who are self-conscious about their appearance, or prefer not be be recognised in the street.

    And now, to more important things in life. Watching cricket (while wearing a mask).
    I think the last time I shaved (as opposed to reducing the length of the hair on my face) was prior to attending a job interview about 15 years ago.

    I don't consider myself to have a beard, but sometimes my facial hair is more substantial than that on people who do have a beard. Then most of it comes off.

    Turning to Covid, beards prevent face masks from fitting properly. Is there any data on higher infection rates among beardies that could be explained by this?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177

    kjh said:

    Mr. kjh, what was the compelling French case?

    Not a clue really. It is just I don't assume that because they are French they don't have one.

    That is not quite true. The representative this morning on the Today programme said there were a handful of small boats that regularly fished the waters but couldn't provide the information required and I assume in the format needed. I would guess it is a case of not meeting the wording of the agreement rather than the intent as otherwise there is no case. And secondly there was an issue with a few boats that had been sold and the replacement boats could therefore not provide the evidence in the manner required and the experts on this site with sod all knowledge come up with all sorts of reasons why that can't be the case with damn all knowledge of the particular cases.

    The French may well be trying it on. I don't know, but neither does anyone else here.
    I'm going from the viewpoint that getting rid of the information in logbooks doesn't pass the sniff test, given the information they apparently hold.

    There have been maritime conservation laws for decades, restricting what fishermen can do. It's very (ahem) convenient for one of the prime records of what a boat's been doing to disappear into the æther.

    "Oh sorry taxman/marine ecologist/fisheries officer, I no longer have any record of that as I sold the boat to my son, after he sold it to me last year."

    (Timescale for dramatic effect.)
    Wouldn’t it be better to sell to one’s brother-in-law? One could then quite reasonably quarrel with him!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,631
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    The leaking of the Castex letter remains rather curious. It does not help France.

    It's the comission laying a bit of smackdown on France and telling them to shut up. I mean the idea of France applying unilateral tariffs on UK imports is laughable. It must have got so many eye rolls in the commission.
    Yes, that’s probably it.

    There are a few FBPEers on Twitter still trying to claim that the letter doesn’t say exactly what it says. They seem to be arguing that Nigel Farage has hacked all the French-English dictionaries overnight and changed the meaning of the word ‘dommages’
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,895
    edited October 2021
    MattW said:

    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?
    I think I would keep old records, or at least copies of them (certified if I thought there was potentially some issue). I'm not sure an owner of a boat would do much different. I keep records of almost everything relating to money, either in paper or electronic form. And I imagine there would be a similar requirement to HMRC's.
    And many people don't. And if there is no requirement to do so?
    Every business keeps 7 years of records. It is a very, very ingrained behaviour among UK business. The idea that many don't do it is for the birds.
    I'm not talking about tax records (for which I believe it is now 5 years) I am talking about records for which there is no requirement to be kept. See my post 'And if there is no requirement to do so?'

    If you are not required to keep a record it is unreasonable to then expect someone to have done so just because it may be prudent to do so.
    Isn't the issue that the French boats were exploiting a loophole that the TCA closed?
    I have not a clue, which @Dura_Ace put very well in his post has neither anyone else here on the whole topic.
    One issue is that M Macron made a firm promise that anyone who had a license would get one.

    Then signed a treaty basing it on record of fishing not a past license that has not been used.

    And is trying to avoid taking responsibility for the difference.

    It's interesting that Euro Twitter is being a little less shouty than usual over this one.

    The most interesting claim this morning is: but but but the letter has not been translated properly.
    Matt I liked your post, but I thought it might be misinterpreted as me misunderstanding your post when I didn't. Just that it was a sane argument and description rather than people hypothetically deciding on what Frenchman might do with an old log book (which actually wasn't applicable to most of the disputed cases anyway).
  • Farooq said:

    Is Macron derangement syndrome a thing?
    Every time he gets mentioned there's enough foam coming off the brexiters that you could douse a trawler fire at 100ft.

    Angela has departed the stage so it's all on Emmanuel now.
  • MattW said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    I'm surprised you aren't being accused of Treason by some elements on here...

    edit: "being a traitor"
    Have I done enough to get an EU passport yet?
    A French one...?
    We've all got French passports.

    My passport says "Dieu et mon droit" and "Honi soit qui mal y pense" on the front of it.

    Instead of focussing on the colour of the passport we should be getting rid of that.
    "Dieu et mon droit" is Franglish for "God and Me are right".

    Eh, Rene?
    It's Old French.

    Either way it isn't English, the predominant language of these isles.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254
    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,126
    edited October 2021

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As you may know my Scottish family are fisherfolk and I take an interest in these matters

    Boris and the UK are not the issue here, it is Jersey's refusal to grant licences to French fishing boats who cannot provide the evidence they have fished in the waters as required within the treaty between the UK-EU-Jersey

    Jersey has granted temporary licences to some of these boats pending the documentation, but it appears upto 40 boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters cannot provide the evidence

    Jersey are following the treaty and apparently there are French boats actively and legally fishing in Jersey waters who do not want any unauthorised French boats either diluting their catch

    Ultimately Macron is politically posturing for next year
    Happy to defer to you on Fish - but not on coming to an objective view on how bad Macron is compared to Johnson.
    It is the dispute over fish that Macron is using for political advantage as he needs the French fishing ports support next year

    Nothing to do with Boris v Macron
    It is though. As regards debate on here it is. It might look like whataboutery, what I'm doing, but it's not that, it's something else entirely. To explain fully. If somebody publishes an opinion that Macron is making outrageous threats and has no case in this dispute over fishing, it's of great relevance whether they manage (against all odds) to maintain that Johnson does have a case with his threats on the NI protocol. Since this would indicate bias and I'd have to take this into account. It's important I do this otherwise I can't form a quality view on the actual fishing row without going off to read chapter & verse about it and I really don't want to do that. If I'm doing that I may as well not be here.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,104
    It would be ironic if on the eve of COP France forces Jersey to fire up its oil power station..
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,631
    There may come a time, regrettably, when we will simply have to deport the Remoaners, for their own mental health

    Unfortunately as Free Movement has ended they can’t go to the EU. But maybe Moldova or Rwanda might take them in, with sufficient financial inducement. I imagine we’d have to pay extra for hard cases like Ian Dunt, or Jolyon Maugham, or Gardenwalker of this blessed parish
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254

    MattW said:


    One issue is that M Macron made a firm promise that anyone who had a lisense would get one.

    Then signed a treaty basing it on record of fishing not a past license that has not been used.

    And is trying to avoid taking responsibility for the difference.

    It's interesting that Euro Twitter is being a little less shouty than usual over this one.

