They've done worse than some, better than others. Since they're constantly accused of bias, what they do is that in any debate, they will bring in a brexiteer, and let him/her spout nonsense as if it was equivalent to hard facts and developed arguments. Like BoJo is still doing to this day "no deal will be marvelous, plenty of opportunities, etc.".

Then if you look at the comments the Brexitards will still say BBC is horrible, communist etc. (even though it is headed by a Tory).

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

My understanding is those payments are things we have already committed to.

Sure we could tear up these agreements.

However, that would only underline that the UK are unreliable partners in ANY agreement.

Not a good position when we are trying to reach new agreements with Non EU countries.

Whilst we have more agreements to strike, we already have agreements with about 100 non EU nations

Many are just short term ones, waiting for the UK to get weaker to get a better deal for them. Japan is the exception, it already got better things for Japan and worse ones for the UK : https://www.euronews.com/2020/09/11/is- ... -eu-s-one-

Included in the link are talks about "free data flow" and the UK minister has touted this several times, however it's not something good for the UK, and could even hamper the EU trade deal. It means that you don't need to keep data for British citizens/companies on British soil, Japanese soil il fine.

Of course the UK doesn't care about data protection, it is like the US in that regard, and with 5 eyes is committed to get spied on by its allies anyway.

flyingturtle wrote:

Talks will continue, BBC just said.

Has this nightmare not an end?

Well, I do hope BoJo comes to the table with a new attitude including a sense of realism and the understanding that unfettered access to the SM comes with a price, i.e. that of a LPF!

Such access is going to require dynamic allignment in future too for it not only to be granted on Jan 1st, but also to remain granted beyond that day .

This dynamic alligment can be turned into an automatism by treaty (e.g. Norway) and then the access to the SM is perpetual, or it can be left to the UK to follow any EU change of rules volunarily, but then the SM access will forever be conditional upon Britain's decision to remain alligned (eg. Switzerland).

That's basically the ONLY flexibility the EU offers, so BoJo better makes his choice between what type of vassalage he wants to take up and fast, because what he wil NOT get is perpetual access without future alligment, that much should be clear now, and rightfully so, IMHO.

As the Guardian noted: the day after the referendum A. Merckel coined the now famous 'no cherry picking' term to which the EU sticks more than 4 years on, despite an almost uncountable number of British-imposed deadlines later...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ar-in-2016

flyingturtle wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

How many extended deadlines does this make now?

I don't think its ever going to actually happen.

Don't worry, the transition period is fixed by law - December 31st.

If any deal is agreed at this point it will need to come with some kind of extension of SM membership if UK shall not be under WTO / No deal at least for a period.

proest wrote:

Just wondering, what position did the BBC take? How do they cover Brexit, it this point seems almost impossible to cover it relatively neutral?

Take a look for yourself and make up your own mind...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

proest wrote:

Just wondering, what position did the BBC take? How do they cover Brexit, it this point seems almost impossible to cover it relatively neutral?

Take a look for yourself and make up your own mind...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

I think the problem with the 3 difficult points is exactly the same. The UK says "no" instead of offering decent counter proposals. This isn't good for negotiations, because the EU might be ready to climb down and accept a compromise, but it can only work if the UK is also climbing down, it can't appear that one side has capitulated.

With fish we see that this bartering has finally started, but much too late. EU is offering 15-18% back, UK is asking for 80%. They could settle in the middle at 50/50 or 60/40, with a clause to renegociate every 5 years, etc. The existing British fishermen would be fine, there could be a reasonable growth of the industry in the UK (what's the point of wanting a very large fishing industry if you don't even eat fish ?), EU fisheries would shrink gradually, and voila. Also, we could hope the UK would really do what it's promising, favoring small UK fishermen instead of selling quotas to foreigners or rich Britons, but with the Tories, that's not going to happen.

Arbitration : create a court with half ECJ, half UK supreme court judges.

