Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I have no idea how all this will pan out but I suspect it`s going to be one of two scenarios,either a lot of brexiteers who thought the UK was taking back control are in for a big shock or alternatively the EU are in for a very big shock!

The EU have more to lose than the UK though. Not only will giving in to the UK cost them in terms of future trade, it will lead to a direct renegotiation of nearly all their current trade deals and put them under massive pressure from the likes of China and USA to give in to them, knowing that they can be bullied.

And all that before we get to the very survival of the EU itself. Why would other countries stay tied to the EU when they can leave and get what they want? Germany for example, You will have even more calls for them to leave the EU to get away from the likes of Greece etc that are dragging them down.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fishing is worth roughly twopence. The EU should just give it all to England and shut them up, really, who cares.

In trade amounts yeah, but as a political point it is big to many countries. Why would the EU give away a potential headache for years to come? And for what?

ArthurDayne

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree that the UK should maintain EU standards but this should be by mutual agreement,as should any agreement on fishing and as I said,why should the UK have to obtain agreement with the EU over how it manages it`s fishing territory as said in the comparison document?

Yes but what would the ‘mutual agreement’ say? It would have to have binding terms, or there’s no point in having any sort of agreement at all. So a ‘mutual agreement’ on standards would still essentially be the very same thing that the EU is asking for — i.e. that the UK bind itself to terms that uphold a level playing field. Whatever term one uses to describe the agreement, the fact remains that if it isn’t binding then it’s pointless.

I think Leroy has come back on the fishing point.

54and56

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fishing is worth roughly twopence. The EU should just give it all to England and shut them up, really, who cares.

The EU is not just an economic union, it is also a political union. Fishing rights go back centuries via lots of precedent and treaties etc. Its a small sector in terms of trade bits it's very important to a small number of people in coastal communities. The EU will fight to maintain access and will be successful in doing so by holding back UK access to an equally big or even larger market unless they get an acceptable level of access to waters around the UK.

Market access works both ways!!

Capt'n Midnight

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fishing is worth roughly twopence. The EU should just give it all to England and shut them up, really, who cares.

It's a bargaining chip and for political reasons the UK has to be seen to make noises about it.

There are very few UK nationals involved in fishing. A lot of the catch is by largely foreign owned , foreign crewed boats landing in foreign ports - that is something the UK should control but don't.

And besides the fish is destined for foreign markets so EU tariffs would mean no exports and UK waters become a nursery for EU waters because fish don't have blue passports.


Besides there are fishing treaties that predate the EU allowing six countries access to UK waters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_Convention CBA looking for the reference for the low countries town that was granted rights to fish forever by the King Of England himself a very long time ago.


https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/

in England nearly 80% of fishing quota is held by foreign owners or domestic Rich List families,

ArmaniJeanss

Does it matter who currently owns the quotas if the UK withdraws from the system?
I'd have thought the quotas would then be null and void, and the owners have a worthless bit of paper.

sondagefaux

RobMc59 wrote: »

That`s a useful comparison document.There are many differing views on various things and the EU wanting to treat the UK differently from other countries they have trade agreements with stands out and will be a point of contention imo.
Also,for me the EU position on Gibraltar seems high handed as until the brexit vote the EU were`nt interested, personally I don`t think it`s any of their business.
The EU approach to UK fishing territory also appears high handed ,why should the UK have to seek consent from the EU regarding UK fishing territory?
There was a report from Holland yesterday evening speaking to Dutch fishermen who are very worried about continued access to UK waters-this could well be the UK`s major bargaining chip.

High-handed? So what? This is how international trade negotiations work: the larger party gets far more of what it wants than the smaller party. Whinging about it gets you nowhere.

On the first point, the UK is being offered a much greater level of access than the EU has ever offered any country that is outside the Single Market. Not one country with a free trade agreement with the EU has zero quotas and zero tariffs, which is what the UK wants and which the EU is prepared to grant on its terms.

The idea that the EU is offering the UK a free trade deal similar to the one it has with Canada is simply not true.

In sensitive sectors, Canada can only send a certain amount (a quota) of goods to the EU tariff-free. Any goods over the quota face import tariffs.

The UK is being offered zero quotas and zero tariffs, so it could send unlimited quantities of goods in any sector to the EU and none of them would face tariffs.

If the UK wants this, it has to agree to ensure that the fundamental way goods are produced, in terms of labour standards and environmental standards, are not diminished from the current standards the EU Iand thus the UK) uses so that the UK doesn't gain an unfair advantage.