    UKOK twitter otoh..






    SNP Type backs EU over Britain shocker.
  • Farooq said:

    Is Macron derangement syndrome a thing?
    Every time he gets mentioned there's enough foam coming off the brexiters that you could douse a trawler fire at 100ft.

    "This time next year, Farooq, we'll be Brexiteers!"
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,726

    Shocking behaviour from the Sri Lankans.

    They should be chucked out of the T20 world cup for this.

    What did they do? Bowl underarm? Not take the knee?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703
    Well, of course, things were different in the old days (sixteen years ago).

    https://safetyrisk.net/political-correctness-at-trafalgar/
  • kinabalu said:

    RobD said:

    kinabalu said:


    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?

    Isn't that right enshrined in the treaty? ;)
    We're not doing comedy on this one, Rob. Too important.
    It's no joke. Article 16 and Article 13 are legitimate parts of the Protocol. And as has been factually demonstrated the invocation criteria of Article 16 AS WRITTEN has been met in full.

    Invoking an Article within a treaty isn't tearing it up.
    Whilst that's true, there is a choir of voices who advocate A16 like it is the end of the problem. A16 is a safety valve to suspend parts of the treaty whilst issues get fixed. It isn't a permanent fix by itself.

    What we do as the post-A16 fix is not an area where specific actionable proposals exists...
    The specific proposal I have seen is to replace the Protocol with a better alternative that reflects the changes since we now have the TCA which didn't exist when the Protocol was drafted, plus the lessons learnt as to why the Protocol failed.

    As it happens the Protocol provides for precisely this in Article 13 which lays out the steps for the Protocols replacement.

    The exact replacement of course is up for negotiations.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,084

    Good morning, everyone.

    King Cole, mildly surprised. I've heard black widow a few times relating to women who off their husbands, usually for the money.

    Oh, right. Just never come across the term. Maybe I don't read enough crime reports!
    The trope has been around for a long time.
    https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0090738/
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,198
    Leon said:

    There may come a time, regrettably, when we will simply have to deport the Remoaners, for their own mental health

    Unfortunately as Free Movement has ended they can’t go to the EU. But maybe Moldova or Rwanda might take them in, with sufficient financial inducement. I imagine we’d have to pay extra for hard cases like Ian Dunt, or Jolyon Maugham, or Gardenwalker of this blessed parish

    The one that always makes me laugh is Americans and Australian liberals who bang on about Brexit. None of them would ever want their countries to sign up to anything like the EU, but when the UK decides to leave it's as if we've killed their dog.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,895
    edited October 2021
    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    MaxPB said:

    kjh said:

    All I can say is I am glad I'm not in the dock with you lot deciding who is right and who is wrong in the jury.

    You seem happy to make a decision without much of the actually evidence and with only hearing the prosecution (or Daily Express) and not the defence, or maybe just deciding I'm a rum looking person so I must be guilty.

    This is extremely desperate. You just can't admit that the "rules based organisation" you've supported for so long is now on the brink of condoning France breaking the rules they just signed up to. You've condemned Boris for doing so wrt NI and yet you can't do it for France who have knowingly breached the TCA and are now retrospectively asking for the EU to sign up to what is not their fight. Worse still France are now trying to impose France specific tariffs on the UK which not only breaks the rules of the TCA but the also breach EU treaties.

    You love the EU so much that you're willing to see your own country impoverished and to blame the "daily express" mentality rather than see what the French are trying to do which is break the rules and get away with it.
    Max you must have me mixed up with someone else because none of what you have said above applies to me. Not sure where you got any of that from.

    And I have repeated said I am not arguing the French are right. I am simply saying nobody here knows. And nobody does.
    Other EU countries and the commission have decided the French aren't right. Hence the unilateral action from France and the begging letters from them to the commission. You just don't want to see it because your hatred of this country would be undermined. Your everyday assumption of the UK always being in the wrong is being shattered.
    Again Max where did you get any of that from? This weird. I don't hate this country and I am not suggesting the French are right and I never assume we are wrong. I am just saying nobody here knows.

    Why are you getting your knickers in a twist and making all sorts of assumptions about me? It is just like the assumption you are making about the French.

    Just don't make assumptions. Whether the French are right or wrong you have certainly made some assumptions about me here that are definitely wrong.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,012
    It'll be hilarious if an unintentional side effect of this fishing mess is that fishermen are subjected to stricter regulations, become even more constrained in what they can and cannot do, and how they record their activities.

    Many won't be liking that ...
  • tlg86 said:

    Shocking behaviour from the Sri Lankans.

    They should be chucked out of the T20 world cup for this.

    What did they do? Bowl underarm? Not take the knee?
    The bowler picked up the ball and threw it at the batsman/stumps and the batsman defended himself and the Sri Lankans appealed for obstructing the field.

    1) It was a defensive/instinctive action from the Saffer batter

    and more crucially

    2) He was already in his crease, so even if the ball had hit the stumps he wouldn't have been out.

    I'd be embarrassed if that happen in village leagues.

    The team that did that would have the piss taken out of them.
  • JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,726
    Disqualify her from SPoTY ;)

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/30/emma-raducanu-romania-transylvania-open-cluj-tennis

    The women’s game is a roaring success in Romania and the US Open winner is seen as one of their own by players and fans
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,528
    edited October 2021
    tlg86 said:

    Disqualify her from SPoTY ;)

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/30/emma-raducanu-romania-transylvania-open-cluj-tennis

    The women’s game is a roaring success in Romania and the US Open winner is seen as one of their own by players and fans

    More importantly what were the colours of her outfit?
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    I 100pc agree with you on this point.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,567
    JBriskin3 said:

    Lazy, sleazy Tories En Marche!

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    39m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 39% (+2)
    LAB: 33% (-)
    GRN: 10% (-)
    LDEM: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 3% (-1)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 27 - 28 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 21 Oct

    Must get that bet on a labour lead by Christmas at the magic non existent bookies... #incorrectnaglies
  • tlg86 said:

    Disqualify her from SPoTY ;)

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/30/emma-raducanu-romania-transylvania-open-cluj-tennis

    The women’s game is a roaring success in Romania and the US Open winner is seen as one of their own by players and fans

    UVAVU!
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    tlg86 said:

    Disqualify her from SPoTY ;)

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/30/emma-raducanu-romania-transylvania-open-cluj-tennis

    The women’s game is a roaring success in Romania and the US Open winner is seen as one of their own by players and fans

    More importantly what was the colours of her outfit?
    Red white and blue. Macron and Boris both claim vindication. War in the channel.
  • America isn't a democracy, part 364.

