Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

RobMc59

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Naturally, it's going to tend towards one side given it's an Irish forum and we are going to suffer the worst fallout from it after the UK through no fault of our own.

Tell me, Rob. Do you see any benefit in what the UK are doing right now?

No,I see no benefit from brexit and have no confidence in Johnson and co.
Having said that I believe the UK has more leverage than many posters here would have us believe,mainly in regards to fishing which the EU is desperate to secure access to.

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

No,I see no benefit from brexit and have no confidence in Johnson and co.
Having said that I believe the UK has more leverage than many posters here would have us believe,mainly in regards to fishing which the EU is desperate to secure access to.

It simply doesn't. Fishing isn't leverage , it's a nice to have. It won't hold any real sway in the EU just like the German car manufacturers.

fash

listermint wrote: »

It simply doesn't. Fishing isn't leverage , it's a nice to have. It won't hold any real sway in the EU just like the German car manufacturers.

On this basis, Iceland or the Faroe islands have comparable or greater sway than the UK...

ancapailldorcha

Don't accuse people of trolling please. Posts deleted.

Leroy42

But they need to explain why they think the fish gives the UK such leverage, who if it does give such leverage why the UK are struggling to use it and why if it is such leverage why not hold it and just accept no deal?

Simply saying something doesn't make it true or even a reasonable point.

It sounds very much like the new 'German Cara manufacturers' line of argument. No facts, no plans. Just a line that about leverage and holding the cards. Of course the UK has advantages, Merkel recently stated that the UK being in was the best option, followed by a close relationship. However, that is just her wish but she knows it cannot be at any price.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

But they need to explain why they think the fish gives the UK such leverage, who if it does give such leverage why the UK are struggling to use it and why if it is such leverage why not hold it and just accept no deal?

Simply saying something doesn't make it true or even a reasonable point.

It sounds very much like the new 'German Cara manufacturers' line of argument. No facts, no plans. Just a line that about leverage and holding the cards. Of course the UK has advantages, Merkel recently stated that the UK being in was the best option, followed by a close relationship. However, that is just her wish but she knows it cannot be at any price.

It is an advantage, maybe not as big of one as they claim, but they just as usual have no ****ing clue what they want to do with it or how to effectively use it. They will play hard ball and demand everything they want behind the fish issue which the EU will refuse because its ridiculous and the UK will eventually then give in and end up getting nothing or far far less than they could have if they were even slightly reasonable, as has been the case every single time.


After 4 years they still do not understand how the EU works or how to talk to them and they still honestly believe the hard man act will get them everything they want despite it never having worked once.

Strazdas

Looks like the UK is planning on withdrawing from the talks as soon as next week 'unless a clear deal is in sight'. They are treating October 15th as the real deadline

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-07/uk-plans-to-quit-brexit-trade-talks-if-no-deal-seen-by-oct-15

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

Looks like the UK is planning on withdrawing from the talks as soon as next week 'unless a clear deal is in sight'. They are treating October 15th as the real deadline

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-07/uk-plans-to-quit-brexit-trade-talks-if-no-deal-seen-by-oct-15

There's two ways to read this:

1. As it says, the UK is planning to end talks after 15 October if no deal is in sight.

2. The UK wants the EU to think that it plans to do this, in the belief (or hope) that the EU will back down on its red lines to prevent this from happening.

Frankly, at this stage I think they are bored with this in Brussels. Nobody in Brussels will be remotely surprised at the UK threatening, once again, to choose no deal over what they characterise as a bad deal. They may not know whether the UK really intends to end talks, or merely pretends to, but they don't greatly care. Neither state of affairs is one they will back down to avoid.

Hard Brexiters have always said, and some may even believe, that if only the EU believed that the UK was willing to accept a no-deal outcome it would back down. They may still think that is true, or hope that it is. But it was never true, and it isn't now.

