Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

We have exactly the same access to the asset as we always had. If Irish waters were off limits to others, the asset would keep swimming around as we don't have the capacity to catch it.

. We traded at the time unexploited fishing rights in return for EU membership and agricultural subsidies. We failed in our negotiations to join to appreciate the untapped potential. I am not blaming the EU here. We were the mugs and deserved what we got.

I think today, if we were to have those fishing waters returned to Ireland's exclusive use, then we would not be as quick to give it away a second time, because we now realize the value of it, given the amount of fish other countries are able to extract out of it.

So yes I agree with you that we did not fully appreciate what we had at the time, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is what does a country like Scotland do today, knowing the full value of the resource they have to give back in order to regain entry to the EU.

Nody

Bit cynical wrote: »

. We traded at the time unexploited fishing rights in return for EU membership and agricultural subsidies. We failed in our negotiations to join to appreciate the untapped potential. I am not blaming the EU here. We were the mugs and deserved what we got.

I think today, if we were to have those fishing waters returned to Ireland's exclusive use, then we would not be as quick to give it away a second time, because we now realize the value of it, given the amount of fish other countries are able to extract out of it.

Eh no, just no but please for the love of god stop making up BS like this. We can go back to Ireland back in 2005 the fish export was worth €354MM. Now I picked 2005 because this was the peak year for Norway with 435.000 tons (now down to less than a quarter of that) giving Irish share of 31% in the total catch that year in the Irish waters. So that puts the total catch value for 2005 at around 1,142MM EUR . In funding alone that year EU net paid out over €1,400MM to Ireland. That is before you add in the growth in all other sectors that enabled the Irish tiger economy (which was dependent on being part of EU); so even if Ireland somehow would manage to pull up all the fish of all other countries in Irish waters Ireland still netted over 300MM EUR by being part of EU and only catching 31% of the fish and that's before we add in all the other benefits from it with the Irish tiger economy, no trade barriers, funding for road building etc.

So no there is no question about Ireland being robbed or that somehow magically it would have been a bad deal for Ireland; Ireland ripped of EU if anything by netting a ton more money than all the fish pulled up by all the countries was worth and then once you add in the enabling of the tiger economy, rapid growth of technology and manufacturing etc. Ireland has come out way better. So in net; 300MM more cash than all the fish in Irish sea was worth, access and enabled to grow at a rate impossible outside of EU (as they depend on EU funding & access to market in the first place to enable the growth). But you think that Ireland somehow would trade those benefits for the right to all the fish if there was a second vote? Pull the other one it has bells on it.

Bit cynical

Nody wrote: »

We can go back to Ireland back in 2005 the fish export was worth €354MM. Now I picked 2005 because this was the peak year for Norway with 435.000 tons (now down to less than a quarter of that) giving Irish share of 31% in the total catch that year in the Irish waters. So that puts the total catch value for 2005 at around 1,142MM EUR .

Can you explain how you arrived at the 31% figure?

A Dub in Glasgo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Plus the other things like having to reintroduce a hard border with the rump UK in accordance with EU requirements will make rejoining the EU a difficult proposition. Unlike Ireland, which will have to introduce a hard border due to another country's leaving, this will be an active decision on Scotland's part and therefore they will only be able to blame themselves for the consequences.

Whatever arrangement is made for the EU border in Ireland can be mirrored for an EU border in Britain

Bit cynical

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Whatever arrangement is made for the EU border in Ireland can be mirrored for an EU border in Britain

Well we've more or less got to accept what we get from the agreement between the EU and the UK. This could be quite harsh for us particularly if Spain or some other country refuses to sign the deal due to its own territorial ambitions.

However, as I said in my earlier post, Scotland will first join the EEA. This gives them membership of the single market for most of their exports but also allows the freedom to conduct (or retain) a comprehensive free trade deal with the UK, a deal they will no doubt do. But this free trade deal must then be given up when they move from the EEA to the EU proper. If there's no deal or a bad deal between the EU and the UK then this would be quite harsh on an independent Scotland as it would also be on Ireland.