Spain sees the Treaty of Utrecht as an unfair treaty, imposed down the barrel of a gun. Spain has wanted at least joint sovereignty over Gibraltar for decades.

It had to swallow the border as it is now to be allowed into the then EEC, because the UK would have vetoed Spain's application to join if it hadn't.

Was it high-handed of the UK to threaten to veto Spain's membership of the then EEC if it didn't accept that Gibraltar was solely British?

Spain is a member of the EU. As we've seen with Ireland's land border with the UK, and Gibraltars's border with Spain, when it comes to problems with borders between an EU state and a non-EU state, the EU is obviously going to side with one of its members.

The EU said from the outset that Gibraltar would not be part of any free trade agreement between the EU and the UK unless Spain consented. This isn't news.

For all its importance in the media, fishing in most EU countries is a tiny sphere of economic activity, likewise in the UK.

Far more people lost jobs from retail chains closing in the UK last year than work in the entire UK fishing sector.

Even if the fishing sector was a major employer, the fact remains that most of the fish caught in British waters is sold to the EU. If the British want to sell this fish to the EU on favourable terms, they need to allow access to their fishing waters to EU vessels.

Every time Norway has asked for more access to EU markets, it's had to offer more access to EU vessels. And Norway is in the Single Market...

sondagefaux

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree that the UK should maintain EU standards but this should be by mutual agreement,as should any agreement on fishing and as I said,why should the UK have to obtain agreement with the EU over how it manages it`s fishing territory as said in the comparison document?

Obviously it's going to be achieved by mutual agreement. The EU has set out proposals, not diktats.

If the UK doesn't like them, it can walk away and trade with the EU on near WTO-only terms, or an 'Australia deal' as the UK government is trying to rebrand them.

'Australia deal' sound so much better than 'no deal' to the average punter.

sondagefaux

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When I let go of this brick I'm holding, it will either fall to the ground or shoot off into space!

Speaking of dropping like a brick:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/markets/british-pound-the-worst-performing-major-currency-since-the-uk-left-the-eu-1.4161341

reslfj

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Does it matter who currently owns the quotas if the UK withdraws from the system?
I'd have thought the quotas would then be null and void, and the owners have a worthless bit of paper.

Allowing trading in UK quotas is 100% a UK decision and the trade-able quota 'contracts' follow UK law and UK court rulings.

The total quotas in EU/UK waters are managed under an UN treaty - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 - and more specifically - 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement - which calls for the total catch of fish to be (biological-) sustainable.
The maximum total catch was in 2019 limited for 53 stocks - iirc.

Countries which share stocks must agree on how the total allowed catch is divided and on other rules for how, when, where etc. fishing is allowed.

The CFP is the framework for such yearly negotiations within the EU and other countries. Norway has e.g. negotiated yearly with the EU for the waters up to well north of Bergen.

The EU27 will allow another name for the CFP - but the UK will also in the future have to follow the CFP. (read the EU Brexit negotiating proposed mandate).

Lars

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm

sondagefaux

reslfj wrote: »

Allowing trading in UK quotas is 100% a UK decision and the trade-able quota 'contracts' follow UK law and UK court rulings.

The total quotas in EU/UK waters are managed under an UN treaty - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 - and more specifically - 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement - which calls for the total catch of fish to be (biological-) sustainable.
The maximum total catch was in 2019 limited for 53 stock - iirc.

Countries which share stocks must agree on how the total allowed catch is divided and on other rules for how, when, where etc. fishing is allowed.

The CFP is the framework for such yearly negotiations within the EU and other countries. Norway has e.g. negotiated yearly with the EU for the waters up to well north of Bergen.

The EU27 will allow another name for the CFP - but the UK will also in the future have to follow the CFP. (read the EU Brexit negotiating proposed mandate).

Lars

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm

I've often wondered to myself why the Brexiteers don't push for the UK to withdraw from UNCLOS if they're so concerned about sovereignty...

Then I realised it doesn't contain the words 'Europe' or 'European'.

I reckon we could sign the Brits up to anything, handing over their first born even, as long as those words are left out.

Strazdas

sondagefaux wrote: »

I've often wondered to myself why the Brexiteers don't push for the UK to withdraw from UNCLOS if they're so concerned about sovereignty...

Then I realised it doesn't contain the words 'Europe' or 'European'.