    Three University of Florida professors have been barred from assisting plaintiffs in a lawsuit to overturn the state’s new law restricting voting rights, lawyers said in a federal court filing on Friday. The ban is an extraordinary limit on speech that raises questions of academic freedom and First Amendment rights.

    University officials told the three that because the school was a state institution, participating in a lawsuit against the state “is adverse to U.F.’s interests” and could not be permitted. In their filing, the lawyers sought to question Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, on whether he was involved in the decision.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/us/florida-professors-voting-rights-lawsuit.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703
    tlg86 said:

    Disqualify her from SPoTY ;)

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/30/emma-raducanu-romania-transylvania-open-cluj-tennis

    The women’s game is a roaring success in Romania and the US Open winner is seen as one of their own by players and fans

    Hi @tlg86, I think your book's just hacked your account and posted a comment.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    Possibly they have misunderstood what 'dogging' means?
  • JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    I thought pansexual means you have it off with kitchen-ware?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,012

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    We should just let people be people, and stop trying to split them into pointless categories. Especially when many don't fit, or we put them into false categories.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,905
    FWIW, I think the fishing licences dispute will be solved. The question is whether Jersey folds now or folds later.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol is much more problematic. You take trade remedies, Article 16, punitive tariffs etc, because you want to achieve a particular outcome. Thing is, the EU will never agree removing the ECJ from the Protocol or an effective internal border within the Single Market. So you take the destructive remedies as does the other side, but you don't achieve your objectives, so it becomes attrition.

    Video on trade wars here. If the UK goes for a limited technical safeguard approach to Article 16 addressing the implementation of the Protocol, the EU's response will likely also be technical. But if the UK triggers A16 to fundamentally change the Protocol as David Frost's rhetoric suggests, it will escalate very fast. The video is quite long but most interesting part about half way through

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1454123585895817224
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    tlg86 said:

    Disqualify her from SPoTY ;)

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/30/emma-raducanu-romania-transylvania-open-cluj-tennis

    The women’s game is a roaring success in Romania and the US Open winner is seen as one of their own by players and fans

    More importantly what was the colours of her outfit?
    Oh my goodness, Mr Eagles...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,759

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding.
    If he's got a good case on the fishing why is it only France kicking up over the licences? If the British system was unfair, surely it would have affected more countries than France? This is bullying and blackmail, pure and simple.
    Take your UJ specs off. You might be able to see your nose for a change.
    Not exactly engaging with the argument, are you?
    Life's too short for fool's errands. Especially mine. I'm 61. But here's my take. Macron is showboating for domestic political reasons. Exactly the same as Johnson has made a specialty of. He will have a case. There'll be something there. There always has to be something there unless you're a total charlatan like Trump. I don't know all the ins and outs of it and I don't believe anybody on here who says they do. People are simply taking kneejerk positions - the most popular kneejerk position being the French are totally in the wrong, this coming from people who always manage to pronounce Johnson totally in the right when doing similar. It's all so predictable.
    As you may know my Scottish family are fisherfolk and I take an interest in these matters

    Boris and the UK are not the issue here, it is Jersey's refusal to grant licences to French fishing boats who cannot provide the evidence they have fished in the waters as required within the treaty between the UK-EU-Jersey

    Jersey has granted temporary licences to some of these boats pending the documentation, but it appears upto 40 boats wanting to fish in Jersey's waters cannot provide the evidence

    Jersey are following the treaty and apparently there are French boats actively and legally fishing in Jersey waters who do not want any unauthorised French boats either diluting their catch

    Ultimately Macron is politically posturing for next year
    Of course Macron is posturing, and threatening to blow up existing agreements in the hope of getting better ones. In neither of those is he unique and we have hardly been setting any sort of example recently.

    The other issue is the impounded British fishing boat - you are saying that it was fishing legally and they have effectively been kidnapped?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    I thought pansexual means you have it off with kitchen-ware?
    No, that's spooning.
  • Excellent post by Quincel-Pip.

    BUT this thred has taken a very fishy turn . . .

    For what it's worth (less than 2 cents) also think TMcA will pull it out, but it's tight as a tick. With plenty of internal repercussions for Democrats if the GOP does prevail in the Old Dominion this year.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,631
    FF43 said:

    FWIW, I think the fishing licences dispute will be solved. The question is whether Jersey folds now or folds later.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol is much more problematic. You take trade remedies, Article 16, punitive tariffs etc, because you want to achieve a particular outcome. Thing is, the EU will never agree removing the ECJ from the Protocol or an effective internal border within the Single Market. So you take the destructive remedies as does the other side, but you don't achieve your objectives, so it becomes attrition.

    Video on trade wars here. If the UK goes for a limited technical safeguard approach to Article 16 addressing the implementation of the Protocol, the EU's response will likely also be technical. But if the UK triggers A16 to fundamentally change the Protocol as David Frost's rhetoric suggests, it will escalate very fast. The video is quite long but most interesting part about half way through

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1454123585895817224

    Amazing. So you think the EU will win on fishing, and then again on NI? I’d never have expected that from you
  • ydoethur said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    Possibly they have misunderstood what 'dogging' means?
    I was thinking it had something to do with Greek gods. Zeus would certainly have qualified I think.
  • ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    Disqualify her from SPoTY ;)

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/30/emma-raducanu-romania-transylvania-open-cluj-tennis

    The women’s game is a roaring success in Romania and the US Open winner is seen as one of their own by players and fans

    More importantly what was the colours of her outfit?
    Oh my goodness, Mr Eagles...
    Fecking auto-correct.

    Fortunately it was still in the edit window.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    Excellent post by Quincel-Pip.

    BUT this thred has taken a very fishy turn . . .

    Brexiteers have however demonstrated a net benefit.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,567
    Leon said:

    There may come a time, regrettably, when we will simply have to deport the Remoaners, for their own mental health

    Unfortunately as Free Movement has ended they can’t go to the EU. But maybe Moldova or Rwanda might take them in, with sufficient financial inducement. I imagine we’d have to pay extra for hard cases like Ian Dunt, or Jolyon Maugham, or Gardenwalker of this blessed parish

    I thought gardenwalker was removing himself shortly?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,126
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
  • ydoethur said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    I thought pansexual means you have it off with kitchen-ware?
    No, that's spooning.
    Fortunately spooning leads to forking.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    ydoethur said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    Possibly they have misunderstood what 'dogging' means?
    I was thinking it had something to do with Greek gods. Zeus would certainly have qualified I think.
    Well, he may have been a god to you, but he was no Zeus at all to me.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254

    Excellent post by Quincel-Pip.

    BUT this thred has taken a very fishy turn . . .

