Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

breezy1985

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

You do wonder why it took both sides over four years to get around to discussing Total Allowable Catches:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1334163771426791434.html

Let's not blame both sides here

trellheim

TAC and quota negotiation has been ongoing in all coastal states all the time of which the UK was a member up until recently ; this is something that the relevant departments on all sides know very well indeed ; all that is happening is moving it to a wider stage.

20silkcut

Roanmore wrote: »

When I heard the vaccine was approved I turned to my wife and said I bet they will use this to boost Brexit.

Everything is brexit related from the vaccine strategy to the bonkers herd immunity strategy to the denial of the pat finnucane enquiry.
This British government operates everything through the prism of brexit at this moment in time.

CelticRambler

ambro25 wrote: »

This is geopolitical optics, not domestic (British) political optics.

The EU27 absolutely cannot be perceived, as having given in to the GFA-imperiling IMB from the UK.

<snip>

FWIW, I think it's wasted. Johnson is under orders to deliver no deal, and that is exactly where he is still going. He'll then do a Cameron early next year, before the pile-on gets even primed. Gove, Sunak or another can then carry the can for 'doing it all wrong' after Johnson successfully freed the UK from the EU shackles. You just watch.

Although, in general, I have supported the EU's "keep a lid on it" diplomatic approach to the UK's antics throughout this sorry saga, I do think it would be optically useful for the EU now to issue a series of "public service announcements" ostensibly targeted at our (EU) domestic audience, but naturally delivered in English, outlining to businesses and residents across the Union what they can and cannot expect (or ask) of their British customers, suppliers, family and friends in the context of their new status as a third country with (at the time of speaking) no trade agreement in place.

Substituting "Mongolia" or "North Korea" for "Australia" in the terminology - perhaps with a new-and-improved Staircase slide - would help to reclaim the silly nonsense narrative from the likes of Downing Street and the Daily Mail, while also making sure that the British electorate were in no doubt as to (a) what a No Deal Brexit really looks like; and (b) who is responsible for leading the country into such a sorry state of affairs. It would, of course, also be a deliberate challenge to the moderates in the HoC to reach into their trousers and find some balls. They almost managed to give Johnson a good wallop last night - it'd do him good to re-live the lame-duckness that characterised the end of the last Parliament instead of being allowed to slink off.

Thargor

Just heard an Express journalist at the Downing Street covid briefing ask if the reason the UK had approved the vaccine before any EU country was because of Brexit and was it a clear example of a 'Brexit bonus' :rolleyes:

Igotadose

Thargor wrote: »

Just heard an Express journalist at the Downing Street covid briefing ask if the reason the UK had approved the vaccine before any EU country was because of Brexit and was it a clear example of a 'Brexit bonus' :rolleyes:

That showed up on the 'feck off already' Brexit thread.

dogbert27

Thargor wrote: »

Just heard an Express journalist at the Downing Street covid briefing ask if the reason the UK had approved the vaccine before any EU country was because of Brexit and was it a clear example of a 'Brexit bonus' :rolleyes:

"The FDA might not have approved it yet but we have meaning Britain is leading the woooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllllllllllllllllddddddddddddddddddddddddd!!!!!!!!"

Or an example of lowering standards to rush through a perceived political win, much like the rest of Brexit and what the UK has to look forward too.

ambro25

CelticRambler wrote: »

Although, in general, I have supported the EU's "keep a lid on it" diplomatic approach to the UK's antics throughout this sorry saga, I do think it would be optically useful for the EU now to issue a series of "public service announcements" ostensibly targeted at our (EU) domestic audience, but naturally delivered in English, outlining to businesses and residents across the Union what they can and cannot expect (or ask) of their British customers, suppliers, family and friends in the context of their new status as a third country with (at the time of speaking) no trade agreement in place.

Substituting "Mongolia" or "North Korea" for "Australia" in the terminology - perhaps with a new-and-improved Staircase slide - would help to reclaim the silly nonsense narrative from the likes of Downing Street and the Daily Mail, while also making sure that the British electorate were in no doubt as to (a) what a No Deal Brexit really looks like; and (b) who is responsible for leading the country into such a sorry state of affairs. It would, of course, also be a deliberate challenge to the moderates in the HoC to reach into their trousers and find some balls. They almost managed to give Johnson a good wallop last night - it'd do him good to re-live the lame-duckness that characterised the end of the last Parliament instead of being allowed to slink

I appreciate your viewpoint, but I <still> disagree.

The EU has issued plenty of detailed, factual and referenced preparation notices, and updated them on every new no-deal cliff edge.

