Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

They can simply sell them to the domestic market, some 60 million plus consumers.

A domestic market that wants cod, salmon and tuna - and very little else.

All the promotion in the world isn't going to make the UK domestic market eat all the types of fish they catch. They need to be able to export it.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

They can simply sell them to the domestic market, some 60 million plus consumers.

I learnt this week that GB consumers want fish that GB can't catch.

And GB can catch fish in GB waters that GB consumers don't want.

So there must be trade.

sondagefaux

Some good Brexit news, for the Netherlands and Austria, which are both offering incentive packages for British firms to relocate.

The Guardian has spoken to about 500 companies in the past weeks who are planning to move some or all of their business operations to the EU, sometimes making staff in Britain redundant in the process.

A spokesperson for a Netherlands agency also tells how some of the companies that have enquired about setting up there are Asian or US companies that were planning to invest in Britain, but have decided to invest in the Netherlands instead.

Business lost, jobs lost, investment lost, tax revenues lost.

But Britain's Brexit losses are the EU's gain!

A big thank you to all Leave voters!

Things are so bad that five of the largest UK business groups have warned the UK government of the difficulties if the situation doesn't change.

Bit late now lads...

On Friday the leaders of Britain’s five largest business groups warned the government that firms faced “substantial difficulties” at UK ports since Brexit, with the prospect of a “significant loss of business” if the situation was allowed to continue.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/30/uk-firms-plan-to-shift-across-channel-after-brexit-chaos

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

They can simply sell them to the domestic market, some 60 million plus consumers.

There is nothing 'simply' about that. Plenty of fishing boats will go bust before the UK population turn to the type of fish needed to replace the single market

Capt'n Midnight

L1011 wrote: »

A domestic market that wants cod, salmon and tuna - and very little else.

All the promotion in the world isn't going to make the UK domestic market eat all the types of fish they catch. They need to be able to export it.

There's no plaice in the UK market for other fish.

Have shellfish exports started up again ?

The view from Germany

The majority of fish eaten in the UK is imported. Some 83% of the cod consumed in the UK comes from abroad, alongside 58% of its haddock. The UK catch is 5% cod and 7% haddock, while the UK fleet catches a lot of herring, 93% of which is exported, mostly to Norway and the Netherlands.

Overall, the UK imports 70% of the fish it eats and exports 80% of what it catches

Here's the weird bit. Imported cod costs more than exported cod.

British cod, landed at UK ports, is primarily exported to Ireland – 50.7% of the total in 2019 – France (15.8%) and Spain (7.9%).

even though

a study in 2018 found up to 60% of premium Chinese cod (鳕鱼) fillet products in China were mislabelled and were actually other species of fish such as pollock.

Beechwoodspark

Very much “damping down the flames” mode now

The line is it was a “mistake” that the EU activated article 16....

L1011

That cod export figure to here may be for processing and resale back extensively to the UK market.

Detritus70

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They can simply sell them to the domestic market, some 60 million plus consumers.

This comment is a bit fishy. Would you agree that you're floundering a bit? Or are you just codding.
There's no plaice for this.

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

Whats your take on comments attributed to Monsieur Barnier regarding this strategy by the EU being a mistake and his comments that the UK has come out on top in regards to fishing?

You mean the only place I could find it?

'Britain has won!’ Barnier admits EU caved to Boris Johnson's fishing demands during talks

You mean the Express take on his interview with another publication. You mean these quotes,

MICHEL BARNIER has admitted Boris Johnson won over the argument regarding Fisheries during intense Brexit negotiations last year.

“This is the British choice, the sovereign choice of the British, and according to what they consider to be in their interest.”

Mr Barnier also claimed the criticism from some fisheries organisations including the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that Mr Johnson had sold out to the EU in the deal was “surprising”.

He added: "I don’t understand this criticism since the British have gained around 25 per cent more fishing opportunities and we have lost this 25 per cent.

“The British have regained sovereignty over their waters. In the reasonable agreement that we have found, the British have won over the current situation.”

It's almost like he is saying to those fisherman now losing money and their livelihoods, well this is what the UK Government wanted and it was their sovereign choice to go with this deal.

I guess you also mean these stories,

Now humiliated EU bullies BACK DOWN on vaccine export ban: Brussels promises Boris that it will NOT stop 3.5million Pfizer DOSES reaching Britain after being ridiculed over 'Trumpian' plan to divide Ireland

So let's see what he has said, which supports your view that this was a mistake,

The EU's chief negotiator in that agreement, Mr Barnier, today called for 'co-operation' between Brussels and the UK over the supply of vaccines across Europe.