    For what it's worth (less than 2 cents) also think TMcA will pull it out, but it's tight as a tick. With plenty of internal repercussions for Democrats if the GOP does prevail in the Old Dominion this year.

    Let's Go Brandon!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    ydoethur said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    I thought pansexual means you have it off with kitchen-ware?
    No, that's spooning.
    Fortunately spooning leads to forking.
    Really? I would have thought four pricks was a bit much.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,012
    ydoethur said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    Possibly they have misunderstood what 'dogging' means?
    Yeah, it's the act of using slings with a heavy load, often in a high-risk environment.

    Oh, you mean there's another meaning? ;)
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    I thought pansexual means you have it off with kitchen-ware?
    No, that's spooning.
    Fortunately spooning leads to forking.
    Really? I would have thought four pricks was a bit much.
    What a quiet life you lead.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    I thought pansexual means you have it off with kitchen-ware?
    No, that's spooning.
    Fortunately spooning leads to forking.
    Really? I would have thought four pricks was a bit much.
    What a quiet life you lead.
    At uni, I knew a girl who claimed her record at one time was five.

    But then, she was from Swansea.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,905
    edited October 2021
    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    FWIW, I think the fishing licences dispute will be solved. The question is whether Jersey folds now or folds later.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol is much more problematic. You take trade remedies, Article 16, punitive tariffs etc, because you want to achieve a particular outcome. Thing is, the EU will never agree removing the ECJ from the Protocol or an effective internal border within the Single Market. So you take the destructive remedies as does the other side, but you don't achieve your objectives, so it becomes attrition.

    Video on trade wars here. If the UK goes for a limited technical safeguard approach to Article 16 addressing the implementation of the Protocol, the EU's response will likely also be technical. But if the UK triggers A16 to fundamentally change the Protocol as David Frost's rhetoric suggests, it will escalate very fast. The video is quite long but most interesting part about half way through

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1454123585895817224

    Amazing. So you think the EU will win on fishing, and then again on NI? I’d never have expected that from you
    I think France will win against Jersey on fishing licences and no-one will win on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    And add. Northern Ireland will massively lose.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,033
    edited October 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
    Judging by earlier posts on this thread the records required were those that they were supposed to have kept as part of the previous treaty, implying that if they had been fishing in the relevant period they were doing so illegally.

    “Papers please” for fishing really is required if we don’t want to see the whole industry collapse due to catastrophic overfishing.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,198
    FF43 said:

    FWIW, I think the fishing licences dispute will be solved. The question is whether Jersey folds now or folds later.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol is much more problematic. You take trade remedies, Article 16, punitive tariffs etc, because you want to achieve a particular outcome. Thing is, the EU will never agree removing the ECJ from the Protocol or an effective internal border within the Single Market. So you take the destructive remedies as does the other side, but you don't achieve your objectives, so it becomes attrition.

    Video on trade wars here. If the UK goes for a limited technical safeguard approach to Article 16 addressing the implementation of the Protocol, the EU's response will likely also be technical. But if the UK triggers A16 to fundamentally change the Protocol as David Frost's rhetoric suggests, it will escalate very fast. The video is quite long but most interesting part about half way through

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1454123585895817224

    Lol. Your whole schtick is "the UK will fold" and yet it hasn't happened in any case.

    Once again you've made this entirely fictional scenario in your head and applied it to the EU. You are constantly taking more favourable positions for the EU than even they have. During the negotiations you insisted to all of us that the EU would never compromise on governance and that they would rather not sign a deal than not have ECJ jurisdiction. You assured everyone that the EU would never allow the UK to diverge from standards and that dynamic alignment would be an absolute red line for them. You assured us that zero tariffs and quotas were impossible because other trade deals like the EU/Korea one didn't include it.

    And here you are again, assuring us that the EU will take some extreme non-negotiable position on something or other, yet we know that both sides will eventually find a middle way. Just like the above three scenarios you won't acknowledge how wrong you were but will instead move onto the next place where you'll project your own hatred of this nation onto the EU's position and hope that they will do what you want, which is to punish the UK for leaving the EU.

    Honestly, you've got so many things wrong and continue to do so. You've never even stopped to actually realise that's the case, you just push aside all doubts and with a religious zeal move onto the next pro-EU argument. You are a fanatic who pretends to be objective. Worse still you are a fanatic that continually gets rejected by the body you idolise so much. On each occasion the EU has compromised with the UK, on each occasion you have told everyone they wouldn't.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,631
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
    Johnson is being a dick in NI. Tho for arguably valid reasons of realpolitik

    It is clear the French have no legal case in the fishing, as they have essentially abandoned legal avenues, and are already begging Brussels to help them for other non-legal reasons - the necessity of punishing Brexit, EU solidarity, etc

    There. Now you can have some Epoisses. Or Wensleydale. As you prefer
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,895
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
    This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
    Judging by earlier posts on this thread the records required were those that they were supposed to have kept as part of the previous treaty, implying that if they had been fishing in the relevant period they were doing so illegally.

    “Papers please” for fishing really is required if we don’t want to see the whole industry collapse due to catastrophic overfishing.
    Yes, but I somewhat troubled by the idea that licenses are granted on the basis of past activity. That kind of barrier to entry is anticompetitive. If there's more demand for licenses than there is supply, they could be sold at auction or allocated by lottery. It appears to me that there are special interests controlling policy on both sides of the channel.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,631
    edited October 2021
    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    FWIW, I think the fishing licences dispute will be solved. The question is whether Jersey folds now or folds later.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol is much more problematic. You take trade remedies, Article 16, punitive tariffs etc, because you want to achieve a particular outcome. Thing is, the EU will never agree removing the ECJ from the Protocol or an effective internal border within the Single Market. So you take the destructive remedies as does the other side, but you don't achieve your objectives, so it becomes attrition.

    Video on trade wars here. If the UK goes for a limited technical safeguard approach to Article 16 addressing the implementation of the Protocol, the EU's response will likely also be technical. But if the UK triggers A16 to fundamentally change the Protocol as David Frost's rhetoric suggests, it will escalate very fast. The video is quite long but most interesting part about half way through

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1454123585895817224

    Amazing. So you think the EU will win on fishing, and then again on NI? I’d never have expected that from you
    I think France will win against Jersey on fishing licences and no-one will win on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    And add. Northern Ireland will massively lose.
    MaxPB psychoanalyses you accurately below, so I won’t pursue that

    As for Jersey, the UKG can’t concede now, not after that letter from Castex. Tory MPs are all over Twitter, denouncing it. I imagine some face-saving fudge will be found for everyone, probably involving money - AFTER the French election
  • JBriskin3 said:

    Excellent post by Quincel-Pip.

    BUT this thred has taken a very fishy turn . . .