LPF : set up a body that would discuss EU and UK laws before their implementation. I believe it's already what happens with EFTA. Norway etc. has no real power to change EU laws, but they can give their input and the EU can accommodate things. After all, it's very possible that the UK makes a proposal that would satisfy EU countries. If the UK really wants to lower environmental or labor standards in an unacceptable way, then have it defend it to the EU first, let's see if UK citizens are really happy about what their government is doing. EU regulations are implemented very incrementally, and sometimes countries take their sweet time implementing them (or never do it, the UK has done this), so there would be no need for clashes, putting quotas and tariffs back on some products would only be a last resort thing.

proest wrote:

Just wondering, what position did the BBC take? How do they cover Brexit, it this point seems almost impossible to cover it relatively neutral?

Take a look for yourself and make up your own mind...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

olle wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

How many extended deadlines does this make now?

I don't think its ever going to actually happen.

Don't worry, the transition period is fixed by law - December 31st.

If any deal is agreed at this point it will need to come with some kind of extension of SM membership if UK shall not be under WTO / No deal at least for a period.

Most probably yes.
If an agreement on a EU-UK FTA is reached after today, it can no longer be ratified in time to take full effect by Jan 1st for the simple reason it needs to be approved not just by Westminster and the European Parliament, but also by some 30+ other Parliaments in the 27 EU member states as well as the 4 regional assemblies of Belgium which has rather uniquely devolved its sovereignty to sign up to an international treaty to its (con)federal entities.

What would thus likely happen is that a FTA would probably be approved by both the British and the European Parliament only before year's end and would come into full effect on those domains where the EU is holding sovereignty, while it would temporary come into effect on those domains where the EU memberstates hold the sovereignty, pending formal approval by their parliaments.
It was done this way for CETA too, btw.

Besides, there will be a 'de facto' extension of Britain's SM membership beyond Jan 1st anyway given there's ZERO legislation before Parliamant to deviate from the current EU (and soon British) rules and the British government has already said they will simply wave through everything the first few months due to the lack of readiness on their part (believe it or not).

If the EU succeeds in having Britain sign up to its demands on a LPF in future too, then you can be all but sure they will show the same lenience towards shipments from Britain too of course, based on the fact those will be in full technical -if not legal- conformity to EU rules: the notorious and much sought after equivalence ruling which can be granted unilaterally by the EU

zkojq wrote:

Don't worry guys, looks like Macron is going to make the EU capitulate at any moment now.



Another gem:



I guess the more you read headlines from The Express, the more it becomes clear the way that the average Brexiteer thinks and the world-view that they espouse. It's somewhat of a wonder that "remain" got as much as 48% of the referendum vote when you consider how the British Press (82% pro-leave by circulation) have been dragging the EU through the mud for 40+ years.

I still don't understand how it can make you think that Etonian elitists like Boris and JRM are somehow looking out for your best interests though.

I've read a lot of these articles over the months and they're always totally empty of any fact, at most they take one sentence out of context and make an article out of it, often the same as the previous one. I can't believe people really read this regularly, it must be a total bore.

I don't even open the Frexit ones as being in France I know that Frexit is a fringe idea. I guess British "journalists" come to France and see "Frexit" posters on overpasses and things like that and think it must be a thing, but it isn't. That's all done by a party that hovers around 1% at elections. Nobody cares enough to remove the placards. Well I think in fact the party might get sued by the city of Paris for cleaning up costs. Also, the leader of the party is now marred in a homosexual harassment scandal so likely to disappear.

olle wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Poor French fisherman. Will be out of a job shortly.

Not if they fish Scallops it seems.

I suppose that the fishing aimed at the EU markets will need to adjust and go for other seas. Exporting from UK will be ccomplicated so the big winner is the fish migrated from EU waters to UK waters...

I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of months we'd see fish smuggling going on, with British fishermen selling their catch to EU fishermen that can get them to shore without needing authorizations and pay tariffs...

Andrew Marr’s morning interview with foreign secretary Raab shows what it looks like when Brexiteer rhetoric from the past meets today’s reality.