Leroy42

Strazdas wrote: »

Looks like the UK is planning on withdrawing from the talks as soon as next week 'unless a clear deal is in sight'. They are treating October 15th as the real deadline

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-07/uk-plans-to-quit-brexit-trade-talks-if-no-deal-seen-by-oct-15

Yet another go at this particular merry-go-round. Johnson would probably prefer to die-in-a-ditch that continue talks!

Que the 15th when amazingly, movement happens, details not really clear, but the UK have forced the EU to move and are now working for belt towards getting the agreed by 31 Oct.

Que rounds of applause and championing of Johnsons tactics as finally Brexit is going to be delivered.

Except for just a few outstanding issues and the IM bill!

Peregrinus

Actually, I should perhaps qualify my tweet above. There is maybe a third way to read that story. The UK intends to climb down to the extent necessary to have the outlines of a deal by 15 October, and this story is planted so that, when this happen, the UK can say that it was in fact the EU which climbed down, and that the EU did so when confronted by stern British resolution, yadda, yadda.

54and56

Strazdas wrote: »

Looks like the UK is planning on withdrawing from the talks as soon as next week 'unless a clear deal is in sight'. They are treating October 15th as the real deadline

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-07/uk-plans-to-quit-brexit-trade-talks-if-no-deal-seen-by-oct-15

People in strong positions don't (need to) issue false deadlines and ultimatums.

You haven't been able to get what you want through negotiation as you don't have the leverage/heft to extract it from the other side so you play the only card left to you. It's an act of weakness which will be clearly understood and responded to by the EU who thankfully are happy to play the long game to get a good deal.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

But they need to explain why they think the fish gives the UK such leverage, who if it does give such leverage why the UK are struggling to use it and why if it is such leverage why not hold it and just accept no deal?

Simply saying something doesn't make it true or even a reasonable point.

It sounds very much like the new 'German Cara manufacturers' line of argument. No facts, no plans. Just a line that about leverage and holding the cards. Of course the UK has advantages, Merkel recently stated that the UK being in was the best option, followed by a close relationship. However, that is just her wish but she knows it cannot be at any price.

The fishing industry in the UK was decimated in the 70s and 80s and realistically isn't that important to the UK beyond sabre rattling and as bargaining leverage.A large percentage of fish sold in the UK comes from Iceland and other Scandinavian countries.It is infinitely more important to EU nations.This is common knowledge,although if posters object to me saying that I can provide links.
Here is a link which shows the surprisingly large amount of fish the UK purchases from foreign nations.
http://icefishnews.com/grimsby-uks-largest-cod-centre/

BonnieSituation

And your point is?

The Raging Bile Duct

RobMc59 wrote: »

The fishing industry in the UK was decimated in the 70s and 80s and realistically isn't that important to the UK beyond sabre rattling and as bargaining leverage.A large percentage of fish sold in the UK comes from Iceland and other Scandinavian countries.It is infinitely more important to EU nations.This is common knowledge,although if posters object to me saying that I can provide links.
Here is a link which shows the surprisingly large amount of fish the UK purchases from foreign nations.
http://icefishnews.com/grimsby-uks-largest-cod-centre/

This seems to be the same argument as 'the German car makers need us more than we need them so they'll push for any deal'

moon2

RobMc59 wrote: »

It is infinitely more important to EU nations.This is common knowledge,although if posters object to me saying that I can provide links.

It sounds like you're saying the ability for the UK to export fish to the EU is infinitely more important to them than consuming their own catch is.

As such, wouldn't that mean a trade deal which includes fish is infinitely more important for the UK? They couldn't afford to lose access to the main market which consumes their produce.

This makes fish a much weaker bargaining chip as it hurts the UK more than the EU. A shortfall of 10% of the EU catch (the proportion which comes from UK waters) for the EU is not as bad as a shortfall of nearly 100% of the market for the UK. This is especially relevant when you also take into account that 60% of EU fish is imported from outside the EU. 10% of 40% is impactful, but should be manageable.

20silkcut

Brexit needs a decline in unity and eventual break up of the EU to be truly successful. It may happen but the reality is the opposite has happened since 2016.