    For what it's worth (less than 2 cents) also think TMcA will pull it out, but it's tight as a tick. With plenty of internal repercussions for Democrats if the GOP does prevail in the Old Dominion this year.

    Let's Go Brandon!
    Personal statement - I "like" this NOT because I concur, but rather because it made me chuckle - touché!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,126
    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    Please accept my sincerest apologies Kinabalu for overlooking your test on my intellectual integrity - I was busy making mud pies in the garden whilst burning French flags and scorning garlic.

    I do not have the same level of intellectual integrity as you so am unable to answer your test with one word - I merely have the low level intellect to answer thus:

    Is there legal provision within the NI protocol for either side to “tear it up” or maybe just activate a clause that ends it? Think UVDL might know as she has more intellectual integrity than I have.

    Is one side Re the NI protocol insisting on ignoring the rules agreed (including the agreement within the treaty allowing either side to withdraw) to and threatening hostile action to the other side who are abiding to the rules as set out in the treaty?

    Is anyone saying that if the UK government do potentially at some unknown point in the future break a treaty with regards NI that this potential unknown event justifies the French government trying to bully a party to ignore the legal demands of a treaty to suit the French governments wishes?

    I look forward to your enlightenment.
    To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,012
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
    So you're sceptical of anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion? Fair enough, and at least you're being honest ...

    There's another side to this. The licences are valuable - which is why not getting one when you're legally due would be so problematic. But this also means there is a large incentive for people to try it on with the system. Perhaps no-one is trying it on; perhaps everyone complaining about 'lost log books' are. we don't know. But when there's a big incentive for fraud, it's reasonable to be suspicious.

    Which is why applications should not just be waved through.

    I still don't understand why 'professional' fishermen would not have known to use the processes, or not keep adequate records.

    But I'd hope we'd both agree on one thing: threatening to cut off Jersey's power supply is crass and stupid. especially as it is easily within their capability, or that of a malicious actor amongst the fishermen and their friends.
  • kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    Please accept my sincerest apologies Kinabalu for overlooking your test on my intellectual integrity - I was busy making mud pies in the garden whilst burning French flags and scorning garlic.

    I do not have the same level of intellectual integrity as you so am unable to answer your test with one word - I merely have the low level intellect to answer thus:

    Is there legal provision within the NI protocol for either side to “tear it up” or maybe just activate a clause that ends it? Think UVDL might know as she has more intellectual integrity than I have.

    Is one side Re the NI protocol insisting on ignoring the rules agreed (including the agreement within the treaty allowing either side to withdraw) to and threatening hostile action to the other side who are abiding to the rules as set out in the treaty?

    Is anyone saying that if the UK government do potentially at some unknown point in the future break a treaty with regards NI that this potential unknown event justifies the French government trying to bully a party to ignore the legal demands of a treaty to suit the French governments wishes?

    I look forward to your enlightenment.
    To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
    Why do you persist in this lie that anyone is behaving badly in tearing up an agreement when they are not tearing up an agreement?

    Are you too silly to understand Articles 13 and 16 are a part of the agreement? So Frost and Johnson are operating within it?

    Or are you too dishonest that you'd rather go with Trumpian Alternative Facts?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,567
    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    Please accept my sincerest apologies Kinabalu for overlooking your test on my intellectual integrity - I was busy making mud pies in the garden whilst burning French flags and scorning garlic.

    I do not have the same level of intellectual integrity as you so am unable to answer your test with one word - I merely have the low level intellect to answer thus:

    Is there legal provision within the NI protocol for either side to “tear it up” or maybe just activate a clause that ends it? Think UVDL might know as she has more intellectual integrity than I have.

    Is one side Re the NI protocol insisting on ignoring the rules agreed (including the agreement within the treaty allowing either side to withdraw) to and threatening hostile action to the other side who are abiding to the rules as set out in the treaty?

    Is anyone saying that if the UK government do potentially at some unknown point in the future break a treaty with regards NI that this potential unknown event justifies the French government trying to bully a party to ignore the legal demands of a treaty to suit the French governments wishes?

    I look forward to your enlightenment.
    To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
    There is some justification. The trusted trader scheme seems to be dragging. There are more checks at the NI border than a lot of other borders combined. There is a sense of special troubles being made.
    But yes, it looks as if the deal was signed to complete Brexit, with the intention of getting a new deal fairly soon after.
    A bit like getting your new girlfriend home for a coffee, then moving to hoping for a nice cuddle too...
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    I thought pansexual means you have it off with kitchen-ware?
    No, that's spooning.
    Fortunately spooning leads to forking.
    Really? I would have thought four pricks was a bit much.
    What a quiet life you lead.
    At uni, I knew a girl who claimed her record at one time was five.

    But then, she was from Swansea.
    I was in a relationship with a Welsh girl once.

    She loved a weekend in Wrexham.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,925
    Boyan Slat and team seem to have finally cracked the tech to clean the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. All this whinging about 40 boats, how about this week these countries do something useful and fully fund that effort, agree to legislate away single use plastic and agree an international ban on deep water fishing, which serve as the key breeding grounds for many species. Do all that and there will be a plentiful bounty of healthy seafood to go round.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,198

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    Please accept my sincerest apologies Kinabalu for overlooking your test on my intellectual integrity - I was busy making mud pies in the garden whilst burning French flags and scorning garlic.

    I do not have the same level of intellectual integrity as you so am unable to answer your test with one word - I merely have the low level intellect to answer thus:

    Is there legal provision within the NI protocol for either side to “tear it up” or maybe just activate a clause that ends it? Think UVDL might know as she has more intellectual integrity than I have.

    Is one side Re the NI protocol insisting on ignoring the rules agreed (including the agreement within the treaty allowing either side to withdraw) to and threatening hostile action to the other side who are abiding to the rules as set out in the treaty?

    Is anyone saying that if the UK government do potentially at some unknown point in the future break a treaty with regards NI that this potential unknown event justifies the French government trying to bully a party to ignore the legal demands of a treaty to suit the French governments wishes?

    I look forward to your enlightenment.
    To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
    Why do you persist in this lie that anyone is behaving badly in tearing up an agreement when they are not tearing up an agreement?

    Are you too silly to understand Articles 13 and 16 are a part of the agreement? So Frost and Johnson are operating within it?

    Or are you too dishonest that you'd rather go with Trumpian Alternative Facts?
    He's cancelled them so now they don't exist.
  • Have we heard anything yet from Admiral of the Blue HYUFD?

