Brexit and fishing rights.

AFCDorset said:
You choose to live in a foreign country.

Obey their rules and get on with it. I used to live in Andalusia, more forms than you could shake a stick at. My choice, my responsibility.

Sorry SF, I used to live in Europe pre-Maastricht, no more tedious than my experiences in Spain a few years back.
Click to expand...
When I moved we were staying in the customs union and single market.

Even Farage said so.
 
Extracts from today's DT. I don't see what is unreasonable about our position. I don't see why anyone can doubt that the EU are trying to have us over. Negotiations should be in good faith. The EU is greedy and does not negotiate in good faith. Obviously, it also wants to send a clear message to us and any other member that may want out.

The Telegraph understands that two sticking points remain in the negotiations: the length of a transition period on fishing, and a specific EU demand on state aid.


Sources said Brussels wants eight years’ unfettered access to British waters from January 1, with little more than 20 per cent of its quotas handed back to begin with, while the UK has offered a three-year transitional period, conditional on the EU handing back at least half of its quotas now.


The EU had originally wanted 10 years’ access and while UK sources said their new request for eight years was still “ridiculous” there have been widespread reports that Britain could offer a five to seven-year period to get a deal over the line.

The second problem is over state subsidies, with Brussels demanding that any state aid granted at EU level is exempt from the deal.
It would mean that while Britain could be punished with tariffs if it decided to give state subsidies to industry, the EU would be free to subsidise industry as much as it wanted, as long as the money came from Brussels rather than national governments.
One UK source said: “If, for example, Brussels launched an EU-level scheme to subsidise the production of electric cars, which could put UK-based electric car manufacturers out of business, we would have no right to activate trade defences.
“However, if we launched a similar scheme to subsidise our own electric car industry, the EU still wants to be able to apply trade defences in the other direction.”
Mr Johnson made it clear to Mrs von der Leyen that such terms were unacceptable, and that it was now up to the EU to give ground if a deal was to be done.
 
What authority did Farage have to say any such thing?

You moved during a time of change with many issues remaining unresolved, accept responsibility for your actions.
 
Fugazi said:
Extracts from today's DT. I don't see what is unreasonable about our position. I don't see why anyone can doubt that the EU are trying to have us over. Negotiations should be in good faith. The EU is greedy and does not negotiate in good faith. Obviously, it also wants to send a clear message to us and any other member that may want out.

The Telegraph understands that two sticking points remain in the negotiations: the length of a transition period on fishing, and a specific EU demand on state aid.


Sources said Brussels wants eight years’ unfettered access to British waters from January 1, with little more than 20 per cent of its quotas handed back to begin with, while the UK has offered a three-year transitional period, conditional on the EU handing back at least half of its quotas now.


The EU had originally wanted 10 years’ access and while UK sources said their new request for eight years was still “ridiculous” there have been widespread reports that Britain could offer a five to seven-year period to get a deal over the line.

The second problem is over state subsidies, with Brussels demanding that any state aid granted at EU level is exempt from the deal.
It would mean that while Britain could be punished with tariffs if it decided to give state subsidies to industry, the EU would be free to subsidise industry as much as it wanted, as long as the money came from Brussels rather than national governments.
One UK source said: “If, for example, Brussels launched an EU-level scheme to subsidise the production of electric cars, which could put UK-based electric car manufacturers out of business, we would have no right to activate trade defences.
“However, if we launched a similar scheme to subsidise our own electric car industry, the EU still wants to be able to apply trade defences in the other direction.”
Mr Johnson made it clear to Mrs von der Leyen that such terms were unacceptable, and that it was now up to the EU to give ground if a deal was to be done.
Click to expand...
The DT has its own agenda. Barnier briefed the EC today to the effect that the whole fishing thing can be fudged BUT if at some point the UK chooses to introduce limits then the EC would like the right to introduce tariffs.

In effect kick the can down the road and let someone else unpick this in 5, 7 or how many years time when likely the political and environmental landscape looks a lot different.
 
AFCDorset said:
What authority did Farage have to say any such thing?

