General Brexit discussion thread

[Baff]

Are you livng in France?

[papasmurf]

Fishermen are going to do better from now on.

We've finally got a government that isn't willing to sell them out to get a banking deal or what have you.

Not where I live they won't, most won't survive the Covid-19 lockdown. Let alone a hard Brexit.

The government are selling out the fishermen.

[Baff]

You know that 3/4 UK fidhing boats were scrapped when we joined the CFC back in the days of the EEC right?

That this current arrangement has been massively destructive to our fishing industry and is not in anyway it's friend?.

Three in every four.



You know that under the current arrangement 80% of UK fish are cought by EU fishermen.

If your friend wishes ot scrap his boat, buy it off him.

UK fishing is about to explode!



Fishermen are going to do better from now on.

We've finally got a government that isn't willing to sell them out to get a banking deal or what have you.

(Or at least it looks that way for now).

[papasmurf]

 Fresh opportunities await.

The only opportunity I can see is a free inshore fishing boat as a garden ornament in my front garden. (It will save one of my neighbours the cost of scrapping his boat.)

[Baff]

The EU market isn't going anywhere.

If they wish to trade for those shellfish we do too.



Otherwise with prices dropping and prices for our current favourites such as Cod expected to rise in their plaice, motivation exists for us to adjust our preferences,



We may also wish to sell lisences for them to come and fish those stocks themselves.

Or perhaps find a new market for them entirely.



The dynamic is changing. Fresh opportunities await.

[papasmurf]

Something that can be mitigated by UK consumers switching their preference to cheaper domestic catches.

What cheaper domestic catches?  Over 90% of the inshore catch of fish and shellfish in Britain goes fresh and live Europe, there is next to no British market for it.  No EU market available and the prices will drop below the economic level to bother catching it.

[Baff]

We will agree a new fisheries deal.

The EU will have little to no input in that agreement.

And it will be managed to prioritise UK interests as it should be.



The deal that will be offered to foreign fishermen will be very limited compared to what they are used to.

There is however still room for the UK government to sell fishing lisences to foreigners as UK fishing capacity is still quite low after joining the CFP and getting sued, devastated our fleets.



However it is also a good opportunity to give our fisheries a well earned recovery period while our own fleet rebuilds.



All of this is congruent with our political declaration.

Just not the outcome that the EU prefers ideally.





The repercussions I envisage is EU tariffs on UK fish.

Something that can be mitigated by UK consumers switching their preference to cheaper domestic catches.



With 40% of EU fish caught in UK waters, long term I expect the EU to drop thsoe tariffs in the interests of their own consumers,,, or likewise to change their eating habits to mitigate against the price rises.

[GerryT]

The politcal declaration is a statement of aspiration of those things both the UK and EU guarentee to continue talks over.

It does not guarentee the outcome of those talks.

Only that they intend to discuss them further ta a later date.

This is true, no guarantee. But the wording about say fisheries was to agree quotas no if a deal should be considered, by July and not at some later date. It would be disingenuous to say the EU quota would be zero. The exact wording as below,



73. Within the context of the overall economic partnership the Parties should establish a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares.

74. The Parties will use their best endeavours to conclude and ratify their new fisheries agreement by 1 July 2020 in order for it to be in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.



Uk politicians find themselves in a bind, promising the EU that they will agree a fishing deal and also promising to the UK people that they will take back control and take back their fishing. Both can't be done, it looks like Johnson has decided to save his job and try make it look like the EU won't "push us about". It's the uk side delaying and not progressing talks.



At the end of the day the political declaration isn't binding, so the UK can dishonour itself and not follow through on what it said it would. But that will have international repercussions on it's reputation and standing, slipping even further is not what the UK needs right now.

[Baff]

The politcal declaration is a statement of aspiration of those things both the UK and EU guarentee to continue talks over.

It does not guarentee the outcome of those talks.

Only that they intend to discuss them further at a later date.

[GerryT]

Still more tripe from you.... SOVEREIGN states have legislative primacy.....and that will not be regained by the UK UNTIL we have truly escaped from EU clutches, which means trading as WE sit fit - NOT on a basis which is controlled by the EU....'level playing field' indeed.

So you'r either saying

The UK negotiators agreed with the eu a number of items that would form the direction of future trade talks, including fisheries and level playing field. But they were doing a Cumming's and telling a load of porkie pies

Or

Your source of info leads you to believe that the UK never agreed to any of this, even when presented with the document the UK govt agreed to.



The reason your confused is that the UK  Govr have for decades said and done one thing when dealing with the EU  representing you by the way. And then saying something totally different when making announcements domestically. Level playing field, fisheries and a host of other good stuff is nothing new in these proceedings, it's why the UK Govt agreed the political declaration, well Johnson the brexit saviour did.



You keep talking text book, sovereign states have control, but what your missing is what your Johnson govt is doing with that control, we will see what johnson the convicted liar will do, hope it's not anything like the way hes backing Cummings the "I can go where I like when presenting symptoms" teflon advisor.

[Stevlin]

Your missing the whole point of the declaration. It is a joint declaration. The UK side, Johnson, fully agreed to this and signed off on it. It's broad brush strokes and in principal there will be talks around fishing and quotas. The UK as a sovereign state has decided it WILL male agreements on these topics. That's a fact, the UK have agreed to this. The UK has always had its full sovereignty but either way that doesn't mean building walls and isolating oneself.



Do you thin the political declaration was just a decoration or something the UK could just throw in the bin ?