It also needs a trump re-election and general growth in Trumpism over the coming years which is also possible but looking increasingly shaky.

Brexit is not in a good place in my opinion.

Strazdas

20silkcut wrote: »

Brexit needs a decline in unity and eventual break up of the EU to be truly successful. It may happen but the reality is the opposite has happened since 2016.

It also needs a trump re-election and general growth in Trumpism over the coming years which is also possible but looking increasingly shaky.

Brexit is not in a good place in my opinion.

I saw someone saying yesterday that the UK leaving the Single Market in the middle of the worst pandemic in 100 years is total insanity.

It's possible the UK could be under total lockdown the day it withdraws from the SMCU. This is disastrous stuff, not just somewhat misguided. It must even be dawning on some of the Brexit fanatics.

kalych

moon2 wrote: »

It sounds like you're saying the ability for the UK to export fish to the EU is infinitely more important to them than consuming their own catch is.

As such, wouldn't that mean a trade deal which includes fish is infinitely more important for the UK? They couldn't afford to lose access to the main market which consumes their produce.

This makes fish a much weaker bargaining chip as it hurts the UK more than the EU. A shortfall of 10% of the EU catch (the proportion which comes from UK waters) for the EU is not as bad as a shortfall of nearly 100% of the market for the UK. This is especially relevant when you also take into account that 60% of EU fish is imported from outside the EU. 10% of 40% is impactful, but should be manageable.

I never understood this line of thinking from Brexiters either. The one that fails to observe the proportion of their respective market to the total EU market. They somehow think that the UK which is 10-15% at most of a total EU market for a particular good can dictate conditions of getting access to that market.

10-15% of anything is barely above marginal with some replacement by third countries - increasing their quotas for a similar good a bit. The UK have next to no leverage beyond optics and they failed miserably at maintaining good optics.

An Ciarraioch

Daniel Kawczynski has been "rewarded" by Boris Johnson by being dispatched to Mongolia:

https://twitter.com/dkshrewsbury/status/1313834930330361864

It really is like something from The Thick of It.

RobMc59

moon2 wrote: »

It sounds like you're saying the ability for the UK to export fish to the EU is infinitely more important to them than consuming their own catch is.

As such, wouldn't that mean a trade deal which includes fish is infinitely more important for the UK? They couldn't afford to lose access to the main market which consumes their produce.

This makes fish a much weaker bargaining chip as it hurts the UK more than the EU. A shortfall of 10% of the EU catch (the proportion which comes from UK waters) for the EU is not as bad as a shortfall of nearly 100% of the market for the UK. This is especially relevant when you also take into account that 60% of EU fish is imported from outside the EU. 10% of 40% is impactful, but should be manageable.

I`m not saying the UK exports fish to the EU in any great amount.EU fishing vessels fish in UK waters and want to retain access to these grounds which won`t be the case unless there is agreement.

moon2

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`m not saying the UK exports fish to the EU in any great amount.EU fishing vessels fish in UK waters and want to retain access to these grounds which won`t be the case unless there is agreement.

I understand you.

The quantity of fish caught in UK waters is 10% of the total EU consumption. Some of that is caught by EU boats, some by UK.

While the EU fishing industry would be impacted by the loss of fishing rights, the UK would be impacted more heavily as they couldn't export what they do catch.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.

Sam Russell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Daniel Kawczynski has been "rewarded" by Boris Johnson by being dispatched to Mongolia:

https://twitter.com/dkshrewsbury/status/1313834930330361864

If I recall correctly wasn't the Mongolian trade commission refused visas to visit London to negotiate a trade deal following the Brexit vote?

If you think that being sent to Mongolia is a reward, what would a punishment look like?

54and56

A 10% swing in food inflation between UK and RoI since the Brexit Vote in 2016.

https://twitter.com/martindvz/status/1313567518016106499

This is just one small example of the price the UK will literally pay for Brexit.

What if any tangible benefits do they get in return?

