About the leaflet, I read the Daily Mail article about it, and reading the comments is interesting. Plenty of people, clearly of the Brexiteer type, are commenting that it's nothing, it's ridiculous that the police is investigating, get over it, etc. Tells a lot.

Wow an interesting turn of events if true, closing plants in the EU not the UK

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.blo ... -plants-ft

Nissan Motor Co has drafted a contingency plan to focus on its Sunderland plant in the U.K. and cut European production if a hard Brexit leads to tariffs on car imports from the continent

A101 wrote:

Wow an interesting turn of events if true, closing plants in the EU not the UK

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.blo ... -plants-ft

Nissan Motor Co has drafted a contingency plan to focus on its Sunderland plant in the U.K. and cut European production if a hard Brexit leads to tariffs on car imports from the continent

From your own link:

The automaker denied the existence of the contingency plans, according to a spokesman for Nissan Europe quoted by the Financial Times. “We’ve modelled every possible ramification of Brexit and the fact remains that our entire business both in the U.K. and in Europe is not sustainable in the event of WTO tariffs,” he said.

Japan now has a fresh trade deal with the EU which makes direct imports more profitable, so Brexit might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I still find it bizarre that brexiters actually revel in their own compatriots losing their livelihoods en masse as a consequence of their own choice.

In a speech on Monday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson plans to say he is prepared to quit talks over the U.K.’s future trade relationship with the European Union if he doesn’t get what he wants, according to a U.K. official. Brussels negotiators are set to publish their own mandate the same day.

Well, good luck with that.

Some people just never learn, no matter how plentiful the evidence.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Wow an interesting turn of events if true, closing plants in the EU not the UK

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.blo ... -plants-ft

Nissan Motor Co has drafted a contingency plan to focus on its Sunderland plant in the U.K. and cut European production if a hard Brexit leads to tariffs on car imports from the continent

From your own link:

The automaker denied the existence of the contingency plans, according to a spokesman for Nissan Europe quoted by the Financial Times. “We’ve modelled every possible ramification of Brexit and the fact remains that our entire business both in the U.K. and in Europe is not sustainable in the event of WTO tariffs,” he said.

Japan now has a fresh trade deal with the EU which makes direct imports more profitable, so Brexit might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I still find it bizarre that brexiters actually revel in their own compatriots losing their livelihoods en masse as a consequence of their own choice.

In a speech on Monday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson plans to say he is prepared to quit talks over the U.K.’s future trade relationship with the European Union if he doesn’t get what he wants, according to a U.K. official. Brussels negotiators are set to publish their own mandate the same day.

Well, good luck with that.

Some people just never learn, no matter how plentiful the evidence.

Well according to the article it is linked from the Financial Times which reported, citing two people involved in the discussions. I can’t vouch for the veracity of the article or the people that’s why I said “ If True”

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Japan now has a fresh trade deal with the EU which makes direct imports more profitable, so Brexit might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Well according to the article it is linked from the Financial Times which reported, citing two people involved in the discussions. I can’t vouch for the veracity of the article or the people that’s why I said “ If True”

Hence my "might".

And the rest of my post equally stands.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Japan now has a fresh trade deal with the EU which makes direct imports more profitable, so Brexit might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Well according to the article it is linked from the Financial Times which reported, citing two people involved in the discussions. I can’t vouch for the veracity of the article or the people that’s why I said “ If True”

Hence my "might".

And the rest of my post equally stands.

Of course it’s was always going to hinge on any trade agreement, but the EU-JPN trade agreement might just benefit the UK more than you think

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.fle ... car-market

A101 wrote:

Of course it’s was always going to hinge on any trade agreement, but the EU-JPN trade agreement might just benefit the UK more than you think

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.fle ... car-market

Well, that's one of the more confused and non-sequitur articles I've seen on Brexit, and that's saying something.

Darn, this Brexiteer UK cabinet has the science of being thick down to an art. I'm sure in restating what has been said dozens of times already above...

The UK is touting their sovereignty so much, yet seems to demand others ignore or set aside their sovereignty to satisfy them. How two-faced can you possibly get?