Mr Barnier told The Times: 'We are facing an extraordinarily serious crisis, which is creating a lot of suffering, which is causing a lot of deaths in the UK, in France, in Germany, everywhere.

'And I believe we must face this crisis with responsibility, certainly not with the spirit of oneupmanship or unhealthy competition. I recommend preserving the spirit of co-operation between us.'

But by all means, the floor is yours to verify where he said anything different to what I have quoted in the Express and The Daily Mail.

BonnieSituation

Seth Brundle wrote: »

That just shows how little he knows about it. The Irish government didn't negotiate anything in terms of the TCA whilst he is part of the British government which was one side if the negotiations!

It's so frustrating to listen to and not have him pulled up on any of it.

Capt'n Midnight

L1011 wrote: »

That cod export figure to here may be for processing and resale back extensively to the UK market.

I was also wondering if it was landing by UK registered boats in Irish ports.

Enzokk

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Very much “damping down the flames” mode now

The line is it was a “mistake” that the EU activated article 16....

The EU didn't activate article 16 but was thinking about activating it. Yes, it was still a mistake but it wasn't something that happened that had to be reversed. The mistake is that it allows the DUP to talk about scrapping the NI Protocol.

Mistake to signal triggering of Article 16 - Taoiseach

Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said it was a mistake by the European Commission to signal its intention to trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, in response to the row with AstraZeneca over the supply of vaccines.

BlitzKrieg

Out of curiosity how was it signalled. I saw a lot of news reports about triggering article 16 but no official statement from the EC. There were links to a document they released but it didnt mention article 16 or the withdrawel agreement in it at all. They mentioned a few other EU regulations that they would need to enforce but little else.

To me in terms of brexit UK/EU f*ck ups this falls about on par with a whitehall leak about some ridiculous statement or plan from Boris, or one of Dominic Cummings notions when he was there. It's still a fair few steps below the internal market bill fiasco. That made it the floor before being withdrawn.

ThePanjandrum

prawnsambo wrote: »

Except what they catch, the local market doesn't want - 70% was exported to the EU. Fishing worked while in the EU because the EU markets did want that catch and their catch was what the UK consumer wanted. That's come to an abrupt end now.

It's not necessarily that it's not what the UK consumer wanted, often it hasn't been available. I'm happy to eat most sea fish although I don't like shellfish (my wife and daughter do though).

An Ciarraioch

Holyhead appears doomed:

https://twitter.com/donnyc1975/status/1355592125132513280

Detritus70

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It's not necessarily that it's not what the UK consumer wanted, often it hasn't been available. I'm happy to eat most sea fish although I don't like shellfish (my wife and daughter do though).

Do you think your sample size of three is an adequate representation of the true desires of the British consumer at large, or are you just making small talk

Strazdas

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Out of curiosity how was it signalled. I saw a lot of news reports about triggering article 16 but no official statement from the EC. There were links to a document they released but it didnt mention article 16 or the withdrawel agreement in it at all. They mentioned a few other EU regulations that they would need to enforce but little else.

To me in terms of brexit UK/EU f*ck ups this falls about on par with a whitehall leak about some ridiculous statement or plan from Boris, or one of Dominic Cummings notions when he was there. It's still a fair few steps below the internal market bill fiasco. That made it the floor before being withdrawn.

Going from what Simon Coveney said on Twitter last night, the article was never actually triggered.

A Dub in Glasgo

Seems a school child error from the European Commission

tubercolossus

Enzokk wrote: »

The EU didn't activate article 16 but was thinking about activating it. Yes, it was still a mistake but it wasn't something that happened that had to be reversed. The mistake is that it allows the DUP to talk about scrapping the NI Protocol.

Thankfully no-one listens to anything the DUP(ed) say - least of all Johnson's government.

yagan

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Seems a school child error from the European Commission

Was it though?

Who was the message aimed at? Any pharma companies thinking of flogging EU vaccine stock to third party bidders.

A lot of EU media haven't even picked up on Article 16, they just know that measures to ensure EU vaccine stock isn't being sold out of the back of a lorry near heathrow beside the lot where David Cameron sells vintage Mondeos.

The backlash would be no different if pallets of EU vaccine turned up on docks in Tunis or Tripoli.

Charles Babbage

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Seems a school child error from the European Commission

You'd like to think that someone would get a stivale under the derrière, but of course in these organisations there is never anyone responsible.

