Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

View

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is interesting that you chose Estonian, as it is the most obscure language in Europe, only related to Finish. It now has a lot of Russian absorbed from the USSR influence, but it is an extremely difficult language.

If that was a requirement, who would check it? Would all paperwork have to be sent to Tallinna for interpretation?

Double edged sword.

If I were in charge of the Brexit fiasco, I would get all UK exporters to begin dummy runs of customs documentation from the 1st of October, to be checked by the customs guys in Dover (if they have any). Not every shipment but a representative sample for each day's/week's shipments. That way they could prove they were ready, and if not, get themselves ready.

Of course that would require a level of commitment that is clearly lacking. They have not even prepared the paperwork to become a 'third country', whatever that is. [I thought all countries that were not in the EU were 'third countries' but apparently not].

So what are countries that are not EU members or 'third countries' called? North Korea?

Definitely they should all be sent in triplicate to an EU Central Paperwork Processing Office in Estonia. I am sure they Estonians will appreciate the work and too bad if causes the U.K. problems.

View

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I think it is only fair that the forms UK needs are available only in Irish, after all it is an official language of the European Union

Irish is too easy since there may well be a pool of Irish speakers in NI capable of filling out the paperwork, which would just lead to claims by Brexiters that Brexit had directly led to the creation of “Great British jobs”.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The way to protect the SM is to force the UK to honour their commitments.

All that is required is calling their bluff. They cannot survive No Deal for long.

You can’t force any country to honour their commitments (short of invading them).

Brexiters are banking on us panicking over the prospect of the creation of a hard border on this Ireland. After that, they reckon we will do the hard work for them and demand that the EU caves into them.

The only way to counteract their belief about us is to show them they are wrong by being physically ready to install a hard border.

Our first priority has to be to protect our place in the SM as that is what drives our economy.

If the people in NI want to join us, they are welcome to send delegations to Dublin and/or Brussels to discuss how this might work in practice were they to leave the UK. If they aren’t even interested in discussing their options in a hypothetical sense, then they have to live with the fact that Westminster will be the ones to sort out any resulting mess in NI.

Imreoir2

View wrote: »

Irish is too easy since there may well be a pool of Irish speakers in NI capable of filling out the paperwork, which would just lead to claims by Brexiters that Brexit had directly led to the creation of “Great British jobs”.

Yes, but it would make the Unionists deeply unhappy, and if that is not a prize worth winning, I don't know what is.

Chips Lovell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Yes, but it would make the Unionists deeply unhappy, and if that is not a prize worth winning, I don't know what is.

It is exactly the kind of childish stunt the Unionists would do to us though. And if we were to stoop to their level, they'd probably retaliate by producing forms in Ulster Scots only.

Sam Russell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

It is exactly the kind of childish stunt the Unionists would do to us though. And if we were to stoop to their level, they'd probably retaliate by producing forms in Ulster Scots only.

Ulster Scots is just ordinary English with a wee Scottish accent - like listening to Nicola Sturgeon. Estonian is impenetrable.

If the ultimate goal is a united Ireland, annoying the Ulster Unionists is not a good plan.

I told ya

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/18/sinking-without-trace-rightwing-press-turns-on-boris-johnson-coronavirus

Somewhat off topic maybe, but IMV the interesting point is that The Spectator is having a go at Boris. Some are of the opinion that Dominic Cummings pulls the strings in No 10, so this could be viewed as a go at DC.

Given that Cummings' wife, Mary Wakefield, is the commissioning editor at The Spectator, I wonder what the conversation was at breakfast.

The article also refers to the Daily Mail having a ago at his as well during the week.

Both publications would be considered strong Brexit supporters.

Is the tide turning? Probably not given all that has gone before but ............................

johnnyskeleton

I told ya wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/18/sinking-without-trace-rightwing-press-turns-on-boris-johnson-coronavirus

Somewhat off topic maybe, but IMV the interesting point is that The Spectator is having a go at Boris. Some are of the opinion that Dominic Cummings pulls the strings in No 10, so this could be viewed as a go at DC.

Given that Cummings' wife, Mary Wakefield, is the commissioning editor at The Spectator, I wonder what the conversation was at breakfast.

The article also refers to the Daily Mail having a ago at his as well during the week.

Both publications would be considered strong Brexit supporters.

Is the tide turning? Probably not given all that has gone before but ............................