The British government insist hell and fire that they will be masters of their waters, they will make the rules and laws, their courts will be supreme, and other entities standards will not apply for the UK. And yet it demands the EU surrender their sovereignty to London by allowing full free trade of all future UK products and services which will be crafted under very likely different standards and regulations from those of the EU. In other words, they are insisting that their regulations have legal force within the EUs much bigger single market. In effect, succumbing EU law from being sovereign jn it's own area. Utterly preposterous !

If there are two different regulatory, labor, currency ecosystems abutting, by definition there will be a border with some friction.

Derico wrote:

If there are two different regulatory, labor, currency ecosystems abutting, by definition there will be a border with some friction.

Sure, but only in the real world, so Boris and his posse aren't bothered.

I watched Sophie Ridge interviewing Dominic Raab, and even for him that was an astounding concentration of vacuous platitudes with a complete lack of any substantive answer to her topical questions.

There was absolutely zero response from him to her questions on the obvious conflicts between the apparent UK stance and the well-known EU position.

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

They will have no choice if Scotland go independent and join the EU. The spanish government will have huge pressure on them, i’m shocked they’ve managed to hold on to Catalonia until now to be honest. I feel the independence movement there is larger than Scotland.

The national spanish government has a veto on any new accession, so that's pretty much the end of it.

The UK doesn't have that veto any more by your own choice, so Scotland's path to independent EU membership has just been opened up on Brexit Day, and for anyone with open eyes and ears it should have been obvious that the EU-friendly scots would find a warm welcome should they make it to independence.

If the Scottish ever become independent and the EU agree to the Scottish joining, I wish the EU well in seeking another Net Beneficiary instead of a net contributor to join, just means less in the pot to go around for the EU.

Me, me, me.

That's the whole point of the EU. Bring less well off countries to a higher standard of living in a bigger, richer market for everyone. Every country benefits from stable, rich neighbours.

Wonder which regulations will go first.

Klaus wrote:

Japan now has a fresh trade deal with the EU which makes direct imports more profitable, so Brexit might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I naturally expected Nissan to deny reports a plan to double down on Sunderland existed. No firm would reveal its cards like that until they have made a firm decision. Given the new Juke is now out on the market and the new Qashqai is soon to enter production, I can't see any closure taking place in the short-term until at least the second half of this decade when these two models become due for replacement.

You're right though about the EU-Japan deal. I'm also of the belief this was a key factor behind Honda deciding to announce the closure of the Swindon plant where the Civic is built. With the market share of both Honda and Nissan in Europe being what they are and with the presence of the new FTA, it becomes difficult for Japanese companies to justify a manufacturing presence within Europe if the costs/benefits of having a local presence don't outweigh the costs/benefits of exporting from Japan, especially if they have Japanese factories with spare capacity.

The exception to the rule appears to be Hitachi, who are investing in their fairly new train assembly facility at Newton Aycliffe (not far from Sunderland) so that the plant has welding and painting facilities like their main factory in Kasado, Japan, which should mean an end to the practice of train bodyshells being produced in Japan and shipped to England for final assembly...

https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/hitac ... 18.article

Klaus wrote:

In a speech on Monday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson plans to say he is prepared to quit talks over the U.K.’s future trade relationship with the European Union if he doesn’t get what he wants, according to a U.K. official. Brussels negotiators are set to publish their own mandate the same day.

Well, good luck with that.

Some people just never learn, no matter how plentiful the evidence.

Didn't Boris say something similar last year during the Tory leadership contest and shortly after becoming PM which all seemed to change after he had that meeting with Leo Varadkar on the Wirral?

Boris threatening to quit talks is just a negotiating chip. Sigh, have none of you ever worked in business?

A no deal would be best anyway.

Arion640 wrote:

Boris threatening to quit talks is just a negotiating chip. Sigh, have none of you ever worked in business?

A negotiating chip that is fooling no one, apart maybe from his voters...

