Aesma wrote:

Fish is a huge political thing for some reason, but again that works for both sides. If EU fishermen cannot fish in UK waters, EU politicians will milk that situation, buying anything from the UK will be branded as treachery, it will be very bad.

Aesma wrote:

Fish is a huge political thing for some reason, but again that works for both sides. If EU fishermen cannot fish in UK waters, EU politicians will milk that situation, buying anything from the UK will be branded as treachery, it will be very bad.

Aesma wrote:

Fish is a huge political thing for some reason, but again that works for both sides. If EU fishermen cannot fish in UK waters, EU politicians will milk that situation, buying anything from the UK will be branded as treachery, it will be very bad.

The five largest quota-holders control more than a third of UK fishing quota
Four of the top five belong to families on the Sunday Times Rich List
The fifth is a Dutch multinational whose UK subsidiary – North Atlantic Fishing Company – controls around a quarter of England’s fishing quota
Around half of England’s quota is ultimately owned by Dutch, Icelandic, or Spanish interests
More than half (13) of the top 25 quota holders have directors, shareholders, or vessel partners who were convicted of offences in Scotland’s £63m “black fish” scam – a huge, sophisticated fraud that saw trawlermen and fish processors working together to evade quota limits and land 170,000 tonnes of undeclared herring and mackerel
One of the flagships of the “Brexit flotilla” – which sailed up the Thames in 2016 to demand the UK’s exit from the EU – is among the UK’s 10 biggest quota-holders
Around 29% of UK fishing quota is directly controlled by Rich List families. Some of these families have investments in dozens of other fishing companies, meaning companies holding 37% of UK quota are wholly or partly owned by these Rich List families.

JJJ wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Fish is a huge political thing for some reason, but again that works for both sides. If EU fishermen cannot fish in UK waters, EU politicians will milk that situation, buying anything from the UK will be branded as treachery, it will be very bad.

Food in general is an emotionally charged subject. "Our farmers", "our fishermen", etc.

Because everyone this theirs are the best and they're unfairly being taken advantage of.

If the discussion was honest they wouldn't speak about "our fishermen" but rather about the fortunes of a few people and companies hoarding fishing rights gleefuly rubbing their hands that the focus is in the poor Cornish small-time sailor and not on how they've taken advantage of the laws and regulations at every turn.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/1 ... hael-gove/

The five largest quota-holders control more than a third of UK fishing quota
Four of the top five belong to families on the Sunday Times Rich List
The fifth is a Dutch multinational whose UK subsidiary – North Atlantic Fishing Company – controls around a quarter of England’s fishing quota
Around half of England’s quota is ultimately owned by Dutch, Icelandic, or Spanish interests
More than half (13) of the top 25 quota holders have directors, shareholders, or vessel partners who were convicted of offences in Scotland’s £63m “black fish” scam – a huge, sophisticated fraud that saw trawlermen and fish processors working together to evade quota limits and land 170,000 tonnes of undeclared herring and mackerel
One of the flagships of the “Brexit flotilla” – which sailed up the Thames in 2016 to demand the UK’s exit from the EU – is among the UK’s 10 biggest quota-holders
Around 29% of UK fishing quota is directly controlled by Rich List families. Some of these families have investments in dozens of other fishing companies, meaning companies holding 37% of UK quota are wholly or partly owned by these Rich List families.

LJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

The economic reality is yes we like to sell the fish to the EU, but if the EU wants to boycott UK fish it’s well in its right to do so, either the EU has to replace the catch from existing EU fishing grounds and risk overfishing in the years ahead or the EU has to reduce the amount of fish it eats and accept the higher price for reduced stock.

Or we just decide not to eat fish, or only fish we catch and don't export it to the UK. Meanwhile, UK fishing industries is stuck with fish they don't eat, oversupply of fish which makes the industry less profitable and kills employment in the UK fish farms.

A101 wrote:

Why is it that the most on here think the EU can only adapt to any new fishing regime and believe the UK is so fickle it too cannot change to circumstance.... mind boggling. There certainly won’t be an oversupply if the EU dosnt want to trade in fish it just means we only catch what is needed

LJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Why is it that the most on here think the EU can only adapt to any new fishing regime and believe the UK is so fickle it too cannot change to circumstance.... mind boggling. There certainly won’t be an oversupply if the EU dosnt want to trade in fish it just means we only catch what is needed

Okay, you don't expect oversupply when around 2/3s of your export market vanishes. Do you really mean you advocatiing catching 70% less? I thought that the whole idea was to grow the UK fishing industry instead of shrinking it (as the EU unrightfully limited the UKs fishing iindustry).