So although I see Scottish independence as overall unlikely to happen, if it does I could easily see Scotland joining the EEA (they would probably say that they have the eventual goal of joining the EU) but leaving it at that. It would be a beneficial compromise for them.

fiachr_a

What happens to future pet poisonous, snake-bite victims who need to get flow to the British mainland for anti-venom as we don't stock this here?

Sand

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well we've more or less got to accept what we get from the agreement between the EU and the UK. This could be quite harsh for us particularly if Spain or some other country refuses to sign the deal due to its own territorial ambitions.

The Spanish veto on Gibraltar is a red herring as far as the UK-EU deal goes. The UK and the EU will sign a trade deal on the EU's terms. That is the decision that most affects Ireland. Spain wont veto that deal.

The second decision is if that trade deal will then be extended to Gibraltar. On that Spain has a veto acknowledged explicitly by the EU. The UK will happily throw 30,000 Gibraltarians under the bus for the sake of 60 million Brits. Its entirely possible there could be a hard border at Gibraltar and a soft border in Northern Ireland, with Spain and Ireland getting to have their cake and eat it and the UK just having to lump it.

The Rape of Lucretia

Sand wrote: »

The Spanish veto on Gibraltar is a red herring as far as the UK-EU deal goes.

Analysts still conclude that the UK could cripple Spain militarily despite the decline in its naval strength in recent years, but hard to see the rest of the EU standing by to let Spain fight a war against the UK surely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/britains-navy-far-weaker-falklands-could-still-cripple-spain/

BoatMad

MY own view is that a situation where the time expires and no deal is agreed is highly probable. Whether a transitional arrangement can be agreed on the 2 year period extended remained too be seen.

The ability of the UK to bungee jump off a cliff ( without a bungee cord ) has now been well demonstrated


I also believe that Sottish independence is unlikely , moire unlikely now then ever before, just too many unknowns and far too easy to scare monger

Sand

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Analysts still conclude that the UK could cripple Spain militarily despite the decline in its naval strength in recent years, but hard to see the rest of the EU standing by to let Spain fight a war against the UK surely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/britains-navy-far-weaker-falklands-could-still-cripple-spain/

That article is hilarious. I know what you do, its a little tiresome, but thanks for the link. It was funny.

steddyeddy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Analysts still conclude that the UK could cripple Spain militarily despite the decline in its naval strength in recent years, but hard to see the rest of the EU standing by to let Spain fight a war against the UK surely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/britains-navy-far-weaker-falklands-could-still-cripple-spain/

Why exactly are they publishing articles like that for? It's the equivalent of Sinn Fein writing an article saying they could still pull off a decent bombing campaign. Provocative beyond belief.

BoatMad

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why exactly are they publishing articles like that for? It's the equivalent of Sinn Fein writing an article saying they could still pull off a decent bombing campaign. Provocative beyond belief.

because there are elements in the UK that which to provoke a huge " them and us" attitude. They know the UK is going to come off badly in all this and what they want are " enemies " to blame.

Sam Russell

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Analysts still conclude that the UK could cripple Spain militarily despite the decline in its naval strength in recent years, but hard to see the rest of the EU standing by to let Spain fight a war against the UK surely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/britains-navy-far-weaker-falklands-could-still-cripple-spain/

Of course, If France, Italy and Germany joined in, it could of course defeat them all. Maybe it would take Holland, Belgium and Poland to join in before they could be defeated. Oh, I see the date on that April 1st.

Trade sanctions - that is what would be used if there was a fight, not military might.

steddyeddy

BoatMad wrote: »

because there are elements in the UK that which to provoke a huge " them and us" attitude. They know the UK is going to come off badly in all this and what they want are " enemies " to blame.