The leverage of each negotiating party is what it is, and no populistic posturing and grandstanding is going to change it.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ard-brexit

We are all doomed aren’t we

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/nissan-eu-uk-hard-brexit

We are all doomed aren’t we

It was always certain that the global outlook and reduced regulations of the free UK will be highly attractive for businesses. I can see many co-operations closing their EU plants and moving to the UK to better serve the global market.

Francoflier wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Boris threatening to quit talks is just a negotiating chip. Sigh, have none of you ever worked in business?

A negotiating chip that is fooling no one, apart maybe from his voters...

The leverage of each negotiating party is what it is, and no populistic posturing and grandstanding is going to change it.

To be fair, i didn’t expect the EU to fall for it. But at the same time you can’t go in guns blazing saying we’ll give you everything.

seahawk wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/nissan-eu-uk-hard-brexit

We are all doomed aren’t we

It was always certain that the global outlook and reduced regulations of the free UK will be highly attractive for businesses. I can see many co-operations closing their EU plants and moving to the UK to better serve the global market.

I don’t see a mass exodus of business from the EU to the UK personally, but i also don’t see many major business leaving.

Boeing74741R wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Japan now has a fresh trade deal with the EU which makes direct imports more profitable, so Brexit might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I naturally expected Nissan to deny reports a plan to double down on Sunderland existed. No firm would reveal its cards like that until they have made a firm decision. Given the new Juke is now out on the market and the new Qashqai is soon to enter production, I can't see any closure taking place in the short-term until at least the second half of this decade when these two models become due for replacement.

Nissan supposedly received specific guarantees that the UK government would make up for lack of market access in case of a messy Brexit so that's a factor, too (article from 2016):

Nissan got written post Brexit guarantees from UK
https://www.politico.eu/article/nissan- ... secretary/

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/nissan-eu-uk-hard-brexit

We are all doomed aren’t we

It was always certain that the global outlook and reduced regulations of the free UK will be highly attractive for businesses. I can see many co-operations closing their EU plants and moving to the UK to better serve the global market.

I don’t see a mass exodus of business from the EU to the UK personally, but i also don’t see many major business leaving.

More like a trickle.

Contracts slowly being phased out, investment rerouted, etc. Even if you wanted to close shop outright it's expensive, time consuming and generally results in very bad press.

My own company is now receiving orders from Japanese suppliers that generally would have been made at the Japanese manufacturer's own UK subsidiary. So essentially instead of making a certain manufacturing process in the UK in a fully-owned subsidiary it's now done in Spain in a 3rd company.

It's certainly more expensive, but that's what uncertainty does.

Arion640 wrote:

I don’t see a mass exodus of business from the EU to the UK personally, but i also don’t see many major business leaving.

Being English speaking and well connected City of London enjoyed hosting back office functions for EU corps. City also claims everyone else finance numbers as its own, just like DC. These functions can disappear quietly. Brand image management is another area London thrives.

Will be interesting to see what regulations are to be scrapped.

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It was always certain that the global outlook and reduced regulations of the free UK will be highly attractive for businesses. I can see many co-operations closing their EU plants and moving to the UK to better serve the global market.

I don’t see a mass exodus of business from the EU to the UK personally, but i also don’t see many major business leaving.

More like a trickle.

Contracts slowly being phased out, investment rerouted, etc. Even if you wanted to close shop outright it's expensive, time consuming and generally results in very bad press.

My own company is now receiving orders from Japanese suppliers that generally would have been made at the Japanese manufacturer's own UK subsidiary. So essentially instead of making a certain manufacturing process in the UK in a fully-owned subsidiary it's now done in Spain in a 3rd company.

It's certainly more expensive, but that's what uncertainty does.

On the contrast, my employer is now doing more Business with the EU, or will be moving into the future.

JJJ wrote:

Nissan supposedly received specific guarantees that the UK government would make up for lack of market access in case of a messy Brexit so that's a factor, too (article from 2016):

Nissan got written post Brexit guarantees from UK
https://www.politico.eu/article/nissan- ... secretary/

Oh yes, I almost forgot about those guarantees.