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/ ... ition.html

A harbinger of things to come, and a reminder that No Deal won’t mean “Brexit is done” for at least half the country. Expect more acrimony, more insults, and more division going forward.

ElPistolero wrote:

Andrew Marr’s morning interview with foreign secretary Raab shows what it looks like when Brexiteer rhetoric from the past meets today’s reality.

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/ ... ition.html

A harbinger of things to come, and a reminder that No Deal won’t mean “Brexit is done” for at least half the country. Expect more acrimony, more insults, and more division going forward.

Raab didn't know what to say so he had to take a sip from his glass of water in an interview of just 3 minutes...

Seriously, what can you expect from a foreign secretary who is on record for having said he had no idea how important the Calais-Dover crossing was to the UK's economy... more than 2 years AFTER the Brexit referendum! Seriously???

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46142188

if you dont know your own country's weakness, you're a poor statesman;
if you're picking a fight with someone who does know it, you're in a very weak position;
if that adversary happens to hold full control over that weakness, you're basically an idiot for having started a fight with him.

Raad is an excellent example of how someone looks on TV when he does realize just what an idiot he's been all along.

Aesma wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Don't worry guys, looks like Macron is going to make the EU capitulate at any moment now.



Another gem:



I guess the more you read headlines from The Express, the more it becomes clear the way that the average Brexiteer thinks and the world-view that they espouse. It's somewhat of a wonder that "remain" got as much as 48% of the referendum vote when you consider how the British Press (82% pro-leave by circulation) have been dragging the EU through the mud for 40+ years.

I still don't understand how it can make you think that Etonian elitists like Boris and JRM are somehow looking out for your best interests though.

I've read a lot of these articles over the months and they're always totally empty of any fact, at most they take one sentence out of context and make an article out of it, often the same as the previous one. I can't believe people really read this regularly, it must be a total bore.

I don't even open the Frexit ones as being in France I know that Frexit is a fringe idea. I guess British "journalists" come to France and see "Frexit" posters on overpasses and things like that and think it must be a thing, but it isn't. That's all done by a party that hovers around 1% at elections. Nobody cares enough to remove the placards. Well I think in fact the party might get sued by the city of Paris for cleaning up costs. Also, the leader of the party is now marred in a homosexual harassment scandal so likely to disappear.

olle wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Poor French fisherman. Will be out of a job shortly.

Not if they fish Scallops it seems.

I suppose that the fishing aimed at the EU markets will need to adjust and go for other seas. Exporting from UK will be ccomplicated so the big winner is the fish migrated from EU waters to UK waters...

I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple of months we'd see fish smuggling going on, with British fishermen selling their catch to EU fishermen that can get them to shore without needing authorizations and pay tariffs...

Who cares if there is fish smuggling. I don’t and it will be up to the navy or the relevant policing organisation to sort it out.

We will be patrolling our waters in the event of no deal though. French fisherman will not be allowed into UK waters and rightly so.

The hilarious part is our channel islands give the french even less space than they probably should.

Aesma wrote:

Arbitration : create a court with half ECJ, half UK supreme court judges.

No thanks. No special treatment for the UK. The EFTA court already exists, they can join that.

AeroVega wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Arbitration : create a court with half ECJ, half UK supreme court judges.

No thanks. No special treatment for the UK. The EFTA court already exists, they can join that.

If UK has to adhere to EU standards, then disputes must logically be settled at the ECJ.

Imagine a court that is set up by the EU and UK. Are judgments by this court binding for the ECJ, and vice versa? After all, they might decide on the very same cases - product standards, for example.

Arion640 wrote:

The hilarious part is our channel islands give the french even less space than they probably should.

No the hilarious part is that these channel islands fishermen land their catch in France.

AeroVega wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Arbitration : create a court with half ECJ, half UK supreme court judges.

No thanks. No special treatment for the UK. The EFTA court already exists, they can join that.

Norway blocked that.

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Arbitration : create a court with half ECJ, half UK supreme court judges.

No thanks. No special treatment for the UK. The EFTA court already exists, they can join that.