Still more tripe from you.... SOVEREIGN states have legislative primacy.....and that will not be regained by the UK UNTIL we have truly escaped from EU clutches, which means trading as WE sit fit - NOT on a basis which is controlled by the EU....'level playing field' indeed.

[Stevlin]

Your missing the whole point of the declaration. It is a joint declaration. The UK side, Johnson, fully agreed to this and signed off on it. It's broad brush strokes and in principal there will be talks around fishing and quotas. The UK as a sovereign state has decided it WILL male agreements on these topics. That's a fact, the UK have agreed to this. The UK has always had its full sovereignty but either way that doesn't mean building walls and isolating oneself.



Do you thin the political declaration was just a decoration or something the UK could just throw in the bin ?

You claimed that The UK AGREED to continue allowing the EU access to UK fishing territories...so show me where the WA actually STATES THAT!!

If it had already been agreed , which you fatuously claim, then the issue would not be up for discussion - because the WA is a LEGALLY BINDING agreement - in which case, such access would NOT be a matter for negotiation - and access could NOT NOW be refused as you claim.

[GerryT]

Rubbish....your reference clearly states in relation to the fisheries etc....that a new agreement wrt to the future trading basis, and  such fisheries access will be required....and as a now supposedly  newly regained sovereign power, we have the right to decide NOT to continue with such a one sided arrangement.  It is ridiculous to assume that such access has already been agreed to be retained.



Geeez - that absolutely ridiculous 'pay off' to the EU should be more than enough to even satisfy the notorious greed of the EU...

You haven't been eating more of those blight affected potatoes have you spud??

Your missing the whole point of the declaration. It is a joint declaration. The UK side, Johnson, fully agreed to this and signed off on it. It's broad brush strokes and in principal there will be talks around fishing and quotas. The UK as a sovereign state has decided it WILL male agreements on these topics. That's a fact, the UK have agreed to this. The UK has always had its full sovereignty but either way that doesn't mean building walls and isolating oneself.



Do you thin the political declaration was just a decoration or something the UK could just throw in the bin ?

[Stevlin]

Nobody is insisting they want access, it was agreed with Johnson and his merry bunch.

Rubbish....your reference clearly states in relation to the fisheries etc....that a new agreement wrt to the future trading basis, and  such fisheries access will be required....and as a now supposedly  newly regained sovereign power, we have the right to decide NOT to continue with such a one sided arrangement.  It is ridiculous to assume that such access has already been agreed to be retained.



Geeez - that absolutely ridiculous 'pay off' to the EU should be more than enough to even satisfy the notorious greed of the EU...

You haven't been eating more of those blight affected potatoes have you spud??

[GerryT]

Frankly Gerry, you really do astound me with some of your claims....the Withdrawal agreement, as you correctly pointed out, was an integral part of the Brexit process - but it is ridiculous to imply that the UK had committed itself to continue to share fishing territories as part of the STILL to BE NEGOTIATED post Brexit trade agreement. Brexit, was intended to REGAIN full sovereignty for the UK - which means that the UK wold be capable oy yet again acting as a FULLY SOVEREIGN country. A level playing field just doesn't come into it.  The UK would be a independent body -  just as the EU , ( in essence[) would be- and it is false to imply that the UK has somehow broken it's word.

The withdrawal agreement was precisely that....the details of the various steps which would be taken to facilitate the parting of the ways....and hopefully, to subsequently agree an ABSOLUTELY NEW subsequent basis of trade.

Future trade could indeed be carried out via 'tariffs' if a mutually amicable agreement was not reached - but it is ridiculous for the French, and the EU negotiators to insist on the retention of access into British waters as part of a future trade agreement.

Even though May didn't believe what she claimed - I really DO believe that NO DEAL is better than a bad deal - and Fishing rights has NO PLACE whatsoever in a post Brexit" TRADE" deal - and neither does EU rules OR the use of an EU Court  to settle any UK/EU trade disputes.

Would you be happy if Ireland was outside of the EU, and Irish/UK trade disputes would be settled by a UK court??.... No, I didn't think so.

Nobody is insisting they want access, it was agreed with Johnson and his merry bunch. The EU is expecting the UK to follow through on what it agreed it would do. Here is the political declaration, stop reading the shitty rag UK press and read this. Because this is what the UK has signed up to in principal and if it wants to keep it's word it will honour.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/revised_political_declaration.pdf">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/b ... ration.pdf">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/revised_political_declaration.pdf



Fisheries: section X11 items 71 to 74.

73 states "Within the context of the overall economic partnership the Parties should establish a new fisheries agreement on, inter alia, access to waters and quota shares."

74 states "The Parties will use their best endeavours to conclude and ratify their new fisheries agreement by 1 July 2020 in order for it to be in place in time to be used for determining"



Level playing field: section XIV item 77

Section 21 summarises this as "However, with a view to facilitating the movement of goods across borders, the Parties envisage comprehensive arrangements that will create a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition, as set out in Section XIV of this Part."



As for disputes I have said there would be an arbitration panel, which you keep ignoring and spitting out your typical mantra. Section 131 says it better:



"131.The Parties indicate that should a dispute raise a question of interpretation of provisions or concepts of Union law, which may also be indicated by either Party, the arbitration panel should refer the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as the sole arbiter of Union law, for a binding ruling as regards the interpretation of Union law. Conversely, there should be no reference to the CJEU where a dispute does not raise such a question."



And you come out with the "no deal is better than a bad deal". Any deal moves the UK from WTO and that is a better position. The bad deal is no deal on WTO.