A101 wrote:

LJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

The economic reality is yes we like to sell the fish to the EU, but if the EU wants to boycott UK fish it’s well in its right to do so, either the EU has to replace the catch from existing EU fishing grounds and risk overfishing in the years ahead or the EU has to reduce the amount of fish it eats and accept the higher price for reduced stock.

Or we just decide not to eat fish, or only fish we catch and don't export it to the UK. Meanwhile, UK fishing industries is stuck with fish they don't eat, oversupply of fish which makes the industry less profitable and kills employment in the UK fish farms.

Why is it that the most on here think the EU can only adapt to any new fishing regime and believe the UK is so fickle it too cannot change to circumstance.... mind boggling.

A101 wrote:

There certainly won’t be an oversupply if the EU dosnt want to trade in fish it just means we only catch what is needed

AeroVega wrote:

A101 wrote:

There certainly won’t be an oversupply if the EU dosnt want to trade in fish it just means we only catch what is needed

Plus that you will not have a free trade deal with the EU. It's the UK's sovereign choice: fish or FTA.

0.2% of the 50,000 UK workers who said they'd replace Eastern European fruit pickers actually showed up

A101 wrote:

UK-US trade talks to start next week, going to be interesting to see how both interact with each other’s agendas


https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/05 ... trade.html

olle wrote:

A101 wrote:

UK-US trade talks to start next week, going to be interesting to see how both interact with each other’s agendas


https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/05 ... trade.html

What areas will be included? In a few month we will know.

UK seeks access to EU health cooperation in light of coronavirus

The British government is quietly seeking access to the European Union’s pandemic warning system, despite early reluctance to cooperate on health after Brexit, the Guardian has learned.

The UK is seeking “something akin to membership” of the EU’s early warning and response system (EWRS), which has played a critical role in coordinating Europe’s response to the coronavirus, as well as to earlier pandemics such as bird flu. According to an EU source, this would be “pretty much the same” as membership of the system.

gkirk wrote:

Dear EU,
Please dont forget us. We love you

Signed,
Scotland and Northern Ireland

Jayafe wrote:

UK seeks access to EU health cooperation in light of coronavirus

The British government is quietly seeking access to the European Union’s pandemic warning system, despite early reluctance to cooperate on health after Brexit, the Guardian has learned.

The UK is seeking “something akin to membership” of the EU’s early warning and response system (EWRS), which has played a critical role in coordinating Europe’s response to the coronavirus, as well as to earlier pandemics such as bird flu. According to an EU source, this would be “pretty much the same” as membership of the system.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... oronavirus

Because, you know, we have left and despice your burocracy. Although we need and demand access to EU tools at any time and with no restrictions. Because, you know, we are Britain, and having the same limited access than any other 3rd country is unfair, unjustified, an insult and a revenge for taking our Country back

What we want is full access. And leave. And don’t you dare accusing us of cherry-picking!!

Gotta love these funny folks, can’t wait to see how they’ll manage to try to blame the EU for their casualties.

Elite wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

UK seeks access to EU health cooperation in light of coronavirus

The British government is quietly seeking access to the European Union’s pandemic warning system, despite early reluctance to cooperate on health after Brexit, the Guardian has learned.

The UK is seeking “something akin to membership” of the EU’s early warning and response system (EWRS), which has played a critical role in coordinating Europe’s response to the coronavirus, as well as to earlier pandemics such as bird flu. According to an EU source, this would be “pretty much the same” as membership of the system.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... oronavirus

Because, you know, we have left and despice your burocracy. Although we need and demand access to EU tools at any time and with no restrictions. Because, you know, we are Britain, and having the same limited access than any other 3rd country is unfair, unjustified, an insult and a revenge for taking our Country back

What we want is full access. And leave. And don’t you dare accusing us of cherry-picking!!

Gotta love these funny folks, can’t wait to see how they’ll manage to try to blame the EU for their casualties.