These are the people they'll be negotiating with over the next two years.

murphaph

BoatMad wrote: »

MY own view is that a situation where the time expires and no deal is agreed is highly probable. Whether a transitional arrangement can be agreed on the 2 year period extended remained too be seen.

The ability of the UK to bungee jump off a cliff ( without a bungee cord ) has now been well demonstrated


I also believe that Sottish independence is unlikely , moire unlikely now then ever before, just too many unknowns and far too easy to scare monger

Agreed. I think overall Brexit brings the break up of the UK closer, but not right now because there are just too many unknowns.The Scots I believe if voting tomorrow would stay in the UK, but in 5 years time in a UK outside the EU and not doing quite as well as team Leave predicted.....(but only if they have a cast iron guarantee from the EU that they can join immediately upon leaving the UK as whatever chance the UK has trading with the world on WTO terms, Scotland would be decimated if it had to.

If we are being "pragmatic" (perhaps selfish) then it is not really in our interests for a small English speaking nation, better connected to bigger markets (even England outside the EU will be a big enough market) and closer to the continent by air and sea to establish itself within the EU. Scotland would have a large debt to GDP ratio and would rapidly have to adopt policies near enough identical to Ireland to kickstart their economy to be able to borrow on the money markets. It's also likely we'd fair poorly against Edinburgh in the fight for finance jobs as I believe any London based bank would prefer its passporting done through Edinburgh than Dublin and Edinburgh has a long history of financial services.

Scotland also has a rich industrial heritage and still has (some) heavy industries that are more or less completely absent in Ireland.

Nody

Bit cynical wrote: »

Can you explain how you arrived at the 31% figure?

The Irish catch peaked at 407,000 tonnes in 1995 which gave Ireland a 59% share; Norway peaked at 459,000 tonnes in 2005 giving Ireland a 31% share and in 2010 Ireland had a 60% share with at 260,000 tonnes and Norway was down to 135,000.

Quote taken from here.

Bit cynical

Nody wrote: »

Quote taken from here.

Thank you. I think this is an example where we should be suspicious of bloggers who don't post sources of data.

I think I have found where the finfacts guy got his data.

http://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/eez/372?chart=catch-chart&dimension=country&measure=tonnage&limit=10

It is a good chart but if we look at the latest figures from 2014 we see that Ireland only caught 18 percent of the total catch in that year.

Here are the full figures from 2014.

Norway 163,806.0 24.78%
United Kingdom 157,579.4 23.84%
Ireland 123,900.2 18.74%
Netherlands 49,744.0 7.53%
France 47,543.4 7.19%
Germany 30,765.1 4.65%
Denmark 28,830.9 4.36%
Spain 27,015.3 4.09%
Russian Federation 24,784.2 3.75%
Faeroe Isl. (Denmark) 6,946.1 1.05%
Lithuania 67.9 0.01%
Greenland 23.8 0.00%
Portugal 4.0 0.00%



We see that Ireland has only 18% of the total catch from its former fishing water.

What the guy seems to have done is pick the one year when Ireland's catch as a percentage of tonnage was highest and used that as the basis of his argument. Plus he has thrown in a lot of anti-Irish nonsense and conjecture.

But the other thing is that the argument isn't even about Ireland; it is about Scotland and the political impact of handing back fishing waters in order to join the EU. Nothing to do with what pertained in 1973 or what politicians could get away with back then.

Lemming

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Analysts still conclude that the UK could cripple Spain militarily despite the decline in its naval strength in recent years, but hard to see the rest of the EU standing by to let Spain fight a war against the UK surely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/02/britains-navy-far-weaker-falklands-could-still-cripple-spain/

Or indeed .. y'know ... the rest of NATO given that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

But as Sand said, hillarious reading material.

