Have I lost the plot?

[T00ts]

There I go giggling again. Someone only has to question the EU failings and there are plenty who try to shift the blame. Interestingly Papa who is a diehard Europhile as I understand, shows only too clearly how the decimation of our fishing industry was achieved. I don't think we need to search too far to find other examples. I would suggest that the EU desperation for us to follow rules has something to do with the hope of using the same ploy that Papa suggests to wreak further havoc on these shores.

I could say that you wear blinkers but no doubt you would throw the same dig at me so it's pointless. Covid 19 hasn't yet cast it's full shadow over any of us by all accounts, so it will be interesting to see how the EU situation pans out as much as our own. I sincerely hope that those of you that cling so hard to the EU coat tails will eventually recognise the con that it really is. Until then it's fun to watch the desperate defence continue.

[GerryT]

The fishermen sold the quota but it was not what it appeared to be. Locally some fishermen through no fault of their own got into serious debt to buy new kit, and boats to suit regulation changes, then shortly after that the regulations changed again and the new kit was useless.
(In some case with a losses over a £million.) Those fishermen sold quotas and often their boats, and left fishing altogether.
There were suicides, as even taking that drastic action left them in debt.

Sounds like a real painful time for people. where the UK govt for the want of a better expression "sold off" the UK fishing, handy the EU was there to blame.

[BeElBeeBub]

I don't think that's true at all. If the EU is prepared to talk to us while we get out. They have an agenda methinks. They told Barnier to make us suffer and he is still on that trajectory.

The negotiating mandate for Barnier has always been transparent.  it's published here

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21766/directives-for-the-negotiation-xt21016-ad01re02en17.pdf

point out where he has deviated from that.  The EU hasn't deviated from the behaviour that Remainer's predicted.  It's stance is only a surprise if you bought the Leave position about "all the cards", "easiest deal in history" etc.

Remember the Withdrawal agreement we are currently under was endorsed as "oven ready" by Johnson and voted for by the UK Parliament.

I am just waiting for another fat lady to start singing. We have all been here before, I don't see the EU changing it's spots. They had a battle royal over the budget yet again just a few weeks ago. I do wonder if they string it out as they do just for the cooking, extra expenses and the drama. There's nothing like a good european for a bit of good old drama and hysteria.

You're missing the point.  Brexit is a dead issue for the EU.  They are focused on other things (Covid, their budget, rise of authoritarianism in the east, Russian interference etc)

It's literally not on their agenda anymore.  They would like a deal, but realize that there will be significant disruption regardless.  They won't compromise the desires of the members for an ex-member. 

[papasmurf]

The UK have always been in control of their fishing, the reason UK fishermen have such small fleets is down to UK selling their quota abroad.

The fishermen sold the quota but it was not what it appeared to be. Locally some fishermen through no fault of their own got into serious debt to buy new kit, and boats to suit regulation changes, then shortly after that the regulations changed again and the new kit was useless.
(In some case with a losses over a £million.) Those fishermen sold quotas and often their boats, and left fishing altogether.
There were suicides, as even taking that drastic action left them in debt.

[GerryT]

I don't think that's true at all. If the EU is prepared to talk to us while we get out. They have an agenda methinks. They told Barnier to make us suffer and he is still on that trajectory. I am just waiting for another fat lady to start singing. We have all been here before, I don't see the EU changing it's spots. They had a battle royal over the budget yet again just a few weeks ago. I do wonder if they string it out as they do just for the cooking, extra expenses and the drama. There's nothing like a good european for a bit of good old drama and hysteria.

The UK have always been in control of their fishing, the reason UK fishermen have such small fleets is down to UK selling their quota abroad. Sounds simple if you want it back you buy it back, it can't be just taken. UK politicians are saying they will just take back control, this is what's causing an issue.

There is no agenda, plot to hurt or suffer. It's so basic and 4yr's on, the UK still don't get it. I'll spell it out for you, the EU is a rules based organisation, it has to be to satisfy all the member states, you know the rules before you join or get a trade deal, so there's no confusion or argument. The UK is not rules based, it likes to make it up as it goes along, the old precedence protocol, a democratic country with no written constitution.
The UK knew the types of deals on offer, the Barnier step map laid that out very clearly, but the UK wanted more, a 3rd country with a FTA simular to full membership. This is not the EU punishing the UK, but the UK kept being unrealistic. Seeking unicorn terms and seemed offended and aghast that the EU wouldn't give what they wanted. There were cries of "they need us more than we need them" and "Germany car industry will tell Merkel what what". This went as far as Johnson the fool going around to Macron and Merkel thinking they controlled the EU and bypassing Barnier, it was just so idiotic.
The EU budget is done once every 7 yrs, this time round with the UK leaving there is a lot to adjust. It will and we move on. The UK will too, hopefully with time UK media will stop blaming all UK made problems on the EU and start writing some truths about your neighbours.