An out of date no longer fit for purpose electoral system "taking back control".

It's like a 1970's sit com blended with a 2021 reality TV show the whole world is going to get to watch as it unfolds and we are in the front row!!

Larry Bee

54and56 wrote: »

A 10% swing in food inflation between UK and RoI since the Brexit Vote in 2016.

https://twitter.com/martindvz/status/1313567518016106499

This is just one small example of the price the UK will literally pay for Brexit.

What if any tangible benefits do they get in return?

An out of date no longer fit for purpose electoral system "taking back control".

It's like a 1970's sit com blended with a 2021 reality TV show the whole world is going to get to watch as it unfolds and we are in the front row!!

I wonder what way it will look in 2 or 3 years time? Will the trend continue or will Irish food prices sky rocket too?

John

Capt'n Midnight

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`m not saying the UK exports fish to the EU in any great amount.EU fishing vessels fish in UK waters and want to retain access to these grounds which won`t be the case unless there is agreement.

If you ignore the EU boats there's still the embarrassing fact that 55% of the English fishing quota is foreign owned.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/601981/IPOL_STU%282017%29601981_EN.pdf

The UK salmon sector is highly concentrated, with five companies representing over
93% of the total production, all of them under foreign control.
...
According to the Seafish (2016), all the tuna from UK vessels were landed abroad in 2013 and 2014, especially in Spain

There's five rules and one of them is that over half the catch is supposed to be landed at UK ports.

It will be really interesting if next year the EU bans UK ships landing at EU ports because that's a handy way to bypass tariffs.

reslfj

RobMc59 wrote: »

The fishing industry in the UK was decimated in the 70s and 80s

By a combination of bigger more powerful boats resulting in extreme overfishing by costal states - but not least by the UK.

Now fish like cod is moving North as the water is getting warmer (climate change).

The productivity increase from larger more powerful boats must result in many fewer boats - this needs somehow to be regulated.

RobMc59 wrote: »

A large percentage of fish sold in the UK comes from Iceland and other Scandinavian countries.

Cod from Iceland, Faeroe Islands and Norway - all not in the EU. Caught within IS/FO/NO quotas/not shared waters. Delivered directly or via DK, DE, NL, BE or FR.

Lars

reslfj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you ignore the EU boats there's still the embarrassing fact that 55% of the English fishing quota is foreign owned.

IIRC - The boats and the quotas are owned by UK companies. These are the owned/partly owned by non-UK citizens. Nothing to do with the EU.

The UK salmon sector is highly concentrated....

UK appears to import significant volumes of salmon from Sweden and Denmark, while a large share of this salmon is farmed in Norway.

UK salmon ... aquaculture and inland fisheries

Salmon is almost exclusively 'farmed' or from inland/fresh waters and very little involves fishing in the EEZ or regulated by the CFP.

Note: Only 53 of 100 species are on quota. Most local costal fishers have no quotas only minimum sizes and legal catch time periods.

Lars

Leroy42

There is a clear shift in mood and message in the last day, particularly from the UK side.

Frost, yesterday, said that Fish remains the main obstacle, which begs the question what happened to the LPF issue? https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1313837511907708928

It is very hard to see that a deal would be scuppered over fish.

The pivot to a deal, one where the UK is 'seen' to win is starting to happen.

I agree with Dmitry here, its more about the optics than the actual details, as is everything related to Brexit. https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1314104612882911232

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

The pivot to a deal, one where the UK is 'seen' to win is starting to happen.

I hope so, but to pull the wool over peoples eyes properly you have to capitulate at the last minute while declaring victory.

Sending signals ahead of time that you are going to surrender gives your opposition (the ERG) time to figure it out.

Better to invent a deadline (15th october), go into a tunnel with a blackout, hide inside eating ham sandwiches for a day or two, and then emerge blinking and dishevelled to declare that you soundly beat the EU and forced them to accept your fish deal in return for a small concession on LPF. (the fish deal will also be the EU version, but with a union jack sticker on it)