So that work is done, and there is no point in re-doing it, not only because drawing attention to these notices would give Leavers and Brit MSM a fresh impetus to gin up still more false outrage at the EU 'dictating to the UK', but precisely because -in political terms as regards the UK- after 4.something years (count them - I have), these notices have proven as useful as tits on a bull.

Exhibit A: *some* UK businesses finding *outlines* of *a* ball, some 30 days away from *the* cliff edge to end all cliff edges.

Let the UK and its politicians -the headbangers, the hand wringers and the procrastinators alike- eat their self-ordered, self-made, self-served triple-decker **** sandwich, and every single time they should howl or cry at the EU for the mounting consequences of their sovereign choices, point them to the said notices, their issue dates and their successive revision dates.

Eventually it should sink in.

The EU has been the adult in the room, it has tried reason, it has tried understanding, it has tried just about every variation you should expect from the adult in the room. Now it's down to the naughty step.

amacca

ambro25 wrote: »

The EU has been the adult in the room, it has tried reason, it has tried understanding, it has tried just about every variation you should expect from the adult in the room. Now it's down to the naughty step.

Good analogy however I do not think its the naughty step in the traditional sense....normally the adult in the room instructs the child to take up residence on the naughty step for a set period of time after some misbehaviour etc etc

In this case the child has requested exclusion from the house with all the benefits of being in it and the ability to pick and choose what rules apply to them...meanwhile the adult has exhausted every reasonable option and the child has become so irrational and destructive in its tantrum it is on the way to physically excluding itself from the household without the adult hastening the exclusion process unduly.

The only things the adult hasn't done is bend the rules or the need to stick to them in order for the child to live under the same roof as the rest of the family and of course the child wasn't begged to stay no matter what they do.....

Capt'n Midnight

A lot of the English fishing rights were sold off a long time ago. Between that and quota hopping 55% of the English quota is owned by foreign companies.

https://www.bbc.com/news/52420116

Our research suggests that taking back much greater control could mean buying back fishing quota.

That would come at quite a cost, which the government doesn't currently seem prepared to pay.

The alternative is, at best, a halfway house.

"Forcing UK vessels to land more here, only for it to be trucked out of the country, provides us with landing dues and truck pollution," argued Terri Portmann, a marine consultant based in Plymouth.

Bear in mind the UK doesn't enforce the existing rules about landing catch in the UK.

And as the Guernsey fishermen already found taking back control means squat if you can't deliver the catch.


Best case scenario for the UK is to get all the fish in UK waters, an extra £400m worth

But that would almost certainly cost them £100m from lost catch from EU waters. So it's £300m

And they've already been offered €117m (£106) by the EU so it's really only £200m more than they get now.

And the UK exports most of the fish it catches and imports most of the fish it eats. Tariffs, and restrictions on chilled but not frozen food will all eat in to that £200m too.

Strazdas

Interesting snippet from Brendan Howlin in the Dáil that the Rosslare-Dunkirk service is 'already heavily booked'.

ExMachina1000

https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1333828101751648262?s=20

The UK new points based immigration system goes live tomorrow (today) and a large number of convicted criminals are set to be deported in the coming days.

Patel seems to be intent on following through with post Brexit promises

Strazdas

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1333828101751648262?s=20

The UK new points based immigration system goes live tomorrow (today) and a large number of convicted criminals are set to be deported in the coming days.

Patel seems to be intent on following through with post Brexit promises

Sounds great on paper, except that Patel is planning on deporting even people with minor convictions, such as for shoplifting :

EU citizens will be deported for minor offences under Priti Patel’s post-Brexit immigration crackdown, despite having permission to stay, a leading lawyer has warned.

Rules that allow foreign offenders to be expelled only if they represent a threat to the UK will be beefed up to target persistent pickpockets and shoplifters, from January.

robinph

Came back out of lockdown 2 today, and straight back into tier 3 so can now go shopping and get a haircut, but can't get a pint. Local council workers went and stuck a helpful sign up in the High Street though to remind us about keeping distance from each other in case we'd forgotten.

Guess who the sign is funded by though? Except they will need to print some new ones for January.

Still can't get my head around the idiocy of Brexit, and despite that the EU is still giving us money for crap.

ExMachina1000

Strazdas wrote: »

Sounds great on paper, except that Patel is planning on deporting even people with minor convictions, such as for shoplifting :

EU citizens will be deported for minor offences under Priti Patel’s post-Brexit immigration crackdown, despite having permission to stay, a leading lawyer has warned.