BlitzKrieg

Bit cynical wrote: »

Thank you. I think this is an example where we should be suspicious of bloggers who don't post sources of data.

he did post the source of his data, its linked directly below the chart on the linked blog

What the guy seems to have done is pick the one year when Ireland's catch as a percentage of tonnage was highest and used that as the basis of his argument. Plus he has thrown in a lot of anti-Irish nonsense and conjecture.

No he stated clearly he picked the year that Norway's percentage was at its peak.

A simple look at the chart that even you linked showed that 2005 was not a peak year for Ireland

ireland had better years then 2005 between 1993 - 2001

and a better year then 2005 in 2010

perhaps if there is anything to read from this is that post 2010 the decline in irish fishing numbers is directly in contrast to a sudden massive rise in fishing from the UK in irish waters.

demfad

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/02/arron-banks-interview-brexit-ukip-far-right-trump-putin-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

This was bound to start coming out sooner or later on established media.
Russia interfered extensively with the US election (probably involving treason with the current administration). Russia known to have interfered in Eastern European elections (several of them). Russia is reported as interfering in French and German elections. But Russia left a golden opportunity to destabilise EU/Nato like the Brexit vote alone? Highly Unlikely.

Key players involved in US election and Brexit are Steve Bannon, Robert Mercer, Nigel Farage. Bannon and Mercer know Farage and UKIP well.
Bannon, Mercer majorly and Farage minorly involved in Frexit.
Mercer owns 50% Breitbart news and owns part of Cambridge Analytica.

Bannon was CEO of Breitbart, and Director of CA from its very dodgy early days when it stole its OCEAN model and was founded in 2014.

Back to the article:

And moments into my first question, about Trump, he has segued. “We had no Russian money into Brexit,” he says. “I’ve had two very nice lunches with the Russian ambassador, where Andy and I got completely pissed. And that’s it. Why wouldn’t you? Why wouldn’t I go and have lunch with him? We’d met diplomats and all sorts of different people. Not a single penny of Russian money has been put into Brexit.”....
“They called me a Russian actor! And I’ve got no feelings one way or another other than having a Russian wife. I felt that was just wrong. They said that Brexit was funded by the Russians. That’s a bit rich.”...
...
He’s free to donate, even though nobody knows quite where the £7m he put into the Leave campaign came from, or the millions he put into Ukip: his financial arrangements include a complex structure of companies based in secretive low-tax jurisdictions. Even Leave.EU was set up by an offshore company. It’s the offshoot of STM Fidecs, which the Observer reported was incorporated in Gibraltar.......
Wigmore has family links to Belize, and he was that country’s trade envoy to the UK until January, when the foreign office stripped him of his diplomatic status because of his political activity. And Banks lost his status too: he was Belize’s special envoy to Wales....
“Did you know Paul Manafort [Trump’s ex-campaign manager] is accused of laundering Russian money through Belize?”

The weakness is potentially Farage. His connections to Trump and Mercer go back many years. The US investigations should be concluded in 6-8 months.
If there is a massive scandal (distinct possibility) then it will spill over to Brexit. There may be an opportunity for a second referendum if firm evidence was forthcoming from the US investigation or elsewhere.

Sam Russell

Brings new meaning to 'being Bank-rolled', doesn't it?

Beyondgone

Did Brentry generate this amount of posts? I wasn't on Boards in 1961. Them fickle Brits and their "trying an idea for 56 years.." then leaving.. Huh. Pack of flakes.

56 years of going downhill.

Brexit won't fix that either. Sadly.

prinzeugen

Lemming wrote: »

Or indeed .. y'know ... the rest of NATO given that an attack on one member is an attack on all.

But as Sand said, hillarious reading material.

Being NATO members didn't stop Turkey and Greece shooting down each others planes in the past.

There is still a regular problem with French military aircraft entering British airspace without filing flight plans.

HalloweenJack

Gibraltar are looking the wrong way with their focus on Spain's influence in the decision-making process.

Gibraltar having a an EU country on its borders is a godsend. Had it been an isolated island, it would have had much more trouble.