Norway blocked that.

And the nice trade agreements with Norway or Switzerland, clearly say that the agreement is moot, if it is not in line with the agreement between those countries and the EU. So once the UK diverges from EU regulations, those trade deals have no value any more.

Aesma wrote:

I think the problem with the 3 difficult points is exactly the same. The UK says "no" instead of offering decent counter proposals. This isn't good for negotiations, because the EU might be ready to climb down and accept a compromise, but it can only work if the UK is also climbing down, it can't appear that one side has capitulated.

Now I am confused, I thought we have been saying for years that the EU holds all the cards and TM and whoever else had to keep walking back their red lines, so where is the EU climbing down coming from?
So far they have stuck to their guns and the UK has been the blumbering idiot walking back red lines, honestly see no reason for status change at this point, heck I am even wondering why they are still extending the talks....just let it go no deal and after chaos ensures or not, see what happens, its not as if everyone is going to drop down dead on 01 Jan with no deal.

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Arbitration : create a court with half ECJ, half UK supreme court judges.

No thanks. No special treatment for the UK. The EFTA court already exists, they can join that.

Norway blocked that.

Link?

Aesma wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The hilarious part is our channel islands give the french even less space than they probably should.

No the hilarious part is that these channel islands fishermen land their catch in France.

I’m glad the french are already getting used to having british fish sold to them, they’ve got a lot more of it to come!

AeroVega wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

No thanks. No special treatment for the UK. The EFTA court already exists, they can join that.

Norway blocked that.

Link?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-option

In Norway, probably the single most influential country inside EFTA, opinion appears to be hardening against UK membership. The concern is expressed openly by the opposition Labour party, and more warily in government circles. Anniken Huitfeldt, head of the Foreign and Defence committee and a Labour member, said she was not interested in the UK joining either EFTA or the EEA, the single market grouping that assembles the EU and EFTA members. She said: “We do not encourage them. It is not in Norway’s interests to bring Britain into the EEA … The UK should never have voted to leave the EU in the first place.”

Norway, a country that tries to operate by political consensus, has long accepted an uneasy compromise in which it accepts the four EU freedoms, including freedom of movement, but remains outside the EU itself. One Norwegian official said: “There is a wariness about the British controversy over EU relations being imported into our arrangements. The issue has torn the UK apart for two years. We want to avoid upsetting something that works for us.”

ElPistolero wrote:

Andrew Marr’s morning interview with foreign secretary Raab shows what it looks like when Brexiteer rhetoric from the past meets today’s reality.

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/ ... ition.html

A harbinger of things to come, and a reminder that No Deal won’t mean “Brexit is done” for at least half the country. Expect more acrimony, more insults, and more division going forward.

It's so strange that brits are impressed with these clowns.

sabenapilot wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Norway blocked that.

Link?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-option

In Norway, probably the single most influential country inside EFTA, opinion appears to be hardening against UK membership. The concern is expressed openly by the opposition Labour party, and more warily in government circles. Anniken Huitfeldt, head of the Foreign and Defence committee and a Labour member, said she was not interested in the UK joining either EFTA or the EEA, the single market grouping that assembles the EU and EFTA members. She said: “We do not encourage them. It is not in Norway’s interests to bring Britain into the EEA … The UK should never have voted to leave the EU in the first place.”

Norway, a country that tries to operate by political consensus, has long accepted an uneasy compromise in which it accepts the four EU freedoms, including freedom of movement, but remains outside the EU itself. One Norwegian official said: “There is a wariness about the British controversy over EU relations being imported into our arrangements. The issue has torn the UK apart for two years. We want to avoid upsetting something that works for us.”

As I understand it Norway want to stay the big fish in the EFTA and avoid to be dragged into a UK EU mess.

correct and could you blame Norway? Brexit is a mess, so why be part of that? They have seen the UK inside the union and the political track record since the referendum isn't all that great to say the least. Current UK politics isn't stable as one would like to see. So I understand Norwegian reluctance in this matter.