Rules that allow foreign offenders to be expelled only if they represent a threat to the UK will be beefed up to target persistent pickpockets and shoplifters, from January.

Persistent offenders as per your quote. Ie people who keep committing crimes over and over. I don't see the problem. Persistent offenders are not going to be rehabilitated and are a drain on society and tax payers. They are not contributing to the economy

Strazdas

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Persistent offenders as per your quote. Ie people who keep committing crimes over and over. I don't see the problem. Persistent offenders are not going to be rehabilitated and are a drain on society and tax payers. They are not contributing to the economy

Deportation of a person from a country is no minor matter. In criminal terms, it's normally only done with someone who has committed very serious criminal offences such as murder, rape, terrorism, kidnapping etc.

ExMachina1000

Strazdas wrote: »

Deportation of a person from a country is no minor matter. In criminal terms, it's normally only done with someone who has committed very serious criminal offences such as murder, rape, terrorism, kidnapping etc.

Keeping people in the country while knowing that they will continue to repeatedly commit crimes has no benefit for the UK or its citizens. The only beneficiary is the criminal themselves!

Repeat offenders should be deported.
Do you feel differently and why?

Strazdas

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Keeping people in the country while knowing that they will continue to repeatedly commit crimes has no benefit for the UK or its citizens. The only beneficiary is the criminal themselves!

Repeat offenders should be deported.
Do you feel differently and why?

The person might be a parent with young children (very possible if they have been shoplifting or whatever). You're speaking as if these people with convictions are all single young men with no roots in the country.

BonnieSituation

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Keeping people in the country while knowing that they will continue to repeatedly commit crimes has no benefit for the UK or its citizens. The only beneficiary is the criminal themselves!

Repeat offenders should be deported.
Do you feel differently and why?

Do you think a blanket one size fits all approach should apply to everybody?

I mean, I guess you'd be all for the 3 strikes rule in the US to be applied here too?

And mandatory minimums?

There's grey areas in all aspects of life and our legal and penal systems should reflect that.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

Deportation of a person from a country is no minor matter. In criminal terms, it's normally only done with someone who has committed very serious criminal offences such as murder, rape, terrorism, kidnapping etc.

This is absolutely not true in the UK. Recently-announced policy is that deportation will be automatic after an offence that attracts a sentence of 1 year or more, and discretionary after offences attracting lower custodial sentences. It is expected that in these cases deportation will be usual if there is more than one conviction. Deportation will be possible but not usual after a single offence attracting a custodial sentence, or after two or more offences not attracting custodial sentences; in these cases deportation will be considered if it's thought to be "conducive to the public good".

Peregrinus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Keeping people in the country while knowing that they will continue to repeatedly commit crimes has no benefit for the UK or its citizens. The only beneficiary is the criminal themselves!

Repeat offenders should be deported.
Do you feel differently and why?

As a general rule the penalty that you suffer for committing an offence should not be more severe on account of your citizenship; that's a pretty clear case of discrimination on the grounds of national origin, which we normally consider objectionable. Thus a foreign citizen convicted of an offence should not be punished more severely than a local citizen would be, and deportation as an additional punishment for an offence should be exceptional.

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

Whatever happened to that Australian guy who was supposed to be making great deals for Britain, left, right and centre? Is he still in the picture, somewhere, or did he get pensioned off before he started? Was he ever on the EU-UK negotiating team?

This one or this one?

Tony Abbott was appointed as an adviser to the UK Board of Trade in September. The position is an unpaid one and the "Board of Trade" doesn't actually exist - as in, there is no Board; there's the President of the Board of Trade (Liz Truss) but there are no other members, so the Board never meets and never takes decisions. Presumably it doesn't consider any advice either.

It's not clear what (if anything) Abbott does as "adviser". He has no involvement with the post-Brexit FTA negotations; they are firmly controlled and run from the Cabinet Office. He could be consulted in relation to other FTA negotiations, but not negotiations with Australia or with ASEAN or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, where he would be conflicted out.

Crawford Falconer is a New Zealander. (Word to the wise; New Zealanders can get quite shirty if described as "Australian"). He's a trade professional, with a long career in the NZ public service, includings stints as NZ representative to the WTO and NZ Chief Trade Negotiatior. The Brits hired him as UK Chief Trade Negotiator about four years ago because, for obvious reasons, their own Dept of International Trade was seriously lacking in experienced trade negotiators. Again, he has nothing to do with the negotiations with the EU, but he's the main man for all other trade negotiations. So far the only outcomes delivered have been rollovers with minimal changes of existing trade deals between the EU and third countries. He keeps a low profile, but the word is that Falconer is a bit pissed off (a) with how long it is taking to implement Brexit; he can't really do his stuff until transition ends; but, more seriously, (b) the complete failure of the UK to develop a coherent trade policy of its own, to provide a framework and objectives within which he can try to construct a negotiating position that will deliver what the UK wants from its trade deals. He was supposed to be threatening resignation a couple of years ago over the lack of high-level political engagement with trade issues, but it didn't happen.