The Spectator and Daily Mail are pro Brexit. They are not necessarily pro Johnson. However, for the last while Johnson has been Brexit personified. It was, in the publics mind, his bus after all.

So if Boris says that a UK wide backstop is Brexit then it is Brexit. Then if later in the day he resigns from cabinet over it, it is no longer Brexit. If he later becomes PM and changes it to the EUs preferred option of a NI only backstop, then that is now Brexit and the DUP, who used to be so Brexit that it hurt, are now no longer Brexit, even though their views have stayed the same.

If he decides then that the Brexit deal he signed which was sufficiently Brexit to turn Labour strongholds blue is no longer Brexit, the instant reaction is that it was no longer Brexit after all, and Brexit really means bluffing and sticking up two fingers to the EU.

Sooner or later this cult of personality has to end, and Johnson has had so many uturns lies and mistakes that its possible that its happening earlier. Once that disconnect happens, and Johnson is no longer Brexit personified, then hes just a ridiculous posh kid who never grew up and those esteemed journals will decide that he was secretly a counter revolutionary all along.

But lets not cheer that on, because the fundamental inconsistencies and gaps in logic of the Brexit side can easily be overcome by a bit of Paddy bashing of a Saturday, which has a remarkable effect on Brexit supporters. Theyre allowed to be racist against us, because we are white

The Spectator article is worth a read.

Sam Russell

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The Spectator and Daily Mail are pro Brexit. They are not necessarily pro Johnson. However, for the last while Johnson has been Brexit personified. It was, in the publics mind, his bus after all.

So if Boris says that a UK wide backstop is Brexit then it is Brexit. Then if later in the day he resigns from cabinet over it, it is no longer Brexit. If he later becomes PM and changes it to the EUs preferred option of a NI only backstop, then that is now Brexit and the DUP, who used to be so Brexit that it hurt, are now no longer Brexit, even though their views have stayed the same.

If he decides then that the Brexit deal he signed which was sufficiently Brexit to turn Labour strongholds blue is no longer Brexit, the instant reaction is that it was no longer Brexit after all, and Brexit really means bluffing and sticking up two fingers to the EU.

Sooner or later this cult of personality has to end, and Johnson has had so many uturns lies and mistakes that its possible that its happening earlier. Once that disconnect happens, and Johnson is no longer Brexit personified, then hes just a ridiculous posh kid who never grew up and those esteemed journals will decide that he was secretly a counter revolutionary all along.

But lets not cheer that on, because the fundamental inconsistencies and gaps in logic of the Brexit side can easily be overcome by a bit of Paddy bashing of a Saturday, which has a remarkable effect on Brexit supporters. They're allowed to be racist against us, because we are white

I think that sounds so like straight from George Orwell's 1984 with Johnson as Big Brother.

The English (toffs) have always been anti-Irish, and have always considered us as a lower species. Just look at Punch and their anti-Irish cartoons.

An Claidheamh

CrabRevolution wrote: »

A different take by the BBC on interventions from the USA.

It claims the US stance of protecting the GFA only arose in the last 2 years as a result of meddling by Irish diplomats, and also that it was the intervention of Mike Pence that caused Varadkar to agree to the WA.

While I've no doubt that Irish diplomats are involved in promoting Irish interests especially regarding the border and brexit, and also that Pence spoke to Varadakr, the article comes across to me as saying "If it weren't for those meddling Irish things would be fine".

The BBC, enough said.

Their balance is as a big a British myth that they defeated the Nazis alone or that Churchill was not a racist

Are they still doing their ‘Factcheck’ series, that told us all about how the Irish economy would be affected - and not their own


No doubt that Pence knows nothing about the GFA or that Varadkar would be able to negotiate for the EU on the WA, but it’s the BBC right ...


Would not be surprised that the UK would be lobbying the US, certainly their right, however too little too late and smacks of desperation

An Claidheamh

Hurrache wrote: »

Scott Benton (who?), takes the cliched hold my beer method. What an earth is going through these guys heads, it's fanatical.


https://twitter.com/ScottBentonMP/status/1306627419311427584

He's retweeting that god awful Iain Martin, who's tweet was subsequently systematically destroyed by anyone with an ounce of knowledge.

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1306657465124237316

And retweets this sort of crap
https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1305993474366410753

Nothing wrong with having Irish Republican sympathies or commenting on the NI Peace Process - Americans are a Republican country and are guarantors of the peace process.

Reminds me of when they attacked Obama for disliking the British empire and Churchill for putting his grandad in a concentration camp.