It helps everyone to have the UK involved in areas of public health, as they would in counter terrorism efforts, anti-money laundering, and the like. Just because there are some good ideas to European connectivity and cooperation doesn't mean the entire country has to sign up to everything. It shouldn't be an all-in or all-out arrangement, that would help no one.

Countries are supposed to deal and cooperate with each other, just that it seems the UK has decided not to partake in the EU superstate project it has become.

JJJ wrote:

Elite wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... oronavirus

Because, you know, we have left and despice your burocracy. Although we need and demand access to EU tools at any time and with no restrictions. Because, you know, we are Britain, and having the same limited access than any other 3rd country is unfair, unjustified, an insult and a revenge for taking our Country back

What we want is full access. And leave. And don’t you dare accusing us of cherry-picking!!

Gotta love these funny folks, can’t wait to see how they’ll manage to try to blame the EU for their casualties.

It helps everyone to have the UK involved in areas of public health, as they would in counter terrorism efforts, anti-money laundering, and the like. Just because there are some good ideas to European connectivity and cooperation doesn't mean the entire country has to sign up to everything. It shouldn't be an all-in or all-out arrangement, that would help no one.

Countries are supposed to deal and cooperate with each other, just that it seems the UK has decided not to partake in the EU superstate project it has become.

So you don't think it's fair that non-members get a reduced form of membership? What's the point of being in a club if non members get the same benefits at a reduced cost?

If the UK wants to be part of this agency they'll have to settle for the lite version.

Elite wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Elite wrote:

It helps everyone to have the UK involved in areas of public health, as they would in counter terrorism efforts, anti-money laundering, and the like. Just because there are some good ideas to European connectivity and cooperation doesn't mean the entire country has to sign up to everything. It shouldn't be an all-in or all-out arrangement, that would help no one.

Countries are supposed to deal and cooperate with each other, just that it seems the UK has decided not to partake in the EU superstate project it has become.

So you don't think it's fair that non-members get a reduced form of membership? What's the point of being in a club if non members get the same benefits at a reduced cost?

If the UK wants to be part of this agency they'll have to settle for the lite version.

Because it would benefit the EU as a whole, as it would benefit the UK as well? Trying to "punish" the UK for leaving the EU is foolish and immature. The UK chose to not partake in the EU project, but certain areas of cooperation are mutually beneficial.

For many of the remaining EU states, being a member of the club is literally the only option - they don't have the economic strength, or wealth, or productive populace to make it on their own. Even with the UK being out of the EU, continued EU-UK cooperation is vital and would benefit the minnows outside of the main EU economies (France, Germany) a lot.

Elite wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Elite wrote:

It helps everyone to have the UK involved in areas of public health, as they would in counter terrorism efforts, anti-money laundering, and the like. Just because there are some good ideas to European connectivity and cooperation doesn't mean the entire country has to sign up to everything. It shouldn't be an all-in or all-out arrangement, that would help no one.

Countries are supposed to deal and cooperate with each other, just that it seems the UK has decided not to partake in the EU superstate project it has become.

So you don't think it's fair that non-members get a reduced form of membership? What's the point of being in a club if non members get the same benefits at a reduced cost?

If the UK wants to be part of this agency they'll have to settle for the lite version.

Because it would benefit the EU as a whole, as it would benefit the UK as well? Trying to "punish" the UK for leaving the EU is foolish and immature. The UK chose to not partake in the EU project, but certain areas of cooperation are mutually beneficial.
.

Matt Hancock wanted to retain membership of EWRS as part of EU-UK future relationship deal, but Number 10 said no

Elite wrote:

Because it would benefit the EU as a whole, as it would benefit the UK as well? Trying to "punish" the UK for leaving the EU is foolish and immature. The UK chose to not partake in the EU project, but certain areas of cooperation are mutually beneficial.

JJJ wrote:

Elite wrote:

JJJ wrote:

So you don't think it's fair that non-members get a reduced form of membership? What's the point of being in a club if non members get the same benefits at a reduced cost?

If the UK wants to be part of this agency they'll have to settle for the lite version.

Because it would benefit the EU as a whole, as it would benefit the UK as well? Trying to "punish" the UK for leaving the EU is foolish and immature. The UK chose to not partake in the EU project, but certain areas of cooperation are mutually beneficial.
.