I reckon we could sign the Brits up to anything, handing over their first born even, as long as those words are left out.

Their opposition to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is absolutely bonkers.

International law needs an independent court of arbitration, otherwise the laws immediately become ungovernable and unimplementable. Who else would oversee EU law but a European court drawn from the member states? These Brexit guys are nuts.

sondagefaux

No chance of working for Easyjet as cabin crew unless you have the right to live and work in the EU/EEA (or Switzerland) without restriction and hold a European passport that allows you to travel freely within the EEA.

Aka, no Brits need apply.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

That`s a useful comparison document.There are many differing views on various things and the EU wanting to treat the UK differently from other countries they have trade agreements with stands out and will be a point of contention imo.

All of the EU's trade agreements are different, because they are made with different countries. Obviously in making a trade deal with the UK the EU will want to address issues that are relevant to the UK relationship but not relevant to, say, the Canada relationship.

And when the UK finally gets around to doing some serious thinking about the trade deals it wants with others, it will find that it, too, will target different deals with different countries. The fact that Brexiter commentators are whingeing about the EU looking for different things from the UK than it looks for from other countries just illustrates how little thinking about UK trade policy has been done by these pretend advocates of an independent UK trade policy.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Also,for me the EU position on Gibraltar seems high handed as until the brexit vote the EU were`nt interested, personally I don`t think it`s any of their business.

That's absurd. The EU were famously interested in Gibraltar when the UK was a member and Spain was seeking to join; they wouldn't progress the Spanish application until Spain entered into the agreement the UK wanted to normalise the Gibraltar border, and Gibraltar benefitted hugely from that. I didn't see anyone in the UK complaining then that the EU should mind its own business.

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU approach to UK fishing territory also appears high handed ,why should the UK have to seek consent from the EU regarding UK fishing territory?

1. Because they need to reach agreement with the EU to manage fishing stocks in the North Sea.

2. Because they want to sell the fish they catch in UK waters into EU markets. The UK fishing industry exports 80% of its catch, because it is of species that UK consumers are reluctant to eat. Saithe and chips, anyone?

RobMc59 wrote: »

There was a report from Holland yesterday evening speaking to Dutch fishermen who are very worried about continued access to UK waters-this could well be the UK`s major bargaining chip.

If this is the UK's "major bargaining chip", it's a sad reflection on all their other bargaining chips, because this is a pretty dismal one. Brexiters should not assume that their curious obsession with fish, constructed on the twin foundations of complete ignorance of the realities of the fishing industry and complete ignorance of the economic signficance of the fishing industry, is shared by the rest of the world. It really isn't.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

The EU have more to lose than the UK though. Not only will giving in to the UK cost them in terms of future trade, it will lead to a direct renegotiation of nearly all their current trade deals and put them under massive pressure from the likes of China and USA to give in to them, knowing that they can be bullied.

And all that before we get to the very survival of the EU itself. Why would other countries stay tied to the EU when they can leave and get what they want? Germany for example, You will have even more calls for them to leave the EU to get away from the likes of Greece etc that are dragging them down.

You are correct but that is something the brexiteers seem unable to grasp.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of the EU's trade agreements are different, because they are made with different countries. Obviously in making a trade deal with the UK the EU will want to address issues that are relevant to the UK relationship but not relevant to, say, the Canada relationship.

And when the UK finally gets around to doing some serious thinking about the trade deals it wants with others, it will find that it, too, will target different deals with different countries. The fact that Brexiter commentators are whingeing about the EU looking for different things from the UK than it looks for from other countries just illustrates how little thinking about UK trade policy has been done by these pretend advocates of an independent UK trade policy.


That's absurd. The EU were famously interested in Gibraltar when the UK was a member and Spain was seeking to join; they wouldn't progress the Spanish application until Spain entered into the agreement the UK wanted to normalise the Gibraltar border, and Gibraltar benefitted hugely from that. I didn't see anyone in the UK complaining then that the EU should mind its own business.


1. Because they need to reach agreement with the EU to manage fishing stocks in the North Sea.

2. Because they want to sell the fish they catch in UK waters into EU markets. The UK fishing industry exports 80% of its catch, because it is of species that UK consumers are reluctant to eat. Saithe and chips, anyone?


If this is the UK's "major bargaining chip", it's a sad reflection on all their other bargaining chips, because this is a pretty dismal one. Brexiters should not assume that their curious obsession with fish, constructed on the twin foundations of complete ignorance of the realities of the fishing industry and complete ignorance of the economic signficance of the fishing industry, is shared by the rest of the world. It really isn't.