You moved during a time of change with many issues remaining unresolved, accept responsibility for your actions.
Click to expand...
I have.

If No Deal happens and/or the UK gets screwed will Brexiteers accept some responsibility?
 
SardiniaFox said:
I have.

If No Deal happens and/or the UK gets screwed will Brexiteers accept some responsibility?
Click to expand...
Why should Brexiteers accept responsibility for an incompetent government who have consistently worked against Brexit?

homes said:
The DT has its own agenda. Barnier briefed the EC today to the effect that the whole fishing thing can be fudged BUT if at some point the UK chooses to introduce limits then the EC would like the right to introduce tariffs.

In effect kick the can down the road and let someone else unpick this in 5, 7 or how many years time when likely the political and environmental landscape looks a lot different.
Click to expand...
I have always thought (and said) that a stitch up was likely, so would not surprise me in the least.

As always it will be interesting to see how it is spun.
 
AFCDorset said:
Why should Brexiteers accept responsibility for an incompetent government who have consistently worked against Brexit?
Click to expand...
Because it's what they voted for. You won, get over it.

But in all honesty, most don't know what they voted for. Same old argument I know but I would guess there were many different reasons why they voted leave, but the only options in the referendum was leave or remain.
 
Consistently worked against Brexit? What planet do you reside on?
 
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
Because it's what they voted for. You won, get over it.

But in all honesty, most don't know what they voted for. Same old argument I know but I would guess there were many different reasons why they voted leave, but the only options in the referendum was leave or remain.
Click to expand...
That old chestnut, I'm sorry club book, most brexiteers know exactly what they voted for.

But we have a government that has zero interest in delivering what they promised.

This is not the brexiteers fault, it is the governments fault, four years of procrastinating bollocks and we are still not 'out'.

SardiniaFox said:
Consistently worked against Brexit? What planet do you reside on?
Click to expand...
Had the government been serious they would have invoked Article 50 straight after the result and worked tirelessly to provide the best outcome for the British people.

After 2 years preparation we would have left, trade deal or not. The government simply would not allow this.
 
The Government have done little else but pursue Brexit at the cost of all else since the Referendum.

We actually left the EU on Jan 31st.

Some of us have accepted that fact, whether we agree with it or not.
 
"The Government have done little else but pursue Brexit at the cost of all else since the Referendum." Theresa May didn't though did she ? Not properly. She was not behind the decision and was seemingly not interested in fully understanding why people may have voted to leave the EU. That influenced how she and people like Olly Robbins acted. We all know what happened next. Had the Government been fully committed at the outset, and acted accordingly, we might have been in a different position. That includes, of course, better and more committed preparation for no deal, in the event that the EU would end up acting as they have done.
 
Fugazi said:
"The Government have done little else but pursue Brexit at the cost of all else since the Referendum." Theresa May didn't though did she ? Not properly. She was not behind the decision and was seemingly not interested in fully understanding why people may have voted to leave the EU. That influenced how she and people like Olly Robbins acted. We all know what happened next. Had the Government been fully committed at the outset, and acted accordingly, we might have been in a different position. That includes, of course, better and more committed preparation for no deal, in the event that the EU would end up acting as they have done.
Click to expand...
They've been fudging it for 4 years and now trying to do crappy last minute deals.
 
Fugazi said:
"The Government have done little else but pursue Brexit at the cost of all else since the Referendum." Theresa May didn't though did she ? Not properly. She was not behind the decision and was seemingly not interested in fully understanding why people may have voted to leave the EU. That influenced how she and people like Olly Robbins acted. We all know what happened next. Had the Government been fully committed at the outset, and acted accordingly, we might have been in a different position. That includes, of course, better and more committed preparation for no deal, in the event that the EU would end up acting as they have done.
Click to expand...
Brexit means Brexit.
Red lines on Customs Union and Single Market.

All her doing.
 
homes said:
The DT has its own agenda. Barnier briefed the EC today to the effect that the whole fishing thing can be fudged BUT if at some point the UK chooses to introduce limits then the EC would like the right to introduce tariffs.