It's not punishing. The UK can partake in the structure in a mutually beneficial way just by staying in the same level as Norway, Switzerland, etc.

But let's go back a little bit regarding the politics of EWRS about a month.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... -pandemic/

Matt Hancock wanted to retain membership of EWRS as part of EU-UK future relationship deal, but Number 10 said no

Who's putting politics ahead of benefit to the population then?

olle wrote:

By the way we are in May now. Was not some of the rights that the city of London has supposed to expire now?

LJ wrote:

olle wrote:

By the way we are in May now. Was not some of the rights that the city of London has supposed to expire now?

The deadline was delayed till 12 months after a no-deal in December 2019. However, expect much of the business to be moved by yearend.

olle wrote:

What services is being moved?

LJ wrote:

olle wrote:

What services is being moved?

All of the Euro clearing (derivatives, repo market etc in EUR). Basically all of the traders in this business have to be operating out of an EU country (as do the platforms like LCH have to be located ini an EU country). Moreover, some dealing with EU counterparties (primarily pension funds or similar) also have to move to an EU country. Still a sizable part will remain in London as there are no restrictions for business outside of the EUR clearing and those counterparties which do not require an EU domiciled company.

It was one of the presents the City received from the ECJ as initially the EU didn't want non-Euro countries to be able to clear Euro trades. However, as discrimination between EU countries was/is not allowed, the UK won its case against the EU and subsequently London became the biggest clearer of EUR trades.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Not an economist, but I doubt that an usually successful city state (Singapore) can be compared to a nation with innumerable provinces and varying economies.

The UK now has the highest number of confirmed coronavirus-related deaths in Europe and the second-highest in the world.

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show a total of 32,375 deaths involving Covid-19 have now been registered across the UK, surpassing Italy’s total of 29,079.

LONDON — As the coronavirus rips through Europe and the world, Britain’s response to the pandemic has shown it’s suffering from another dangerous disease: unshakeable belief in its own exceptionalism.

This is not a uniquely British illness, of course. Many countries put themselves at the center of the map and at the hub of history. But while the sickness causes sporadic bouts of chauvinism in others, the British seem to have a terminal case.

When that exceptionalism collides with a virus that knows no borders and steamrolls over the “keep calm and carry on” spirit, the results, as we’re seeing now, can be disastrous.

It was the Benedictine monk’s eighth-century "Ecclesiastical History of England" that first forged a narrative of a people united by common bond. But the real havoc was wreaked by Geoffrey of Monmouth, a 12th-century scribe who wrote one of the maddest books in history.

As Britain limped into the 1970s, it increasingly resembled a jaded rock star — a once-great icon seeking contemporary relevance but forever obliged to fall back on old hits.

In 1136, as Norman England plunged into civil war, Geoffrey took out his quill and knocked off “The History of the Kings of Britain.” The work claimed that Britain had been founded by Brutus of Troy, a descendant of the Greek hero Aeneas, who had captured it from giants.

By 12th-century standards, it was a publishing sensation, with hundreds of copies finding their way into monastic libraries across Europe. It was also overtly political in intent, seeking to create a unifying origin story and a common destiny.

In reality, ancient Britain had been a backwater off the backroads of Europe, but by the time Geoffrey had filed his parchment, the story had been reshaped into a saga of an incomparable people doing phenomenal things.

Monmouth’s clerical contemporaries may have scoffed, but over the next 900 years his fake history became entrenched in mainstream consciousness.

Matters weren’t helped by topography. Island people are naturally suspicious. While the sea acts as a filter and a defense, it can also make islanders tend toward paranoia; they’re shaped by a lingering fear of the horizon, of what might come over it and what the people beyond it are plotting.

As England blinked into the Renaissance, its individualistic tendencies and distrust of other Europeans came of age. Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church, and his successors engaged in a series of prolonged wars with the rest of the Continent.

Contemporary propagandists, including William Shakespeare, played up the distinctive and the extraordinary, setting the country apart from the rest of the region, despite our long and intertwined history. The “Sceptered Isle” as Shakespeare’s John of Gaunt put it: “This precious stone set in a silver sea.”