Dutchy wrote:

Another day, another self-imposed deadline by Johnson. We'll see what will happen tonight.

And another self-imposed deadline by Johnson has come and gone. Talks will of course continue.

par13del wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I think the problem with the 3 difficult points is exactly the same. The UK says "no" instead of offering decent counter proposals. This isn't good for negotiations, because the EU might be ready to climb down and accept a compromise, but it can only work if the UK is also climbing down, it can't appear that one side has capitulated.

Now I am confused, I thought we have been saying for years that the EU holds all the cards and TM and whoever else had to keep walking back their red lines, so where is the EU climbing down coming from?
So far they have stuck to their guns and the UK has been the blumbering idiot walking back red lines, honestly see no reason for status change at this point, heck I am even wondering why they are still extending the talks....just let it go no deal and after chaos ensures or not, see what happens, its not as if everyone is going to drop down dead on 01 Jan with no deal.

Well even in my proposals there is still an "imbalance" in favor of the EU. Also the EU is fine with helping provide cover, like with the customs officials in a British building in Belfast. I'm not talking about major concessions, that indeed can't happen.

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

The hilarious part is our channel islands give the french even less space than they probably should.

No the hilarious part is that these channel islands fishermen land their catch in France.

I’m glad the french are already getting used to having british fish sold to them, they’ve got a lot more of it to come!

Not if the boats are banned from our waters and ports.

Arion640 wrote:

We will be patrolling our waters in the event of no deal though. French fisherman will not be allowed into UK waters and rightly so.

When things get that far, be prepared to buy up all the fish yourselves as you won't be able to export it to the continent any more.

I hope you like fish as much on your plate as you seem to be doing in your ideology, as that will be what the survival of the british fishing industry will depend on after an acrimonious split.

Bon appetit!

Dutchy wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Another day, another self-imposed deadline by Johnson. We'll see what will happen tonight.

And another self-imposed deadline by Johnson has come and gone. Talks will of course continue.

The actual transition will get bumpier and more painful with every day an agreement is put off by the UK...

From the EU parliament there are now rumblings that a ratification is becoming unlikely before year's end as MEPs would be unable to properly scrutinize the deal in just these few days.

flyingturtle wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Arbitration : create a court with half ECJ, half UK supreme court judges.

No thanks. No special treatment for the UK. The EFTA court already exists, they can join that.

If UK has to adhere to EU standards, then disputes must logically be settled at the ECJ.

Imagine a court that is set up by the EU and UK. Are judgments by this court binding for the ECJ, and vice versa? After all, they might decide on the very same cases - product standards, for example.

Everyone who imports into the EU follows EU standards, do all trade agreements use the ECJ as a dispute settlement provisions............No, that is generally done via an independent arbitration panel

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

My understanding is those payments are things we have already committed to.

Sure we could tear up these agreements.

However, that would only underline that the UK are unreliable partners in ANY agreement.

Not a good position when we are trying to reach new agreements with Non EU countries.

Whilst we have more agreements to strike, we already have agreements with about 100 non EU nations

Congrats.
Really, what an achievment.

An interesting remark by M Heseltine, former Conservative Deputy PM regarding the value of these British trade deals and just how second-class and dependent they'll remain on the EU due to what is widely referred to as 'the Brussels effect'.

So we have rolled over some existing European deals on the same terms in the future as we have now. No gain there. What happens when, say, Country A renegotiates its deal with the EU? Silence. Are we really to believe that we will be able to continue to export to Country A products that will then be of a lower standard than they will have agreed with the EU? How long would arguments about British sovereignty or control hold out against the united refusal of Country A and the EU to let us continue trading on the terms previously agreed?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -so-silent

sabenapilot wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Norway blocked that.

Link?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-option

That's about UK joining EFTA. I was talking about the EFTA court. The head of the EFTA court event suggested this himself:

https://fr.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... SKBN1DT21R

I don't like the idea of the EU giving the UK the privilege of a bespoke arbitration mechanism when one exists already.