In effect kick the can down the road and let someone else unpick this in 5, 7 or how many years time when likely the political and environmental landscape looks a lot different.
Click to expand...
All media outlets have some sort of agenda but I find the DT very balanced overall. In fact, given that it is often given the sobriquet "Torygraph", there have been some very critical articles about the Government over the last year. Anyway, the extracts appear to be pretty factual and unaffected by any such agenda.
Club_B00k_Crutchless said:
They've been fudging it for 4 years and now trying to do crappy last minute deals.
Click to expand...
I refer the RHG to my previous post.
 
Well, in TM's case, yes. To her, Brexit almost certainly meant the softest option she could get away with. Brexit means Brexit was an essentially meaningless platitude that she threw out as a soundbite to give the impression she was committed to leaving the EU. I see no evidence that she wanted a deal that, despite the complexities and nuances, could be considered to at least somewhat reflect the reasonable minimum expectations of Leave voters.
 
Last edited:
Leaving the Customs Union and Single Market is not a Soft Brexit.

Nor the EMA, etc.

But we are where we are.

Capping it off with No Deal would be the icing on the cake.
 
AFCDorset said:
That old chestnut, I'm sorry club book, most brexiteers know exactly what they voted for.

But we have a government that has zero interest in delivering what they promised.

This is not the brexiteers fault, it is the governments fault, four years of procrastinating bollocks and we are still not 'out'.


Had the government been serious they would have invoked Article 50 straight after the result and worked tirelessly to provide the best outcome for the British people.

After 2 years preparation we would have left, trade deal or not. The government simply would not allow this.
Click to expand...
I think it's more that people who voted to leave knew why they were voting that way rather than what they were voting for (they were all voting to leave the EU, in answer to the question on the ballot paper). (This isn't a criticism, incidentally.) Obviously these reasons would be a strong determinant of how they evaluate the final terms, and I think that's one of the reasons that it has been so difficult to get an agreement that satisfies enough people.

The people I know who voted Leave did so mainly because of constitutional issues rather than because of specific policy areas such as regulation, economics, immigration, etc. You could call that the 'take back control' reason I suppose, although one of my friends said that he had concluded that the EU was a utopian project and was therefore doomed to fail (yes, he is an academic). One did so because she thought there were too many immigrants coming in and claiming benefits, and a few people I knew down in Cornwall voted Leave mainly on fishing.
 
SardiniaFox said:
Leaving the Customs Union and Single Market is not a Soft Brexit.

Nor the EMA, etc.

But we are where we are.

Capping it off with No Deal would be the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...
TM did not want to leave the Customs Union initially. It was only when the Tory Brexit wing kicked up that she changed tack. Hence her "Brexit means Brexit" mantra did not refect her iniitial position on things like the CU. As I mentioned, she wanted the softest Brexit she could get away with and found she could not get away with trying to stay in the CU.
 
We will always trade with the EU, its just if we have a trade deal or trade on WTO and use tariffs. No other independent country does not control there own waters. yes fishing is only small at the moment because it has been destroyed by over fishing by other countries, if its so unimportant you should ask why it is so important to the EU. This is a chance to build up our coastal communities and install processing plants which will turn it into a 6 Billion pound industry creating hundreds of jobs. The EU dont want a trade deal they want control and to punish us for daring to want to leave there protective group. The real issue is not fishing its the level playing field where we are not allowed to compete with them but just act like a colony and buy there overpriced goods.
 
Everything the government has done over the last 4+ years has been to scupper Brexit and to keep us under the control of the EU.

Their primary objective was to somehow generate a view that the people had changed their minds and to keep us in. Hence the continuous 'project fear' and the total lack of any positivity about life in this country post Brexit.

If that does not work then the plan is to fuck everything up as much as possible by tying us into ridiculously restrictive arrangements and continue to obey eu rules under control of the ECJ. This is designed to maximise the economic hit that we will suffer over the next few years and prepare the ground for our grovelling re-entry.