I don't really see the issue with deportations. A guy I know is doing time in Vietnamese prison for drug dealing and it's the most obvious thing in the world that he is getting deported after his two years are up. It would be absolutely bizarre for the country to let him stay and get a visa after being released.

The UK has itself in a position now where it can get rid of repeat offenders and sure why wouldn't they do it.

beggars_bush

I'm finding this thread very informative

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't really see the issue with deportations. A guy I know is doing time in Vietnamese prison for drug dealing and it's the most obvious thing in the world that he is getting deported after his two years are up. It would be absolutely bizarre for the country to let him stay and get a visa after being released.

The UK has itself in a position now where it can get rid of repeat offenders and sure why wouldn't they do it.

Was he settled in Vietnam before his offence? A permanent resident? Was he perhaps even born there? Does he have family there? Children? A home and a job? Was he educated or brought up there? Is he being deported to a country that he has never previously lived in, or one whose language he does not speak?

His case might not be quite on all fours with some of the deportations the UK makes, and proposes to make more of. Just sayin'.

CelticRambler

Strazdas wrote: »

The person might be a parent with young children (very possible if they have been shoplifting or whatever). You're speaking as if these people with convictions are all single young men with no roots in the country.

Under EU rules, a thieving "parent with young children" of non-national origin could arguably be told to leave their adopted member state on the grounds that they had insufficient resources to support themselves and their dependants. If, of course, the member state chose to enforce those rules (and that they hadn't acquired rights of residence through a previous stable situation).

CelticRambler

Peregrinus wrote: »

This one or this one?

'Twas the Australian I was thinking of, although it's possible the New Zealander's involvement was recorded in a brain cell somewhere and contaminating my thought process. Thanks for the clarification!

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Tony Abbott was appointed as an adviser to the UK Board of Trade in September. The position is an unpaid one and the "Board of Trade" doesn't actually exist - as in, there is no Board; there's the President of the Board of Trade (Liz Truss) but there are no other members, so the Board never meets and never takes decisions. Presumably it doesn't consider any advice either.

It's not clear what (if anything) Abbott does as "adviser". He has no involvement with the post-Brexit FTA negotations; they are firmly controlled and run from the Cabinet Office. He could be consulted in relation to other FTA negotiations, but not negotiations with Australia or with ASEAN or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, where he would be conflicted out.

Do you mean this board?

Liz Truss announces four new non-executive board members

Four DIT non-executive board members with extensive experience in investment, business and international affairs, were announced today (1 December) by International Trade Secretary Liz Truss.

The new members have been appointed for at least 3 years and will provide independent advice, support and scrutiny on the department’s work, to support the Government’s ambitious trade policy agenda.

They will help the department execute its key priorities including striking free trade agreements in markets around the world, operating our own trading system after the transition period, boosting exports and investment across the UK, and championing free trade and shaping global trading rules.

That does sound like the work Abbott will be doing, advising on future trade priorities for the UK but not the actual negotiations.

Look at some of the new board members, ex-MP Douglas Carswell who was super into Brexit and one of Jaboc Rees Mogg's friends from the hedge fund (?) he founded before he became an MP. That should send the red flags out, especially if said fund is invested in a certain outcome when it comes to Brexit, right?

ExMachina1000

Peregrinus wrote: »

As a general rule the penalty that you suffer for committing an offence should not be more severe on account of your citizenship; that's a pretty clear case of discrimination on the grounds of national origin, which we normally consider objectionable. Thus a foreign citizen convicted of an offence should not be punished more severely than a local citizen would be, and deportation as an additional punishment for an offence should be exceptional.

But it's not an offence. Its repeated offending. Breaking the law of the country they moved to
over and over again..

They are no addition to the country, are a burden on the state. They are also wasting police and court times.
Repeat offenders should be deported. Their place could be taken by someone who wants to contribute to society.

I fully support that type of immigration and justice system.

Leroy42

Didn't all EU countries have the right to send back EU citizens to their own country if they could not support themselves, find a job, after a certain time - I think it was 3 months.

So wouldn't a repeat offender that is a burden on the state fall into this category?