AeroVega wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Link?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-option

That's about UK joining EFTA. I was talking about the EFTA court. The head of the EFTA court event suggested this himself:

https://fr.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... SKBN1DT21R

I don't like the idea of the EU giving the UK the privilege of a bespoke arbitration mechanism when one exists already.

I know, but there's probably no way you can use the EFTA-court without some sort of formal approval from EFTA members, possibly at least a pseudo-membership even, so that doesn't bode too well.

Also note the date of the suggestion: it predates the negative political reaction in Norway.

In the end the name of the court which oversees any UK-EU FTA doesn't matter that much; whether the EU judges sit as ECJ to which some British judges are added once again, or some officially new Joint Arbitration Panel or whatever name that comes up for the group of people from both the UK and the EU is formed, what matters foremost are the rules they get to judge on. As the SCOTUS has just shown us, even a court packet with Republicans and where 1/3rd is personally handpicked by the current US President won't rule in his favour if the rules are against him...

Aesma wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

No the hilarious part is that these channel islands fishermen land their catch in France.

I’m glad the french are already getting used to having british fish sold to them, they’ve got a lot more of it to come!

Not if the boats are banned from our waters and ports.

We’ll be sending it over fresh and frozen after landing it in our waters.

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

We will be patrolling our waters in the event of no deal though. French fisherman will not be allowed into UK waters and rightly so.

When things get that far, be prepared to buy up all the fish yourselves as you won't be able to export it to the continent any more.

I hope you like fish as much on your plate as you seem to be doing in your ideology, as that will be what the survival of the british fishing industry will depend on after an acrimonious split.

Bon appetit!

LOL and the only hungry ones will be the french fisherman that have gone out of business.

They must be kacking themselves as we say in my part of the UK.

flyingturtle wrote:

Talks will continue, BBC just said.

Has this nightmare not an end?

No, I listened to the radio today, a weekly "what is going on in the world" program. And when introducing a segment on Brexit the presenter said "everything comes to an end eventually, except the Brexit negotiations".

Arion640 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

We will be patrolling our waters in the event of no deal though. French fisherman will not be allowed into UK waters and rightly so.

When things get that far, be prepared to buy up all the fish yourselves as you won't be able to export it to the continent any more.

I hope you like fish as much on your plate as you seem to be doing in your ideology, as that will be what the survival of the british fishing industry will depend on after an acrimonious split.

Bon appetit!

LOL and the only hungry ones will be the french fisherman that have gone out of business.

They must be kacking themselves as we say in my part of the UK.

You are naive if you think the French will stop eating fresh fish. This is France, they are world famous for their culinary traditions that includes fresh fish. They definitely won't be waiting for the fish to be landed in the UK and then shipped across the channel with tariffs added.

Arion640 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

We will be patrolling our waters in the event of no deal though. French fisherman will not be allowed into UK waters and rightly so.

When things get that far, be prepared to buy up all the fish yourselves as you won't be able to export it to the continent any more.

I hope you like fish as much on your plate as you seem to be doing in your ideology, as that will be what the survival of the british fishing industry will depend on after an acrimonious split.

Bon appetit!

LOL and the only hungry ones will be the french fisherman that have gone out of business.

They must be kacking themselves as we say in my part of the UK.

One really hoped that this type of nationalistic and spiteful thinking would have been gone from Europe for at least 40 years. But if the Uk insists on having more fish that is not really popular in the UK, so be it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... es-a-catch

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I’m glad the french are already getting used to having british fish sold to them, they’ve got a lot more of it to come!

Not if the boats are banned from our waters and ports.

We’ll be sending it over fresh and frozen after landing it in our waters.

No we won't. The French will buy it from elsewhere

gkirk wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Not if the boats are banned from our waters and ports.

We’ll be sending it over fresh and frozen after landing it in our waters.

No we won't. The French will buy it from elsewhere

Well the French will buy some from UK, but selling it from the UK will become much more complicated. As illustrated here https://twitter.com/LochfyneLangous/status/1326886702548455427

seahawk wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

When things get that far, be prepared to buy up all the fish yourselves as you won't be able to export it to the continent any more.