    AND to which of his blind eyes is his telescope raised?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    Well that's that cleared up then-


    PinkNews
    @PinkNews
    Bisexual and pansexual aren’t Clapping hands sign the Clapping hands sign same Clapping hands sign thing Clapping hands sign

    https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1454121599351902217?s=20

    This kind of bollocks makes my head spin. Bisexual means attracted to both genders. Some people now don't want to identify as either gender so go neutral. Fine. Bi includes non-binary. Fine. But thats different to pansexual how? How is "all genders" different to being attracted to male or female or non-binary? Have we missed some out?
    I thought pansexual means you have it off with kitchen-ware?
    No, that's spooning.
    Fortunately spooning leads to forking.
    Really? I would have thought four pricks was a bit much.
    What a quiet life you lead.
    At uni, I knew a girl who claimed her record at one time was five.

    But then, she was from Swansea.
    I was in a relationship with a Welsh girl once.

    She loved a weekend in Wrexham.
    Bangor?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,126
    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
    This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
    In all seriousness, it's because you and I don't have as strong a sense of 'my country right or wrong' as many and perhaps most others on here. Your exchange a while back with Casino Royale on this exact thing was very interesting.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,640

    Have we heard anything yet from Admiral of the Blue HYUFD?

    AND to which of his blind eyes is his telescope raised?

    He's in the garage building a landing craft. Normandy awaits.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,012
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
    This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
    In all seriousness, it's because you and I don't have as strong a sense of 'my country right or wrong' as many and perhaps most others on here. Your exchange a while back with Casino Royale on this exact thing was very interesting.
    Or you are not actually engaging with the points people opposing your view are making?
  • Re: fishing in troubled waters, old friend of mine was involved as congressional aide for a spell with US - Canadian fisheries disputes between New England & Maritime provinces.

    They couldn't even agree on the well-named quasi-boundary in the Bay of Fundy: Gray / Gray Line
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,895
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
    This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
    In all seriousness, it's because you and I don't have as strong a sense of 'my country right or wrong' as many and perhaps most others on here. Your exchange a while back with Casino Royale on this exact thing was very interesting.
    I hadn't thought of that. It is a sad state of affairs. It is the sort of stuff that causes wars. It is not like I don't support England and GB in sporting events, but after that I'm afraid facts and evidence are more important.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    RobD said:

    kjh said:

    Brilliant, both @CarlottaVance and @boulay detailed analysis re the French case is 'they don't have one' as opposed to them not finding out whether they actually do have a case or not.

    And we get ridiculous responses of 'well you should have kept your log book for a boat you stopped owning up to 5 years ago'

    How many people here keep their car registration details of a car they sold years ago and I assume a log book goes with the boat and is a more substantial document. Actually I don't know that but do you Carlotta or Boulay?

    This is just nationalist nonsense; we are right because we are British and the Foreigner's are wrong. None of us here know the facts.

    How is that a ridiculous response? You're expected to keep tax records for seven years, IIRC.
    Well I answered that.

    a) The log book probably goes with the boat.

    b) Do you keep your old car records?

    c) Is there a requirement to keep records of a boat you have sold?

    And of course this was just one example of how people arguing here have no idea what the French case is. They just assume they are in the wrong. They may be. They may not. It is bizarre though to just assume they don't have a case.
    I’m no expert on fishing, but if I wanted to sell, for example, an aeroplane or a classic racing car, there are sure as hell protocols and discussions around documentation that are worked through at the time of sale. Some documents will remain with the vehicle, others remain with the original owner, and others with various authorities and third parties, setting out everyone’s future rights and obligations.

    Why would a fishing boat be any different? If he’s selling his boat for scrap and upgrading to a new vessel, he’ll want to keep the fishing rights associated with it. If he’s selling his boat to another fisherman, and upgrading to a new boat, there will need to be an agreement between the buyer, seller and fishing authorities, as to future fishing rights of the two boats. The buyer (and his lawyer) sure as hell wants to know if he’s buying a boat, or buying fishing rights.
    Also (and here I do confess ignorance) if you need the old log book, why not just go and get it, and borrow it from the new owner? Then make a copy? Nip round St Malo, use your phonecam, Le Bingo

    How hard is that? Or have these boats all weirdly disappeared to Papeete?
    This sort of 'papers please' pettyfogging mentality led to the Windrush scandal and to countless other injustices over the piece. There could be valid reasons why the fisherfolk can't produce the exact docs required per the exact wording of some form or other. Agreements need to be implemented according to their spirit not simply their letter. It's a myth put about by jobbing lawyers that they don't. Are we behaving well here? Or are we nitpicking? I honestly don't know and I'm pretty skeptical of anybody who says they do - unless they write a really good post explaining why France has no case PLUS they say without caveat that Johnson is being a dick on the NI protocol. This is the magic combo, weighty looking post slagging off Macron on the fish plus demonstrated intellectual integrity. That'd nail it for me. I could get off the wheel and have some cheese.
    This sort of attitude @kinabalu will get you deported, at least. For simply suggesting there might just be two sides to an argument I have been told I hate my country.
    In all seriousness, it's because you and I don't have as strong a sense of 'my country right or wrong' as many and perhaps most others on here. Your exchange a while back with Casino Royale on this exact thing was very interesting.
    Bollocks you don't. 😂

    You have as strong a sense as anyone else, you just have it arse over tit so always assume your country is wrong.

    Hence your perverse ramblings about tearing up a protocol, when all that anyone is talking about is the implementation of its own articles.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,819
    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    Please accept my sincerest apologies Kinabalu for overlooking your test on my intellectual integrity - I was busy making mud pies in the garden whilst burning French flags and scorning garlic.

    I do not have the same level of intellectual integrity as you so am unable to answer your test with one word - I merely have the low level intellect to answer thus:

    Is there legal provision within the NI protocol for either side to “tear it up” or maybe just activate a clause that ends it? Think UVDL might know as she has more intellectual integrity than I have.

    Is one side Re the NI protocol insisting on ignoring the rules agreed (including the agreement within the treaty allowing either side to withdraw) to and threatening hostile action to the other side who are abiding to the rules as set out in the treaty?

    Is anyone saying that if the UK government do potentially at some unknown point in the future break a treaty with regards NI that this potential unknown event justifies the French government trying to bully a party to ignore the legal demands of a treaty to suit the French governments wishes?

    I look forward to your enlightenment.
    To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
    If you had asked “do you think it’s wrong for Boris to rip up the NI protocol without any legal right or clauses that allow cancellation” then I would say it was wrong.

    If you ask “do you think it is wrong for Boris to exercise a legally applicable clause in the NI protocol in lines with the agreement signed and agreed by both parties in the same legal right that UVDL did” then I would say it is ok. It doesn’t mean I want him to do it or it is wise to do so but there is a major difference between not abiding by the terms of a treaty and using a mechanism within the treaty.