I would say I'm pro EU but I'm alarmed by the apparent rhetoric coming out of Brussels in regards to what the EU wants from negotiations. I believe it fuels jingoism and anti EU sentiment which is manna from heaven to right wing UK politicians and the hawkish US who along with Russia, want the EU to implode.
Regarding the fishing rights,it's not just about selling fish its also about people's livelihoods,ie:the fishermen of many nations who rely on fishing in UK- it's a major bargaining chip imo.

RobMc59

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Yes but what would the ‘mutual agreement’ say? It would have to have binding terms, or there’s no point in having any sort of agreement at all. So a ‘mutual agreement’ on standards would still essentially be the very same thing that the EU is asking for — i.e. that the UK bind itself to terms that uphold a level playing field. Whatever term one uses to describe the agreement, the fact remains that if it isn’t binding then it’s pointless.

I think Leroy has come back on the fishing point.

I totally agree that the UK should enter a binding agreement to uphold EU standards and I'm disappointed that the UK government appears unwilling to agree to this .

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I would say I'm pro EU but I'm alarmed by the apparent rhetoric coming out of Brussels in regards to what the EU wants from negotiations. I believe it fuels jingoism and anti EU sentiment which is manna from heaven to right wing UK politicians and the hawkish US who along with Russia, want the EU to implode.

I think possibly your understanding of the "apparent rhetoric" from Brussels is shaped by the fact that it's being reported to you through the UK. "You need to abide by our rules to operate on our markets" is not a fundamentally unreasonable position. It's certainly not an aggressive one.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Regarding the fishing rights,it's not just about selling fish its also about people's livelihoods,ie:the fishermen of many nations who rely on fishing in UK- it's a major bargaining chip imo.

I don't think it's a major bargaining chip, for two reasons. First, "the fishermen of many nations who rely on fising in UK waters" is actually a pretty small group; why would the EU be more concerned to protect the interests of North Sea fishermen than, say auto workers, when there are far more auto workers? Secondly, even taking the concerns of EU fishermen to be weighty, they are balanced by the concerns of UK fishermen (which presumably carry at least similar weight with the UK government). If there is no deal UK fishermen will be locked out from their markets, which will be a disaster for them.

Bear in mind that, even before the UK joined the EU, foreign fishermen had access to UK waters and vice versa. This notion that, but for the EU, UK fishermen would have sole rights in UK waters is just a Brexiter fantasy. It's not a point that will be taken seriously - or, I think, even mentioned - in the UK/EU trade deal negotiations.

brickster69

RobMc59 wrote: »

I would say I'm pro EU but I'm alarmed by the apparent rhetoric coming out of Brussels in regards to what the EU wants from negotiations. I believe it fuels jingoism and anti EU sentiment which is manna from heaven to right wing UK politicians and the hawkish US who along with Russia, want the EU to implode.
Regarding the fishing rights,it's not just about selling fish its also about people's livelihoods,ie:the fishermen of many nations who rely on fishing in UK- it's a major bargaining chip imo.

RobMc,

It is not just the fishermen. The EU fish processing industry is big. It employs 130,000 people and generates 39 billion / year.

Gerry T

brickster69 wrote: »

RobMc,

It is not just the fishermen. The EU fish processing industry is big. It employs 130,000 people and generates 39 billion / year.

And what percentage of that comes from UK waters

roots2branches

RobMc59 wrote: »

I totally agree that the UK should enter a binding agreement to uphold EU standards and I'm disappointed that the UK government appears unwilling to agree to this .

Then the EU should agree to uphold UK standards, many of which are actually higher than EU standards such as workers rights and animal welfare.

roots2branches

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Who cares, they are out. Would you pay attention to what for example Russian (even more messed up media than UK ) media say about Europe?it seems it has not sank to people that UK are out and in a very weak position.

I am all for EU grabbing them by the privates

I find this attitude odd in Ireland. Let's suck it to the Brits, how dare they leave!
Bad attitude to take to our biggest trading partner. Leo talks the hard talk but we all know when he gets booted out of office he'll be heading to the EU gravy train leaving Ireland in a worse position.

First Up

roots2branches wrote:

Then the EU should agree to uphold UK standards, many of which are actually higher than EU standards such as workers rights and animal welfare.

Its about technical standards and its not about being higher or lower - its about being the same.