I hope you like fish as much on your plate as you seem to be doing in your ideology, as that will be what the survival of the british fishing industry will depend on after an acrimonious split.

Bon appetit!

LOL and the only hungry ones will be the french fisherman that have gone out of business.

They must be kacking themselves as we say in my part of the UK.

One really hoped that this type of nationalistic and spiteful thinking would have been gone from Europe for at least 40 years. But if the Uk insists on having more fish that is not really popular in the UK, so be it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... es-a-catch

Its the EU that has created a poisonous and toxic political environment. We had a bad deal when it came to fishing, plain and simple.

And even if we can’t eat all the fish ourselves, its much better to have healthy replenished fish stocks than overfishing. We want to protect our marine life.
Your all throwing your toys out of the pram in the continent because the UK is taking back control.

gkirk wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Not if the boats are banned from our waters and ports.

We’ll be sending it over fresh and frozen after landing it in our waters.

No we won't. The French will buy it from elsewhere

At higher cost as they’ll be competing in their own waters with the Dutch, Spanish, Belgians.

Arion640 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

LOL and the only hungry ones will be the french fisherman that have gone out of business.

They must be kacking themselves as we say in my part of the UK.

One really hoped that this type of nationalistic and spiteful thinking would have been gone from Europe for at least 40 years. But if the Uk insists on having more fish that is not really popular in the UK, so be it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... es-a-catch

Its the EU that has created a poisonous and toxic political environment. We had a bad deal when it came to fishing, plain and simple.

And even if we can’t eat all the fish ourselves, its much better to have healthy replenished fish stocks than overfishing. We want to protect our marine life.
Your all throwing your toys out of the pram in the continent because the UK is taking back control.

I think most people in the continent would either not care at all or just be happy, if the UK finally ends the negotiations and walks away.

Well, let's put a bit of realism in this whole discussion. Let's say we get to a no-deal scenario that seems most realistic currently; what will happen after?

I expect some emergency measures which at least contains the following provisions; status quo on fishing rights for at least 6 months, some measure which will ensure that in practice free-movement of people and goods still exist (although not on paper). There will be supply issues the first few weeks but it will work out/ some extra emergency laws will be put in place.

BJ can claim Brexit really happened, in practice, everything has just become a bit more sluggish/less efficient but structurally nothing much has changed, we end up with 6 months 'real-Brexit'-delay in practice. Everybody can sell this as a win. The political reality wins, economic common sense loses, and with it mostly the poorest in society.

So firstly, he thinks there are 7BN people in Asia.

Secondly, he thinks that shipping fish to the other side of the planet is a smart move.

Thirdly, how much does he currently send to Asia.

Reinhardt wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

I seem to recall that much of the fish in UK waters doesn´t really sell in the UK.... so also poor British fishermen, no one wants their catch where they can deliver without tariffs slapped on.

Exactly. Something which you would have thought British fisherman would know.

You can't expect an ordinary fisherman to know how internaltion trade works; you can however expect a serious government to know it and act accordingly..
Reality is Brits don't eat the fish caught in their waters; they just happen to like other things not found in the UK.
The irony is that what the UK grows domestically is exported, and what it eats has to be imported.

The UK's foreign secretary D. Raab is on tape saying he didn't fully grasp the importance of food import via the Calais-Dover crossing, more than 2 years AFTER triggering article 50.
Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, this guy, is it?

As to the illusion of exporting fish, now that's going to be another great success story, I'm sure.
Fresh fish landed in the UK is as good as impossible to export to the EU given the complex procedures required for it: it's rotten before its wrapped in the red tape required for this.
Frozen fish has no time constraint of course, but it's going to be slapped with a hefty WTO-tariff and lose the selling advantage of its superior quality, while not being able to compete on price with frozen fish from other parts of the world that are already imported to the EU.
In short, fish export to the EU is un uphill battle: just ask Norway.

tommy1808 wrote:

On UK TV this morning a British trawler fisherman was interviewed. He stated there were 7 billion people living in Asia that he could sell UK fish to, so he doesn't need the EU.