Because of its location, thousands of EU citizens move to the area around Gibrlatar on the Spanish side of the border and live there. They pay their rent, their bills, everything in Spain, except for their income tax which goes to Gibraltar because that's where their jobs are. Living in Gibraltar is ridculously expensive so they do it in Spain. Gibraltar's location is mutually beneifcial for Gibraltar and the local economy of the border area (which is in one of the poorest provinces of Spain). Gibraltar losing its EU status will cause it a lot of problems, hence why they voted overwhelmingly to stay.

However, on the whole, Spain is a lot more important to Gibraltar than vice versa. Spain would be perfectly happy to seal off Gibraltar and leave them to their own devices. Gibraltar without Spain is just a tiny island in the Mediterranen.

While blocking off Gibraltar would be very damaging for the local economy in that part of Spain, it wouldn't surprise me to see this particular Spanish government do it. They've taken Catalan politicians to court because of the ceremonial referendum they organised, they have no interest in discussing Catalan independence, they recently pulled out of a pretty big strike resolution, this is a government that has no interest in negotiating viewpoints they don't agree with.

Gibraltar thrives because of its location and EU status. Take that away and they'll go back to depending on the UK. I don't think either of the two realise how difficult that will be.

First Up

HalloweenJack wrote:

While blocking off Gibraltar would be very damaging for the local economy in that part of Spain, it wouldn't surprise me to see this particular Spanish government do it.

They won't "block it off" but the imposition of full EU border controls will make the place almost unworkable.

It is bad enough at the moment with just Schengen passport checks taking about 2 hours. Throw in customs checks as well and you could be talking 5-6 hour queues.

HalloweenJack

Exactly. Spain can make things really tough for Gibraltar purely out of spite (don't put it past them) and Brexit will give them more tools to do so.

First Up

HalloweenJack wrote:

Exactly. Spain can make things really tough for Gibraltar purely out of spite (don't put it past them) and Brexit will give them more tools to do so.

Not even an "excuse". Just the administration of the EU's external border.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Not even an "excuse". Just the administration of the EU's external border.

This.

Gibraltar was an economic basket case until the UK and Spain both found themselves in the EU. It was basically a military/naval base with a civilian population hanging off it. It had negligible economic activity and it survived on substantial transfer payments from the UK. It was a dependent colony in every sense of the world.

That started to change with common EU membership on both sides of the border - helped along by the fact that "normalising" the border was one of the quid-pro-quos of Spanish admission. By the mid-90s, Gibraltar was self-sufficient economically. The advent of the single market in the late 1990s reduces the impact of the border even more.

Is it any wonder they votedc 96% to remain?

If the UK's expected hard-ish Brexit terms apply to Gibraltar, it will be a disaster for Gibraltar. Everybody knows this. Basically, it'll back to the 70s.

Therefore it's expected that the UK will seek special terms for Gibraltar, involving closer association with the EU than the UK will seek for itself. The British haven't said anything about this yet, but the EU clearly expects it, which is why they make a point of covering it in their draft negotiating position. Basically they are signally to the UK that if they want a special deal for Gibraltar, they're going to have to talk to Spain, since Spain is the country that will be most affected by any deal.

This is the flip side of what happened when Spain entered the EU; normalisation of the Gibraltarian border was included in the deal to suit the UK. As the EU looked after its members with particular interests in 1986, so it will look after its members with particular interests in 2017. The UK benefited from that in 1986, as it was already an EU member. They are not going to benefit from it in 2017, but it would be churlish to resent that. One of the consequences of surrendering the benefits of EU membership is that you don't have the benefits of EU membership.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

One of the consequences of surrendering the benefits of EU membership is that you don't have the benefits of EU membership.

Indeed.

joeysoap

Could the U.K. insist that whatever border we get with NI should apply to Gibraltar? In other words drag us in to conflict with Spain on hard/soft border controls.