I guess we'll never know what guarantees and assurances were given, but it's worth remembering that both Theresa May and Carlos Ghosn are no longer in their respective positions. Ghosn no longer being there is crucial as his successor may take a different stance on this.

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

It was always certain that the global outlook and reduced regulations of the free UK will be highly attractive for businesses. I can see many co-operations closing their EU plants and moving to the UK to better serve the global market.

I don’t see a mass exodus of business from the EU to the UK personally, but i also don’t see many major business leaving.

More like a trickle.

Contracts slowly being phased out, investment rerouted, etc. Even if you wanted to close shop outright it's expensive, time consuming and generally results in very bad press.

The higher the trade barriers, the less attractive it will become to make Britain part of an integrated supply chain: you can't have cars for instance cross the channel 3 or 4 times during their assembly like they do no if there's too much hasstle and additional cost surrounding it, so companies will have to decide on reshaping their production processes to cut Britain out of those processes: that may mean produce more locally, or regroup the entire European production on one side of the border.
Which side they go to will depend on many factors, but let's make a safe bet and say that because of the huge difference in size of both markets, the bigger market will win it in most cases.

A101 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Public departements aren't anything like enterprises, they're there to spend money on the public, not to get it from them (aside from the one getting the taxes, obviously).

No one claimed they have to make money but they have to provide VfM

Not trying to be facetious, but I think you are claiming a personal conviction which has absolutely nothing to do with any legal or fiscal obligations.

Many state projects (science, education, health, large infrastructure) are all about benefiting society in the long-term and their value can't easily be costed in the short term.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Yes, based on actual evidence. The way anything works in this world, or at least should be working.

What evidence?

There is no evidence that a racist, halfwitted Brexit supporter produced this letter. There is every chance a remainer could have done to stir things up. Can you not understand this concept????

You don't get to claim that your total lack of evidence is somehow MORE VALID than a huge amount of circumstantial evidence against you. That's just stupid.

Arion640 wrote:

Boris threatening to quit talks is just a negotiating chip. Sigh, have none of you ever worked in business?

Yes, for 20 years. That's not how you 'do business'. Especially not with regarding to something of this importance, nor with an entity you have been a major part of and help write it's laws for decades.

His entire (and half the cabinet under him and May) are entirely rhetoric driven. There's no real world data mindset, no serious impression they understand all the minutia of an agreement like this. It's actually pathetic to watch.

Reinhardt wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Boris threatening to quit talks is just a negotiating chip. Sigh, have none of you ever worked in business?

Yes, for 20 years. That's not how you 'do business'. Especially not with regarding to something of this importance, nor with an entity you have been a major part of and help write it's laws for decades.

His entire (and half the cabinet under him and May) are entirely rhetoric driven. There's no real world data mindset, no serious impression they understand all the minutia of an agreement like this. It's actually pathetic to watch.

It’s called negotiation my friend.

Bickering aside, the trade deal will happen. It’s in both sides interest. We will also be restricting EU fishing boats from our waters.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Yes, based on actual evidence. The way anything works in this world, or at least should be working.

What evidence?

There is no evidence that a racist, halfwitted Brexit supporter produced this letter. There is every chance a remainer could have done to stir things up. Can you not understand this concept????

You don't get to claim that your total lack of evidence is somehow MORE VALID than a huge amount of circumstantial evidence against you. That's just stupid.

None of us will know the truth behind that stupid letter until the culprit can be found.

Unfortunately Brexit has drawn out some pretty unpleasant individuals.

On both sides.

A hard Brexit would not preclude specific trade agreements done one at a time by a variety of teams. Obvious candidates for being 1st in line, necessary foods and medicines, Airbus wings, odds and ends of financial services, medical care for nationals abroad (I suspect submitting bills to a settlement house and balancing treatments, paying the difference). Inspectors, customs, and tariff people placed abroad so as have goods cross borders without further checks. The goals would be that every deal approved be a sign of good will, and speed up the next set of deals.

The EU will simply require that UK goods meet its requirements, and vice versa. The US/Mexico agreement dictates certain labor rights, and there is no reason that the UK/EU not to do the same.

Arion640 wrote:

We will also be restricting EU fishing boats from our waters.