These are of course my personal views and I certainly do not pretend to know exactly how this will be done, but I believe this is where the people of this country stand at the current moment. We may well get some clarity over the next week or so but probably not, just more delay and procrastination.
 
Running Fox said:
We will always trade with the EU, its just if we have a trade deal or trade on WTO and use tariffs. No other independent country does not control there own waters. yes fishing is only small at the moment because it has been destroyed by over fishing by other countries, if its so unimportant you should ask why it is so important to the EU. This is a chance to build up our coastal communities and install processing plants which will turn it into a 6 Billion pound industry creating hundreds of jobs. The EU dont want a trade deal they want control and to punish us for daring to want to leave there protective group. The real issue is not fishing its the level playing field where we are not allowed to compete with them but just act like a colony and buy there overpriced goods.
Click to expand...
As far as the level-playing field and divergence goes

If you pay a yearly fee to join costco and get a 10% discount because of it, why should you be allowed to leave, pay no fee, and still get the 10% discount?

Also if the EU decides that toys with lead are banned from their countries, why should a country that makes toys with lead in them still be allowed to sell them to the EU?

It's simple stuff to understand, but people let politics get in the way
 
Most Brexiteers knew exactly what they voted for on three separate occasions, looking at some of your threads some of you have no idea what it means? Leaving meant leaving not half in or half out but free to make our own laws, treaties and rules take back our waters and look after our own interests. we did well before the common market and in time we will do well after the EU if Boris has the balls to breakaway.
 
MrTeabreak said:
As far as the level-playing field and divergence goes

If you pay a yearly fee to join costco and get a 10% discount because of it, why should you be allowed to leave, pay no fee, and still get the 10% discount?

Also if the EU decides that toys with lead are banned from their countries, why should a country that makes toys with lead in them still be allowed to sell them to the EU?

It's simple stuff to understand, but people let politics get in the way
Click to expand...
We do not get a 10% discount, we get a 100 billion pound trade deficit. if we applied tariffs that makes us 12 Billion pounds better off. our standards are superior to the EUs so your toy analogy does not make sense. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world its like 16 smaller countries leaving the EU, they need us more than we need them.
 
MrTeabreak said:
As far as the level-playing field and divergence goes

If you pay a yearly fee to join costco and get a 10% discount because of it, why should you be allowed to leave, pay no fee, and still get the 10% discount?

Also if the EU decides that toys with lead are banned from their countries, why should a country that makes toys with lead in them still be allowed to sell them to the EU?

It's simple stuff to understand, but people let politics get in the way
Click to expand...
The Costco analogy is silly. No one expects us to leave the eu and continue to get the (free trade) 'discount'. Unless of course the two parties get together and decide that it is in both their interests to allow that to happen. that is what an FTA is, it is not a unilateral decision.

It shouldn't, if there is a law against lead then we can't sell them such products, why would anyone expect it to be otherwise?
 
Running Fox said:
We do not get a 10% discount, we get a 100 billion pound trade deficit. if we applied tariffs that makes us 12 Billion pounds better off. our standards are superior to the EUs so your toy analogy does not make sense. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world its like 16 smaller countries leaving the EU, they need us more than we need them.
Click to expand...
In reality that makes us the 4th biggest as Germany are in the eu. Though you could argue that the EU itself is number 3.

I have never much liked the 'they need us more than we need them' argument. I have always considered that an FTA agreement should be of benefit to both sides, entered into in a climate of understanding and co-operation.

Turning an FTA into a fractious issue is, I think, deliberate on both sides to make it as difficult as possible. Part of the strategy to keep us under control.

A dynamic and competitive UK just off of mainland Europe is what worries the EU, which is why the uk government has gone out of its way to make sure that doesn't happen.
 
Running Fox said:
We do not get a 10% discount, we get a 100 billion pound trade deficit. if we applied tariffs that makes us 12 Billion pounds better off. our standards are superior to the EUs so your toy analogy does not make sense. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world its like 16 smaller countries leaving the EU, they need us more than we need them.
Click to expand...
That old line again.

They really don't need the hassle.
 
They need the Hungarians and Poles that much they will allow them their anti gender views ....for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top