Bojo and the British press acted as if there was something wrong with being against concentration camps and empires.

Nice knowing Biden would tell them to go f&€k themselves, really hope these are pointed out to him and the Democrats.

Cole

Hurrache wrote: »

He's retweeting that god awful Iain Martin, who's tweet was subsequently systematically destroyed by anyone with an ounce of knowledgehttps://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1306657465124237316

I've seen him a couple of times on Dateline London on the BBC, and while obviously a strong Brexit guy, he didn't seem to be as misinformed or as unhinged as some, so I was curious to check out your link.

Wow to this follow up from him...
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1306681252263718918

Clearly I was wrong - just as jaw droppingly misinformed and ignorant on Ireland as many high profile commentators in the UK.

An Claidheamh

Cole wrote: »

I've seen him a couple of times on Dateline London on the BBC, and while obviously a strong Brexit guy, he didn't seem to be as misinformed or as unhinged as some, so I was curious to check out your link.

Wow to this follow up from him...
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1306681252263718918

Clearly I was wrong - just as jaw droppingly misinformed and ignorant on Ireland as many high profile commentators in the UK.

Worth remembering that Brexit is not the first time the Brits have caused and exacerbated a problem, and then blame everything on Johnny Foreigner.

Sure he’s free to have a look in the archives, would be the only proper research he’s ever done as a journalist

paul71

Chips Lovell wrote: »

It is exactly the kind of childish stunt the Unionists would do to us though. And if we were to stoop to their level, they'd probably retaliate by producing forms in Ulster Scots only.

Which the entire English speaking world can speak by affecting an accent.

But you are correct it would be a childish move by the EU and Ireland, and the EU don't do childish.

ExMachina1000

The EU takes 390 k tons if fishing from UK waters. The UK takes 90k tons from EU waters.

The EU have been accused of allowing unsustainable fishing practices in UK waters

reslfj

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The EU takes 390 k tons if fishing from UK waters. The UK takes 90k tons from EU waters.

The EU have been accused of allowing unsustainable fishing practices in UK waters

Please try to list the catch of each of each fish stock.

Hint: The price/ton is an important factor.

Lars

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The EU takes 390 k tons if fishing from UK waters. The UK takes 90k tons from EU waters.

The EU have been accused of allowing unsustainable fishing practices in UK waters

The EU, under agreement with UK, take agreed quotas from UK fishing waters you mean. How much of that 390k is licences sold by the UK to EU operators?

Who has accessed the EU of unsustainable practices? Have they brought a case? What was the outcome?

murphaph

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The EU takes 390 k tons if fishing from UK waters. The UK takes 90k tons from EU waters.

The EU have been accused of allowing unsustainable fishing practices in UK waters

If true (you've posted no links to verify), that's quite simply because continental consumers eat more fish. What should the UK do with the surplus?

It's possible Brits will be forced to eat more of their own fish (often species they have not eaten historically) as tariffs on other imported meats makes them too expensive while British fish becomes too expensive on the continent. Heck, it reduces food miles I suppose, but will the average leave voter appreciate substituting squid for beef?!

ExMachina1000

Source:

https://youtu.be/BE-Kif8flf0


Simplistic but impartial and informative.

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Source:

https://youtu.be/BE-Kif8flf0


Simplistic but impartial and informative.

So what is your take away from it? How do you think the fishing issue will be resolved?

ExMachina1000

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what is your take away from it? How do you think the fishing issue will be resolved?

Did you have a look at it?
I can give you my opinion but I'd prefer if we both had the same information

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Did you have a look at it?
I can give you my opinion but I'd prefer if we both had the same information

Yes, I watch a lot of their videos.

So, what is your take away, if any, from it. Did it change your view of the situation of the possible resolution to it?

This is a discussion forum, all you have done is post someone else's view and said it was interesting without giving any input.

ExMachina1000

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did it change your view of the situation of the possible resolution to it?

This is a discussion forum, all you have done is post someone else's view and said it was interesting without giving any input.

I think under a no deal Brexit EU fishing vessels wont be fishing in UK waters anymore. Irish water will end up becoming much more heavily fished and as a consequence and our own fishing industry will lose out.

There will be less fish available as the size of the fishing area will be reduced. Quotas will be cut. There will be a 400k ton hole in the number of fish caught

I posted the figures taken from UK and EU waters. Was asked for a source which I then provided.