Oh wow! Then it's all worth it. All of what, 1% of GDP. Well if the UK didn't allow the selling off of quota's in the past then maybe they'd be more UK fishing. But the fish would still end up being sent outside of the UK.

Reinhardt wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

We will also be restricting EU fishing boats from our waters.

Oh wow! Then it's all worth it. All of what, 1% of GDP. Well if the UK didn't allow the selling off of quota's in the past then maybe they'd be more UK fishing. But the fish would still end up being sent outside of the UK.

This could be an interesting issue for us to study. If the UK supervised the selling of fishing quota's (sp?) was it for a specified period of time? Is there any particular reason that as those time out EU fishers would not be allowed to bid? That income could even be used to subsidize UK fishers for fishing for UK market.

Arion640 wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Boris threatening to quit talks is just a negotiating chip. Sigh, have none of you ever worked in business?

Yes, for 20 years. That's not how you 'do business'. Especially not with regarding to something of this importance, nor with an entity you have been a major part of and help write it's laws for decades.

His entire (and half the cabinet under him and May) are entirely rhetoric driven. There's no real world data mindset, no serious impression they understand all the minutia of an agreement like this. It's actually pathetic to watch.

It’s called negotiation my friend.

Bickering aside, the trade deal will happen. It’s in both sides interest. We will also be restricting EU fishing boats from our waters.

Today the EU commision has released the Negociation Mandate it wants from EUCO for talks with the UK.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... ctives.pdf
On the Fishing aspect, the Commission is looking at stable quota share for EU vessels in UK waters and vice versa, that can only be changed with consent of both parties.
In line with the restriction you expect, but obviously at odds with "full control of our fishing waters" as PM Johnson would prefer.

I'm wondering how that could pan out with UK allocated quota sold to EU's fishing company... If they continue the same way that will make absolutely no difference for what remain as UK fishers.

Out of curiosity : Is there a similar document from UK side or they just prefer to hide their negotiation objectives to the general public ?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

We will also be restricting EU fishing boats from our waters.

Oh wow! Then it's all worth it. All of what, 1% of GDP. Well if the UK didn't allow the selling off of quota's in the past then maybe they'd be more UK fishing. But the fish would still end up being sent outside of the UK.

This could be an interesting issue for us to study. If the UK supervised the selling of fishing quota's (sp?) was it for a specified period of time? Is there any particular reason that as those time out EU fishers would not be allowed to bid? That income could even be used to subsidize UK fishers for fishing for UK market.

Worth a read, despite the source it's accurate: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/1 ... hael-gove/

I have no idea how long they were valid for. You would assume with Brexit they become part of the negoitation (yup as explained in the post above). But even if the UK gets what it wants (presumably the same catch tonnage or higher than before) what's going to stop the same thing happening again with the same families selling them off? Is Boris really going to step in and tell some rich mates not to do it?

The entire subject is a farce, of the UK's own making. Seemingly sucessfully taken onboard by Brexiteers thanks to Farage as another example of the poor Brits getting unfair treament by jolly foreigner.

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

@ Point 3 - and spain will veto Scotland joining too.

Nope. Plenty of politicians on record saying they won't mind as long as it's done legally.

How exactly can someone join the EU illegally?

sabenapilot wrote:

The higher the trade barriers, the less attractive it will become to make Britain part of an integrated supply chain: you can't have cars for instance cross the channel 3 or 4 times during their assembly like they do no....

If that is the case than I would say Brexit would be a spur in efficiency in car production in the EU, that is just insane if that is actually happening, just because you make somethign easy to do does not mean that it is logical or efficient.

par13del wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

@ Point 3 - and spain will veto Scotland joining too.

Nope. Plenty of politicians on record saying they won't mind as long as it's done legally.

How exactly can someone join the EU illegally?

Haha this is a very fair point.

par13del wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

@ Point 3 - and spain will veto Scotland joining too.

Nope. Plenty of politicians on record saying they won't mind as long as it's done legally.

How exactly can someone join the EU illegally?

Good question!