Sam Russell

Charles Babbage wrote: »

You'd like to think that someone would get a stivale under the derrière, but of course in these organisations there is never anyone responsible.

Except Big Phil.

peter kern

yagan wrote: »

Was it though?

Who was the message aimed at? Any pharma companies thinking of flogging EU vaccine stock to third party bidders.

A lot of EU media haven't even picked up on Article 16, they just know that measures to ensure EU vaccine stock isn't being sold out of the back of a lorry near heathrow beside the lot where David Cameron sells vintage Mondeos.

The backlash would be no different if pallets of EU vaccine turned up on docks in Tunis or Tripoli.

The strength of the eu during brexit was to avoid confrontation. And I think it did very well with that approach. Yesterday and the days before was the opposite and in my mind there was no positive in it . It's was throughing punches without a game plan . This was much more the old uk tactics to blame the eu for issus that were really theirs.
And I don't think many think that is a good idea.
Politico magazine said that eu does not have a good history in buying medicine, and I don't think anybody is changing their opinion after this week.
So I guess going forward what are we learning from this. Are we doing it half baked . Are we buying it safe by state or do we make sure we have a proper structure for it for the future I think it's the last option. But you can't change your mind during the process all the time.
So yes maybe it gives a small sign don't mess with us but overall it showes not taking responsibility for the structural problem.
We buy toghter we don't buy togehter, this is going too slow so I buy alone again. We need to support our country more etc That's a structure likely to fail ...
I guess this is the underlying problem neither here or there. And in the brexit negotiations it was europe speaking in one voice and I think it was strongest when speaking as mainly one voice.

Besides the biggest issue in Europe is the uk mutante so I think also from an european view it can't hurt to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

yagan

peter kern wrote: »

The strength of the eu during brexit was to avoid confrontation. And I think it did very well with that approach. Yesterday and the days before was the opposite and in my mind there was no positive in it . It's was throughing punches without a game plan . This was much more the old uk tactics to blame the eu for issus that were really theirs.
And I don't think many think that is a good idea.
Politico magazine said that eu does not have a good history in buying medicine, and I don't think anybody is changing their opinion after this week.
So I guess going forward what are we learning from this. Are we doing it half baked . Are we buying it safe by state or do we make sure we have a proper structure for it for the future I think it's the last option. But you can't change your mind during the process all the time.
So yes maybe it gives a small sign don't mess with us but overall it showes not taking responsibility for the structural problem.
We buy toghter we don't buy togehter, this is going too slow so I buy alone again. We need to support our country more etc That's a structure likely to fail ...
I guess this is the underlying problem neither here or there. And in the brexit negotiations it was europe speaking in one voice and I think it was strongest when speaking as mainly one voice.

Besides the biggest issue in Europe is the uk mutante so I think also from an european view it can't hurt to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

We're not leaving a twelve week gap between Pfizer shots like the UK, we're already racking up our second shots while in the UK some vaccination centres are only reporting 50% take up.

I won't be surprised if the UK outbreak drags on long after others come down.

tubercolossus

The really bad news is that countries that get it wrong will cause the pandemic to drag on for everyone else. If ever a global, supra-national agency was needed to oversee a world-wide vaccination programme, it's now.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They can simply sell them to the domestic market, some 60 million plus consumers.

I've seen this a few times even on twitter. It never fails to amuse me. So are we having kids buying fish now too? What about Vegans vegetarians or simply people that don't like dish at all.

Where does this 60million plus come from.... It's a no sense number.

yagan

tubercolossus wrote: »

The really bad news is that countries that get it wrong will cause the pandemic to drag on for everyone else. If ever a global, supra-national agency was needed to oversee a world-wide vaccination programme, it's now.

Precisely.

Considering the way the UK is putting all its eggs in expediency over best medical guidance I won't be surprised if they end up quarantined long after the EU has started mingling again.

Junkyard Tom

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if I was AZ id be telling the EU youre behind all the full price payers too.

If I was the EU I'd be saying, 'you benefit from a lot of public infrastructure, publicly funded research, public health systems, publicly funded university graduates, and so on, honour your contracts and don't fuck around with us'.

hotmail.com

tubercolossus wrote: »

Or maybe we shouldn't be so provincial and one-eyed and realise that what he did affected the world of which we are a part.

It didn't. Vaccines does affect us.

tubercolossus

hotmail.com wrote: »

It didn't. Vaccines does affect us.

Do you want me to list the things he did that made the world a shíttier place?