    You use the phrase “tear up” when you could equally, if balance was your thing, say “activate a clause”.

    if the French govt think that jersey has broken the terms of the treaty then there are legal measures they can enact, or rather the EU would enact as the injured party as signatory to the treaty.

    The fact that they are not simply enacting the legal measures and resorting to unilateral threats (when the treaty is between the EU - acting on behalf of all members - and Jersey) suggests that they know that they cannot win through a legal route.

    However as I have very little intellectual integrity I bow to your greater wisdom and knowledge on political matters, intellectual heft and the situation on the ground in the place I live.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,905
    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    FWIW, I think the fishing licences dispute will be solved. The question is whether Jersey folds now or folds later.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol is much more problematic. You take trade remedies, Article 16, punitive tariffs etc, because you want to achieve a particular outcome. Thing is, the EU will never agree removing the ECJ from the Protocol or an effective internal border within the Single Market. So you take the destructive remedies as does the other side, but you don't achieve your objectives, so it becomes attrition.

    Video on trade wars here. If the UK goes for a limited technical safeguard approach to Article 16 addressing the implementation of the Protocol, the EU's response will likely also be technical. But if the UK triggers A16 to fundamentally change the Protocol as David Frost's rhetoric suggests, it will escalate very fast. The video is quite long but most interesting part about half way through

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1454123585895817224

    Amazing. So you think the EU will win on fishing, and then again on NI? I’d never have expected that from you
    I think France will win against Jersey on fishing licences and no-one will win on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    And add. Northern Ireland will massively lose.
    MaxPB psychoanalyses you accurately below, so I won’t pursue that

    As for Jersey, the UKG can’t concede now, not after that letter from Castex. Tory MPs are all over Twitter, denouncing it. I imagine some face-saving fudge will be found for everyone, probably involving money - AFTER the French election
    I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed and certainly not by MaxPB, who isn't someone of good will.

    That's the end of the discussion for me.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,198
    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    FWIW, I think the fishing licences dispute will be solved. The question is whether Jersey folds now or folds later.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol is much more problematic. You take trade remedies, Article 16, punitive tariffs etc, because you want to achieve a particular outcome. Thing is, the EU will never agree removing the ECJ from the Protocol or an effective internal border within the Single Market. So you take the destructive remedies as does the other side, but you don't achieve your objectives, so it becomes attrition.

    Video on trade wars here. If the UK goes for a limited technical safeguard approach to Article 16 addressing the implementation of the Protocol, the EU's response will likely also be technical. But if the UK triggers A16 to fundamentally change the Protocol as David Frost's rhetoric suggests, it will escalate very fast. The video is quite long but most interesting part about half way through

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1454123585895817224

    Amazing. So you think the EU will win on fishing, and then again on NI? I’d never have expected that from you
    I think France will win against Jersey on fishing licences and no-one will win on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    And add. Northern Ireland will massively lose.
    MaxPB psychoanalyses you accurately below, so I won’t pursue that

    As for Jersey, the UKG can’t concede now, not after that letter from Castex. Tory MPs are all over Twitter, denouncing it. I imagine some face-saving fudge will be found for everyone, probably involving money - AFTER the French election
    I don't see a compromise, the French don't have very much they can do because the TCA is extremely detailed on fishing at the behest of the French. Macron signed up to the deal but he's got no A16 like Boris has got with the NI stuff. Aiui the appetite within the EU for a trade fight with the UK is zero, maybe even lower than zero as loads of countries would like to ease border pedantry issues and upgrade the TCA to include some elements of customs pre-clearance in it as that may also unlock a new long term solution for NI that negates the need for any goods border anywhere.

    Now that the main deal is done a lot of the heat has gone out of it and the bitterness is slowly going away too other than in France who still hold on to it out of sheer insecurity that they may be being completely left behind.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,126

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    boulay said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    Does anyone happen to have a link to the FT interview with Mr Macron this morning?

    Thanks

    Unfortunately not but from the Today programme this morning (and frankly at least the last few weeks) I’m getting completely fed up with how the BBC is reporting this situation Re fishing.

    They seem to give more credence to the French govt position that we are breaking an agreement and we are not to be trusted etc.

    Why is it beyond the wit of the BBC to get the French ambassador on and ask him outright:

    1. Does the agreement signed with the EU demand that French boats prove they fished those areas in the required timeframe?

    2. As the agreement does demand proof then why haven’t those boats provided proof?

    3. If they cannot provide proof then as the French are so big on the EU being a “rules based organisation” do the French govt not agree that it would be wrong to break these rules?

    4. If the French govt think that these rules should be broken then why are they attacking the UK and accusing us of not respecting the treaty when it is they who are not?

    5. Why is Macron slagging off the UK saying we are not a reliable partner when it is clearly the French having epic meltdowns threatening electricity supplies, trade, removing. Ambassadors- clearly it is they who are unreliable temperamental partners.

    6. If the French PM thinks the EU is so amazing then why would anyone want to leave - therefore why do they think they need to damage countries that leave if it’s so terrible anyway?

    7. Why is France so angry about Brexit - surely it’s better for them as increases their weight and influence and removes the UK as an anchor on more EU?

    Can’t imagine it’s too hard to ask these questions instead of accepting that because we are the UK it must be us who are wrong……
    Yes, two sides to every argument etc, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility (probability?) that this Boris Johnson government are (again) acting in bad faith and (again) showing they can't be trusted. It would be totally in character.
    On the other side there's Macron, who tried his very best to destroy the reputation of the one vaccine being made for the poorest people in the world.

    What sort of 'character' does that?
    Yep, fair comment. Macron is no slouch at picking fights with foreigners for domestic consumption. All rather pathetic. I suspect he's got a good case on this fishing thing but no doubt he's also grandstanding. And that vaccine trashing he did was abysmal. I marked him down bigtime for that. Moved him down a whole drawer. He's in the middle one of 5 now and he's not totally safe there.
    He hasn’t got a “good case” on this fishing thing. He has no case. The French govt headed by Monsieur Macron are members of the EU, a rules based organisation no less, and under the terms of this membership (the leaving of which is so dreadful by the way) the EU are responsible for the management of fishing rights in EU waters and signed, as a rules based organisation, a treaty which laid out the conditions for continued fishing arrangements.

    The fact that the French discovered that a number of their boats had been very forgetful in keeping their logs of their fishing up to date, or even keeping them at all (perhaps some French fishermen think that writing is for softies like Moliere and it’s nothing to do with ensuring they can’t be busted for overfishing or fishing in protected areas, no sir) means that under the terms of the treaty that the rules based organisation signed on behalf of France in line with their rules of the organisation has left the French fishers caught at low tide with their waders round their ankles.