I was of course referring to Scotland becoming independent with that!
(But by implication it's even true for them joining the EU as well, because as per the rules that's only possible without having any outstanding international disputes.)

noviorbis77 wrote:

None of us will know the truth behind that stupid letter until the culprit can be found.

Actually, it is already explicit from the letter itself and there is hardly any plausible argument against the obvious conclusion.

Unfortunately Brexit has drawn out some pretty unpleasant individuals.

On both sides.

Ah, you're going for Donald Trump's infamous "There are good people on both sides!" response to the Charlotteville nazi murder.

Well that at least confirms what your standards are and how much disparity you're ready to just ignore.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

We will also be restricting EU fishing boats from our waters.

Oh wow! Then it's all worth it. All of what, 1% of GDP. Well if the UK didn't allow the selling off of quota's in the past then maybe they'd be more UK fishing. But the fish would still end up being sent outside of the UK.

This could be an interesting issue for us to study. If the UK supervised the selling of fishing quota's (sp?) was it for a specified period of time? Is there any particular reason that as those time out EU fishers would not be allowed to bid? That income could even be used to subsidize UK fishers for fishing for UK market.

AFAIK they own the boats as well, thus what would the UK do with fishing rights without a boat? Moreover, UK fish is mainly an export product to mainland Europe. Not a good bargaining position for the UK

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

None of us will know the truth behind that stupid letter until the culprit can be found.

Actually, it is already explicit from the letter itself and there is hardly any plausible argument against the obvious conclusion.

Unfortunately Brexit has drawn out some pretty unpleasant individuals.

On both sides.

Ah, you're going for Donald Trump's infamous "There are good people on both sides!" response to the Charlotteville nazi murder.

Well that at least confirms what your standards are and how much disparity you're ready to just ignore.

Well some of us can look beyond the obvious and don’t just make conclusions after reading tabloids.

par13del wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

@ Point 3 - and spain will veto Scotland joining too.

Nope. Plenty of politicians on record saying they won't mind as long as it's done legally.

How exactly can someone join the EU illegally?

As long as the process of leaving the UK is achieved legally through whatever mechanisms the UK sets out.

It is funny to put in a balance on one side the UK fishing industry (less than 1% of the gdp with 80 % of the fishes sold in the continental EU) and on the other side the services and banking industries that are around 200 times more valuable to the UK

noviorbis77 wrote:

Well some of us can look beyond the obvious and don’t just make conclusions after reading tabloids.

You're looking away from the obvious as your tabloids keep telling you, not "beyond" anything!

I read the article on who owns fishing quotas. It is not unusual for this sort of concentration to take place, especially on natural resources. It is also not unusual for populist politicians to claim they are supporting small time miners, farmers and fishers when they are hiding enrichment of the 1%.

Klaus wrote:

I was of course referring to Scotland becoming independent with that!
(But by implication it's even true for them joining the EU as well, because as per the rules that's only possible without having any outstanding international disputes.)

I would be interested in seeing the requirement for joining and where an independent Scotland would stack up against those, the last time the EU had a "suspect" entry - note I did not use the world illegal - the group paid a hefty price, I am thinking of one of the PIGS which will remain nameless.
Scotland may be an emotional topic right now but at the end of the day, the requirements are the requirements and as was seen by giving concessions, it tends to not sit well with the populous.

LJ wrote:

AFAIK they own the boats as well, thus what would the UK do with fishing rights without a boat? Moreover, UK fish is mainly an export product to mainland Europe. Not a good bargaining position for the UK

In these days, everyone looks for economic opportunities, imagine boat building and ultimately local fishermen.
Now if the boat building techniques have to be taught in a UK University, it could take some time, as for the fishing skills.......
Such are all the pains of a growing nation, or in the case of the UK, a newly minted third country.

Olddog wrote:

It is funny to put in a balance on one side the UK fishing industry (less than 1% of the gdp with 80 % of the fishes sold in the continental EU) and on the other side the services and banking industries that are around 200 times more valuable to the UK

Well you have to get the right perspective, the fish and the passport colour have the same priority, not everything is about money....