Sam Russell

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Source:

https://youtu.be/BE-Kif8flf0


Simplistic but impartial and informative.

Impartial? Told from a UK prospective, so not so impartial.

However, it does summarise the issues well. It does not cover the fact that the UK quotas are held by foreign large companies, and that a small rowing boat is registered as holding much of the English quota.

See this article.

The UK's handling of quotas is questionable at best, favouring a few wealthy families. It has been made political by the Brexit campaign and by misleading claims.

ExMachina1000

Sam Russell wrote: »

Impartial? Told from a UK prospective, so not so impartial.

However, it does summarise the issues well. It does not cover the fact that the UK quotas are held by foreign large companies, and that a small rowing boat is registered as holding much of the English quota.

See this article.

The UK's handling of quotas is questionable at best, favouring a few wealthy families. It has been made political by the Brexit campaign and by misleading claims.

Very interesting. How 5 families can have majority share of the industry and in northern Ireland's case one boat essentially.

However isn't this more about the rights to the water itself from the perspective of can the EU fish in them post brexit rather than who owns the uk fishing industry.

Who owns the uk fishing industry is irrelevant. Will EU ships be permitted to fish in the water is the question.

The UK may decide that EU boats can fish the waters but must pay the UK for the right. A licensing scheme of sorts with UK set quotas. How the UK would police this is unknown though considering that their own boats have been shown to be breaking quotas consistently.

Enzokk

Maybe someone can clarify for me here, I am seeing a lot of numbers and some of them are close to each other so I am worried I will be getting confused.

The UK has the second largest quota in the EU for fish,

Is the EU ‘pinching our fish’?

The UK’s share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU.

So out of the 6m tonnes per year the UK gets 752K tonnes allocated to it, right?

But it seems like other links state that other EU countries are fishing within the UK waters to the tune of 683 000 tonnes.

UK fishermen may not win waters back after Brexit, EU memo reveals

The government’s white paper failed to offer any commitments to UK trawlers over the future, despite the sector having a high profile in the referendum campaign. The paper merely noted that “in 2015 EU vessels caught 683,000 tonnes (£484m revenue) in UK waters and UK vessels caught 111,000 tonnes (£114m revenue) in member states’ waters”.

So does that mean the total amount of fish taken out of UK waters is the 683K tonnes and then 641K tonnes the UK vessels catch as well?

Also, if Scotland would go independent, surely the fishing argument just about disappears in England and Wales as most of the water that the UK will claim will be north of Scotland.

Enzokk

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Very interesting. How 5 families can have majority share of the industry and in northern Ireland's case one boat essentially.

However isn't this more about the rights to the water itself from the perspective of can the EU fish in them post brexit rather than who owns the uk fishing industry.

Who owns the uk fishing industry is irrelevant. Will EU ships be permitted to fish in the water is the question.

The UK may decide that EU boats can fish the waters but must pay the UK for the right. A licensing scheme of sorts with UK set quotas. How the UK would police this is unknown though considering that their own boats have been shown to be breaking quotas consistently.

The real argument is about what happens in who's water, but the Brexit argument was an emotional argument about who catches the fish. However the Brexit side never went into detail of those families having such a large proportion of the quota and them being just as, if not more, responsible for the collapse of the UK fishing industry in those coastal towns.

CelticRambler

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I think under a no deal Brexit EU fishing vessels wont be fishing in UK waters anymore. Irish water will end up becoming much more heavily fished and as a consequence and our own fishing industry will lose out.

The fish in the North Sea aren't going to suddenly relocate to the Irish Sea or just off the Galway coast, and there'll be no point in non-Irish EU trawlers suddenly deciding to catch species that prefer the warm Atlantic waters over the cold North Sea. Even if they did, there's no guarantee that the fish-buying public can be persuaded to change their preferences fast enough to justify the new commercial tack.

So we're back to the same old ideology: take back control in the name of Brexit, only to find that the UK had both the control and economic benefit as part of the EU, and now has control of something, which leaves them entirely dependent on a friendly EU for it to make economic sense.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what is your take away from it? How do you think the fishing issue will be resolved?

What fishing issue ?

Inshore fishing is a dying industry. Shedding jobs all the time. Margins and incomes shrinking. The only real money is in the supertrawlers and that's a handful of jobs.

It's about being seen to do something. Fighting for jobs that won't be there, are they even pretending to be fighting for Tory seats in Scotland ?

It's about a handful of rich investors.