    So Macron has no case. The prosecutors of Dreyfus had more of a case. The best lawyers in Spiral would tell him he doesn’t have a case. What he does have a case of however is BDS and election fever.
    Sorry but putting only the UK side of the case doesn't show that France doesn't have one. It more likely shows your bias.

    It’s not the UK side of the case - it’s the Jersey side of the case. Jersey is not part of the UK.

    The reason I cannot put the French side of the case across is that they do not have one. They have been signed up by the EU to a treaty that’s ended up unfavourably for them in this particular sector and so they are having a tantrum.

    If they were convinced of their case they would take action in line with the provisions of the treaty - there are legal provisions if Jersey is breaking the terms.

    Instead they are threatening to cut off the electricity supply to an island of 110,000 people - over a matter of about 40 fishing boats.

    Think about it - they are threatening to cut electricity to 110,000 people because some of their fishermen are unable to meet the requirements of a treaty that the EU signed up to on behalf of the French govt.

    Jersey did not set the terms. Jersey isn’t in a strong position to set the terms. Jersey is applying the terms of the treaty as legally laid out. In return the French government is threatening to cut the electricity supply.

    If Russia threatened to cut off the electricity supply to a country over such a tiny issue would you say they were being ridiculous or that it’s perfectly acceptable? Or is it just blindness to European fallibility and that maybe just for once they are the bad guys….. I think it’s ultimately your bias that is showing.

    And the silence from other EU countries’ leaders in support of France on this is somewhat telling.
    I'll take your summary more seriously if you give the correct one word answer to the following question -

    Are we justified in threatening to tear up the NI protocol because its implementation will cause us problems?
    Please accept my sincerest apologies Kinabalu for overlooking your test on my intellectual integrity - I was busy making mud pies in the garden whilst burning French flags and scorning garlic.

    I do not have the same level of intellectual integrity as you so am unable to answer your test with one word - I merely have the low level intellect to answer thus:

    Is there legal provision within the NI protocol for either side to “tear it up” or maybe just activate a clause that ends it? Think UVDL might know as she has more intellectual integrity than I have.

    Is one side Re the NI protocol insisting on ignoring the rules agreed (including the agreement within the treaty allowing either side to withdraw) to and threatening hostile action to the other side who are abiding to the rules as set out in the treaty?

    Is anyone saying that if the UK government do potentially at some unknown point in the future break a treaty with regards NI that this potential unknown event justifies the French government trying to bully a party to ignore the legal demands of a treaty to suit the French governments wishes?

    I look forward to your enlightenment.
    To be brief. Point is, it's clear that Johnson/Frost are behaving badly in threatening to tear up an agreement they've just signed up to. There's no justification for it. They have no case. I asked you whether you agree with me there. A 'yes' would have shown to me your intellectual integrity in punditing on 'UK vs EU' matters (since I can sense you'd be one to strain and contort in order to support Johnson and 'us' regardless) and I'd have been ready to be influenced by your output on the fishing dispute. But sadly it's a 'no'. Lots of words, to be sure, and questions back to me, but in essence a 'no'. So we must leave it there. You posting about the nefarious French, me passing by and utterly unmoved.
    There is some justification. The trusted trader scheme seems to be dragging. There are more checks at the NI border than a lot of other borders combined. There is a sense of special troubles being made.
    But yes, it looks as if the deal was signed to complete Brexit, with the intention of getting a new deal fairly soon after.
    A bit like getting your new girlfriend home for a coffee, then moving to hoping for a nice cuddle too...
    Not sure about your analogy there - Frostie doesn't seem up for a cuddle - but yes, spot on. Bad faith. Or let's put it this way, if that isn't bad faith we need a new definition of the term. And, ok, there's some (ie a teeny bit of) justification. I did say in almost my 1st post on this topic that unless the grandstander is a 100% charlatan like Trump, there will always be something there on which to base their grandstanding. So it is with Johnson, and I assume it is here on the fishing with Macron unless and until a poster with immense demonstrated intellectual integrity (on UK/EU matters) writes a weighty post saying otherwise and explaining why.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,198
    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    FWIW, I think the fishing licences dispute will be solved. The question is whether Jersey folds now or folds later.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol is much more problematic. You take trade remedies, Article 16, punitive tariffs etc, because you want to achieve a particular outcome. Thing is, the EU will never agree removing the ECJ from the Protocol or an effective internal border within the Single Market. So you take the destructive remedies as does the other side, but you don't achieve your objectives, so it becomes attrition.

    Video on trade wars here. If the UK goes for a limited technical safeguard approach to Article 16 addressing the implementation of the Protocol, the EU's response will likely also be technical. But if the UK triggers A16 to fundamentally change the Protocol as David Frost's rhetoric suggests, it will escalate very fast. The video is quite long but most interesting part about half way through

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1454123585895817224

    Amazing. So you think the EU will win on fishing, and then again on NI? I’d never have expected that from you
    I think France will win against Jersey on fishing licences and no-one will win on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    And add. Northern Ireland will massively lose.
    MaxPB psychoanalyses you accurately below, so I won’t pursue that

    As for Jersey, the UKG can’t concede now, not after that letter from Castex. Tory MPs are all over Twitter, denouncing it. I imagine some face-saving fudge will be found for everyone, probably involving money - AFTER the French election
    I'm not interested in being psychoanalysed and certainly not by MaxPB, who isn't someone of good will.

    That's the end of the discussion for me.
    Oh dear, I put the mirror up and you don't like what you see.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,345
    edited October 2021
    moonshine said:

    Boyan Slat and team seem to have finally cracked the tech to clean the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. All this whinging about 40 boats, how about this week these countries do something useful and fully fund that effort, agree to legislate away single use plastic and agree an international ban on deep water fishing, which serve as the key breeding grounds for many species. Do all that and there will be a plentiful bounty of healthy seafood to go round.

    A little less talk of sovereignty and a little more of sustainability would be welcome.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,567

    Farooq said:

    Have we heard anything yet from Admiral of the Blue HYUFD?

    AND to which of his blind eyes is his telescope raised?

    He's in the garage building a landing craft. Normandy awaits.
    Must say that HMG could do far worse, than by dispatching HYUFD.

    NOT as a naval threat or invasion force. Instead, as a negotiator.

    For I have zero doubt, that a few weeks (or even days) of debating HYUFD would result in even the most hardened of French functionaries being quite willing to let les Anglais have the whole of Brittany with Calais and Corsica thrown in, just to get out of the freaking room.
    At least on pb you can log off, in the negotiating room there is nowhere to hide...
This discussion has been closed.