Goods going through integrated supply chains have to be trusted - components, ingredients, performance etc. If they are of EU origin they can be trusted because all EU countries monitor and enforce the same standards.

If they are if non- EU origin they have to be checked for and be able to prove compliance. It complicates doing business and it slows down border procedures.

brickster69

Gerry T wrote: »

And what percentage of that comes from UK waters

12% i think on average.

GhostofKNugget

RobMc59 wrote: »

Regarding the fishing rights,it's not just about selling fish its also about people's livelihoods,ie:the fishermen of many nations who rely on fishing in UK- it's a major bargaining chip imo.

If you're talking about the livelihoods of fishermen, you are talking about minuscule numbers. Spain has almost a quarter of all employment in the fishing sector in the EU which works out as roughly 53,000 people - roughly 0.172% of the working age population in Spain.

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/facts_figures_en?qt-facts_and_figures=3


Fisheries account for 0.12% of the British economy. Trying to use fishing rights as a bargaining chip is going to be a pointless endeavour and is just going to more than likely destroy any fishing industry there is in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/31/myth-brexit-bonanza-uk-fishing-exposed-no-deal

Xertz

roots2branches wrote: »

I find this attitude odd in Ireland. Let's suck it to the Brits, how dare they leave!
Bad attitude to take to our biggest trading partner. Leo talks the hard talk but we all know when he gets booted out of office he'll be heading to the EU gravy train leaving Ireland in a worse position.

To be honest the Irish official attitude and most of the public has been more about pragmatic solution finding. A few people online have gone off on rants and that’s about it.

From an Irish perspective the UK has endangered a very hard won and delicate peace agreement in Northern Ireland, undermined our economic stability, made open threats to us for absolutely no reason : Eg Patel suggesting causing food shortages etc etc

All in all I think Ireland’s been quite tolerant and level headed. We know there’s a relationship to maintain and we know rang the geography doesn’t change just because the politics has.

Also a lot of the alleged rhetoric coming from Brussels or Dublin seems to be largely coming from British tabloids reading stuff into relatively bland statements and finding anything to direct rage at.

Zubeneschamali

roots2branches wrote: »

Leo talks the hard talk but we all know when he gets booted out of office he'll be heading to the EU gravy train leaving Ireland in a worse position.

Somewhat off topic, but people said this for years about Enda, that he was being a good European to butter up his betters in Brussels so he could ride the EU faceless bureaucrat gravy train later.

Completely baseless.

ambro25

roots2branches wrote: »

Then the EU should agree to uphold UK standards, many of which are actually higher than EU standards such as workers rights and animal welfare.

What happens if and when the UK standards should diverge downards, then?

The EU standards are a baseline, under which no Member State can operate or fall. Member States are entirely free to enact and uphold higher standards as a matter of national policies, for competitive advantage and/or socio-ecolo-economic betterment.

The UK's higher standards in certain respects, are to its credit. So why won't it now undertake to continue to uphold at least these EU lower standards (like it has done for decades already)?

newport2

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think possibly your understanding of the "apparent rhetoric" from Brussels is shaped by the fact that it's being reported to you through the UK. "You need to abide by our rules to operate on our markets" is not a fundamentally unreasonable position. It's certainly not an aggressive one.

And it's a position that will by taken by any of the 3 main trading blocks with any country they are making a deal with.

The talk in the UK media about them not being "rule-takers" is just rubbish. Any single country who wants a deal with the EU, the US or China will be a rule-taker, end of story. Nothing to do with the UK or Brexit.

MrMusician18

RobMc59 wrote: »

I would say I'm pro EU but I'm alarmed by the apparent rhetoric coming out of Brussels in regards to what the EU wants from negotiations. I believe it fuels jingoism and anti EU sentiment which is manna from heaven to right wing UK politicians and the hawkish US who along with Russia, want the EU to implode.
Regarding the fishing rights,it's not just about selling fish its also about people's livelihoods,ie:the fishermen of many nations who rely on fishing in UK- it's a major bargaining chip imo.

To be honest, it doesn't matter what the media in the UK thinks now. It was only dangerous when such rhetoric undermined the union from within or when it threatened the UKs position within the union.

Not that the eurosceptic position has won out, the UK will not be rejoining any time soon (and in my honest opinion, ever). That makes the internal politics and environment in the UK less relevant than ever.

I'd the Sun wants to shit all over the Commission, let them. They are not important anymore.