[Streetwalker]

Woah there horse . I have never said we should not confer with others when making decisions that cross international borders  and I have never said we shouldn't if we can make agreements in all the things you list .
What I am saying is that we should be arguing our case from Westminster not within the confines of EU institutions

Its why we have left the EU

The EU institutions were a ready built forum for the EU countries to cooperate on these issues rather than an ad-hoc negotiation on every single issue.

And thats what many saw as the problem . Its OK having a natter about airspace or pollution but its not when they are telling us what we can grow in a field in Cambridge or that we can only catch two sea bass off Brighton pier when there is a Dutch trawler on the horizon hoovering up the rest of the shoal .

[T00ts]

You lot do make me giggle. Here we go again pretending that brexiteers are little Englanders who don't feel the need to talk to any other countries even when they are on the doorstep, and you all know that isn't so.

Sorry but there is no pretence involved. Brexiteers seem prepared to negotiate with anywhere in the World except the EU.

I don't think that's true at all. If the EU is prepared to talk to us while we get out. They have an agenda methinks. They told Barnier to make us suffer and he is still on that trajectory. I am just waiting for another fat lady to start singing. We have all been here before, I don't see the EU changing it's spots. They had a battle royal over the budget yet again just a few weeks ago. I do wonder if they string it out as they do just for the cooking, extra expenses and the drama. There's nothing like a good european for a bit of good old drama and hysteria.

[papasmurf]

You lot do make me giggle. Here we go again pretending that brexiteers are little Englanders who don't feel the need to talk to any other countries even when they are on the doorstep, and you all know that isn't so.

Sorry but there is no pretence involved. Brexiteers seem prepared to negotiate with anywhere in the World except the EU.

[T00ts]

You lot do make me giggle. Here we go again pretending that brexiteers are little Englanders who don't feel the need to talk to any other countries even when they are on the doorstep, and you all know that isn't so.

I for one have no problem with talking to those surrounding our waters and in the spirit of true British fairness will be very happy to talk rights and quotas both inside and outside our waters in normal trade terms. What upsets my equilibrium and always has is the need to spend a fortune to uphold what has become predominantly a political arena with an agenda which has the potential to be anything but fair. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Woah there horse . I have never said we should not confer with others when making decisions that cross international borders  and I have never said we shouldn't if we can make agreements in all the things you list .
What I am saying is that we should be arguing our case from Westminster not within the confines of EU institutions

Its why we have left the EU

Right, so we have agreed that we do have to make decisions with other countries.

Those decisions *were* made in Westminster

The EU treaties require unanimous approval by each state (i.e. Westminster had a veto)
EU legislation required either unanimous approval by each government (therefore Westminster veto) or more commonly QMV, where the UK had 1/4 the blocking vote.  Plus there was also the EU Parl requirement that we have discussed.

The EU institutions were a ready built forum for the EU countries to cooperate on these issues rather than an ad-hoc negotiation on every single issue.

[Streetwalker]

The "only the commission can propose/initiate legislation" argument is often brought up.

But who *should* have the right to propose/initiate EU legislation?

Should it be the council?  That would mean the Germans or Italians or French proposing legislation.  You can imagine how that would go down. You would get 3 slightly different proposals for each law and each country would immediately veto the others versions.

Alternatively, should the EParl propose legislation?  So an Italian MEP from an agricultural area could propose agricultural subsidies legislation?

The only people who should be proposing and initiating legislation that effects British people is the elected UK government and its Parliament . 

As for the EU I dont really care .

Right, so when there is legislation about air travel, we don't need to negotiate that with other countries? 

How about air pollution?  Because as we know that never travels beyond national borders.

Fishing in the congested and historically messy North Atlantic/North sea area will always require negotiations with other countries.

A decision by a French legislator (say to allow unlimited beam trawling in the channel, or oil tankers to discharge their tanks out just outside the 12m limit but next to a rich fishing ground) will always affect the British people.

The mindset that the UK can unilaterally make decisions with no regard for others is as outdated as the empire.

Woah there horse . I have never said we should not confer with others when making decisions that cross international borders  and I have never said we shouldn't if we can make agreements in all the things you list .
What I am saying is that we should be arguing our case from Westminster not within the confines of EU institutions

Its why we have left the EU

[Borg Refinery]

I would suggest not believing a newspaper article on the subject of fishing especially the Daily Heil. (Seriously.)
It takes a lot of research using official data, from a multiplicity of sources to get at the reality.
Then there is the need to research the long decline of the British fishing industry which despite the propaganda is not all the EUs fault.
(Also fish and shellfish with a few exceptions do not stick to artificial boundaries in the sea.)