How silly Iceland, Norway or other non-EU fishing nations haven't thought of that before!
Has this man already been offered a multi-million consulting contract by HM government meanwhile?
I'm sure he's on a par with their consultants on custom IT software and ferry contracts.

sabenapilot wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

I seem to recall that much of the fish in UK waters doesn´t really sell in the UK.... so also poor British fishermen, no one wants their catch where they can deliver without tariffs slapped on.

Exactly. Something which you would have thought British fisherman would know.

You can't expect an ordinary fisherman to know how internaltion trade works; you can however expect a serious government to know it and act accordingly..
Reality is Brits don't eat the fish caught in their waters; they just happen to like other things not found in the UK.
The irony is that what the UK grows domestically is exported, and what it eats has to be imported.

The UK's foreign secretary D. Raab is on tape saying he didn't fully grasp the importance of food import via the Calais-Dover crossing, more than 2 years AFTER triggering article 50.
Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, this guy, is it?

As to the illusion of exporting fish, now that's going to be another great success story, I'm sure.
Fresh fish landed in the UK is as good as impossible to export to the EU given the complex procedures required for it: it's rotten before its wrapped in the red tape required for this.
Frozen fish has no time constraint of course, but it's going to be slapped with a hefty WTO-tariff and lose the selling advantage of its superior quality, while not being able to compete on price with frozen fish from other parts of the world that are already imported to the EU.
In short, fish export to the EU is un uphill battle: just ask Norway.

tommy1808 wrote:

On UK TV this morning a British trawler fisherman was interviewed. He stated there were 7 billion people living in Asia that he could sell UK fish to, so he doesn't need the EU.

How silly Iceland, Norway or other non-EU fishing nations haven't thought of that before!
Has this man already been offered a multi-million consulting contract by HM government meanwhile?
I'm sure he's on a par with their consultants on custom IT software and ferry contracts.

One expect missing here is that frozen and fresh fish are in reality 2 different products with totally different price and business model.

Normally most business wants to charge premium prices and in this case this means fresh fish. Will uk fishing be able to compete on the market for frozen fish, or in case of exporting to Asia can it compete in the market if the cost of transport is added?

olle wrote:

One expect missing here is that frozen and fresh fish are in reality 2 different products with totally different price and business model.

Normally most business wants to charge premium prices and in this case this means fresh fish. Will uk fishing be able to compete on the market for frozen fish, or in case of exporting to Asia can it compete in the market if the cost of transport is added?

Short answer: NO.

- Frozen British fish will be uncompetitive due to its high price: tariffs in the EU, transport to far away places, ...

- Fresh fish will become uncompetitive due to its degraded quality from all the red tape going around it.



Anyway, seems things are moving a bit in Brussels:

The UK has reportedly given ground on the LPF demand from the EU and is now accepting the principle that it will lose tariff free Single Market access if it no longer fulfiills the conditions set for it: a sort of a guillotine clause just like the Swiss face if they are foolish enough to actually step out of sync. (what a breakthrough, if you think of it )

In return the UK now expects the EU to be less demanding on the share, the duration and the exact stock of NorthSea fish it claims.
One soluton would be to work with different shares per fish and per ground, so the UK can claim things like "we've regained up to 80% of our soveign fishing rights" (not mentioning it is on some odd fish somewhere far up North), while the French can claim they kept 80% of their historic rights, where it matters most to them etc.

agill wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Andrew Marr’s morning interview with foreign secretary Raab shows what it looks like when Brexiteer rhetoric from the past meets today’s reality.

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/ ... ition.html

A harbinger of things to come, and a reminder that No Deal won’t mean “Brexit is done” for at least half the country. Expect more acrimony, more insults, and more division going forward.

It's so strange that brits are impressed with these clowns.

I'm finding it strange that Conservative Home is hosting a link to such an embarrassing interview for them!