In the ensuing centuries, as the empire expanded, so too did Britons’ sense of entitlement. But there was a problem. You can’t convincingly lay claim to world hegemony if you’re descended from a bunch of farmers speaking what is in effect a French-German creole.

So, the British pilfered from the Classical Age and pretended that English grammar and spelling were every bit as orderly as Latin. It was a grand deceit — and it worked. Many people still believe that narrative, and the accompanying idea that Britain and her people are somehow unique and special.

zkojq wrote:

I haven't been paying attention for the past few months. Has the UK yet been able to conclude the easiest trade negotiation in human history?

LJ wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I haven't been paying attention for the past few months. Has the UK yet been able to conclude the easiest trade negotiation in human history?

No, but the David Frost has given Michel Barnier two weeks to drop his 'ideological approach'. Seems like he doesn't understand why the EU “insists on an ideological approach which makes it more difficult to reach a mutually beneficial agreement” . Thus we'll know in three weeks whether we'll see a deal or no deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/15/negotiators-gloomy-as-eu-uk-brexit-talks-end-in-stalemate

That said, with the exception of some modest overtures, we failed to make any progress on any of the other more difficult topics.

Despite its claims, the United Kingdom did not engage in a real discussion on the question of the level playing field – those economic and commercial “fair play” rules that we agreed to, with Boris Johnson, in the Political Declaration.
o On this topic, this was a round of divergence, with no progress.

With regard to the governance of our future relationship, the few useful discussions we had were limited to sectorial questions.
o We were unable to make progress on the issue of the single governance framework that we believe is necessary to build a close and comprehensive partnership with this great neighbouring country, and thus guarantee its efficient and transparent implementation.

o We were also disappointed by the UK's lack of ambition in a number of areas that may not be central to the negotiation, but which are nonetheless important and symbolic.

I'm thinking, for instance of the fight against money laundering.

I'm also talking about its lack of ambition on the respective roles of the European Parliament, the British Parliament and civil society in the implementation of our future relationship.

Why does the UK refuse to include consultation mechanisms with our European and British parliaments and with civil society in our future agreement?
This is what we have foreseen in our modern association agreements to ensure the greatest democratic legitimacy and enable parliamentarians, NGOs and social partners to make their voices heard. I know that the European Economic and Social Committee is very attentive to this issue.
Finally, on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, although we have broad agreement on the objectives, we continue to face two fundamental obstacles that must be resolved before we can put in place any new tools for cooperation:
o The UK refuses to commit, in an agreement with us, to guarantees protecting fundamental rights and individual freedoms resulting from the European Convention on Human Rights, as agreed in the Political Declaration;

o It insists on lowering current standards and deviating from agreed mechanisms of data protection – to the point that it is even asking the Union to ignore its own law and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice on passenger data (“PNR rules”).That is of course impossible.

LJ wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I haven't been paying attention for the past few months. Has the UK yet been able to conclude the easiest trade negotiation in human history?

No, but the David Frost has given Michel Barnier two weeks to drop his 'ideological approach'. Seems like he doesn't understand why the EU “insists on an ideological approach which makes it more difficult to reach a mutually beneficial agreement”

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Only the UK is suppose to have sovereignty, not the EU.

Dutchy wrote:

link to EU statement

A101 wrote:

link to EU statement

Comes across as EU/ Barnier are upset because the UK is refusing to accept to align and accede to EU controlled neocolonialism

A101 wrote:

link to EU statement

Comes across as EU/ Barnier are upset because the UK is refusing to accept to align and accede to EU controlled neocolonialism

LJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

link to EU statement

Comes across as EU/ Barnier are upset because the UK is refusing to accept to align and accede to EU controlled neocolonialism

Actually I think Barnier isn't upset, he just cannot believe that the UK cannot accept that the EU has certain conditions. Moreover, he cannot understand that whilst the UK wants more than the Canada style agreeement (which is already an issue for some EU countries) it doesn't wants to accept additional requirements.

Personally I cannot wait till the UK publishes its legal text (which David Frost promised to do in the coming week) as untill now we only know the EU legal text and thus cannot assess if the UK is really as arrogant as portrayed by Barnier.

A101 wrote:

link to EU statement

Comes across as EU/ Barnier are upset because the UK is refusing to accept to align and accede to EU controlled neocolonialism