I sometimes wonder if these searches through data and multiple sources doesn't make for more confusion than help. It is so easy to confuse a situation in this way. Just because it is written in the Daily Fail doesn't make it incorrect. Just because it is a relatively simple analysis of the past actions of government - even a Tory one - doesn't make it any less valuable in explaining why we are where we are. My own memory confirms a lot of it. Your comment above suggests that you didn't read the article and if so it's unfair to judge it.

From your article - "Indeed, a fifth of the entire quota for England is caught by one 370 ft Dutch mega-trawler."

The quota was sold to the Dutch by us for that one! I covered it earlier in the thread, the same is very likely true for French cod catches. They leave important key details out. I agree it gets confusing.

The point is though - why? From the article it suggests that the EU decision to allow all EU nations access to all fishing areas as a common utility has made the problem and hit our fishing industry hardest.  The point that our fishing is so small has surely been created by EU policy that appears totally unfair and agreed for questionable motives. It simply reinforces my view that the EU is better without us.

Surely it's up to us who we sell the rights to, if we sell them to foreigners, are you saying that should be banned?

[BeElBeeBub]

I would suggest not believing a newspaper article on the subject of fishing especially the Daily Heil. (Seriously.)
It takes a lot of research using official data, from a multiplicity of sources to get at the reality.
Then there is the need to research the long decline of the British fishing industry which despite the propaganda is not all the EUs fault.
(Also fish and shellfish with a few exceptions do not stick to artificial boundaries in the sea.)

I sometimes wonder if these searches through data and multiple sources doesn't make for more confusion than help. It is so easy to confuse a situation in this way. Just because it is written in the Daily Fail doesn't make it incorrect. Just because it is a relatively simple analysis of the past actions of government - even a Tory one - doesn't make it any less valuable in explaining why we are where we are. My own memory confirms a lot of it. Your comment above suggests that you didn't read the article and if so it's unfair to judge it.

I did read the article.

First, there is a kernel of truth in the bit that deals with the original quota allocation. The UK quota allocation was affected by the fact it's catches prior to joining were lower than usual.  However it's incorrect to attribute this to the EU "taking advantage". The UK had been trying to join for at least a decade before and it was just unlucky timing that the time it did join coincided with a low point in catches.  The formula for deciding the catch allocation wasn't tweaked specifically to disadvantage the UK. It was what it was, and the UK would have fully know the results. The alternative would have been to not join and continue to decline in other industries just to eat for a favourable time for fishing.

Secondly, it makes a point that the british captains couldn't afford to keep going, so sold out to foreign captains.  To allow this was an explicit decision of the UK government. It don't place any limits in the selling and amalgamating of quotas.

The fishing stock crashes were caused by overfishing because the politicans repeatedly ignored the scientific advice to limit catch quotas (because of protests from the fishing lobby). When they finally did clamp down on the quotas (again, against the protests of the fishing lobby) fish stocks recovered to the point that catch quotas are finally rising again.  The damage to the fishing industry was foresaw and EU wide programs out in place to help fishermen transition away from fishing.  From memory, the UK fleet didn't even see the largest reductions.

The basic process of fish quotas is.

Scientists advise on total catch limits

Politicans set the total catch limits.

The total catch is divided up according to the historic shares.

All.of the above happens at EU level.

Then once the national.quita has been set, how that quota is divided up between boats is a matter for national policies. We could have a lottery, an auction, limits in foreign catches etc

The selling of the individual quota allowances was 100% a UK matter ..


AFAIK, allmkf the above applies to the zone between 12 and 200m off the coast. the 12 mile zone off the coast is 100% the responsibility of the national government

[papasmurf]

An illustration, the recent "Scallop" war. Where the scallops are goes well outside the French territorial limit but the French ban all scallop fishing in the area the scallops are for part of the year.  British boats were ignoring that ban. It might surprise you that several Cornish fishermen I know agree with the French on grounds of stock conservation. However much the rabid Brexiteers don't like it no fishing agreement and a significant amount of the British fleet will go bust:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45337091
Scallop war: French and British boats clash in Channel
Published29 August 2018

[T00ts]

This doesn't alter the concept of us having jurisdiction over our waters. I see every reason to refuse a continuation of the current rules which the EU seem to be twisting our arms to maintain. It makes no sense to happily give away something that is rightfully ours. We should be deciding who fishes when and where and how much so that we can adjust it to our benefit as a free nation.