Dream ticket?

[Nick]

It can't be immaterial if the international agreement is about the UK having an Irish Sea border. that's what Johnson signed the UK up to.

In the event that the UK ignored their international obligations and removed that border, then the EU would follow the procedure as setout in the agreement. First arbitration to try resolve the problem, then legal proceedings, fines, removal of preferential tariff rates for the UK.

In a nut shell a trade war.

The question isn't what will the EU do, the question is, what's more important to the UK, NI or the trade deal with the EU. If Truss gets the Job, she'll prob go for NI and start that war. She's planning on cutting taxes that will cost the UK 30b, that will come from borrowings which in turn will push up inflation. Truss's plan, a trade war and higher inflation.  When it comes to it though, England will look after England, it always does. So the North will be screwed, NI will be shafted and you take one step closer to the breakup of the UK.

In short the Border is a UK problem, brexit caused the problem and the NI protocol is the solution that the UK came up with. If the UK wants to move from that then it's a UK only problem.

Classic Gerry not answering the questioning and telling us everything that is wrong with the U.K.  

Last chance Gerry, what will the EU do with an open border to their block?
Forget trade, Truss, 39 billion black hole, cod wars... Is the EU going to erect a hard border, come up with magical electronics that can handle customs (you said it doesn't exist) or sign a workable trade and customs agreement? We know they don't want a working trade agreement with the U.K. so I guess that leaves the magic or hard border n

[Borchester]

Nothing illegal , nothing that breaks any obligations  . The EU agreed to the get out clause ,did they think we wouldn't use it ?

Rather a good reason to steer clear of the EU. If Brussels is that dumb, do we want to be that closely associated with them?

[Streetwalker]

It can't be immaterial if the international agreement is about the UK having an Irish Sea border. that's what Johnson signed the UK up to.

That was what Mayhem wanted to sign up to and was thrown out of parliament . Johnsons withdrawal agreement had a clause in it  (why it got passed where Mays didnt) that allowed either side to unilaterally change it if it was found to be unworkable in the future .
The UK has decided its not for them to have a border in the Irish sea and have come up with the protocol which has passed through the house of commons this week . 

Nothing illegal , nothing that breaks any obligations  . The EU agreed to the get out clause ,did they think we wouldn't use it ? 

[GerryT]

Whether the U.K. can change what you call an international binding agreement is immaterial Gerry, I asked you what will the EU do if the U.K. removes the Irish Sea border and tells the EU it's their problem?

It can't be immaterial if the international agreement is about the UK having an Irish Sea border. that's what Johnson signed the UK up to.

In the event that the UK ignored their international obligations and removed that border, then the EU would follow the procedure as setout in the agreement. First arbitration to try resolve the problem, then legal proceedings, fines, removal of preferential tariff rates for the UK.

In a nut shell a trade war.

The question isn't what will the EU do, the question is, what's more important to the UK, NI or the trade deal with the EU. If Truss gets the Job, she'll prob go for NI and start that war. She's planning on cutting taxes that will cost the UK 30b, that will come from borrowings which in turn will push up inflation. Truss's plan, a trade war and higher inflation.  When it comes to it though, England will look after England, it always does. So the North will be screwed, NI will be shafted and you take one step closer to the breakup of the UK.

In short the Border is a UK problem, brexit caused the problem and the NI protocol is the solution that the UK came up with. If the UK wants to move from that then it's a UK only problem. 

[Nick]

25% of what though, I've explained that of the 76 fish categories 65% have less than a 10% drop, so explain what the 25% represents. Not that it's really important as the EU agreed to this with the UK, the EU are happy about it, in context of the overall trade deal, of which fishing is a part. But do expand, 25% of what, what fishing stocks, what fishing waters ?

You kept harping on about the 2 questions, they were:


Under the current agreement, which runs to 2026, I said the EU would take action as outlined in the TCA, which fisheries is a part, including imposing tariffs and possible sanctions after going through an independent arbitration panel. That still stands. Post 2026 my guess is the EU would expect the % share of fishing would continue in line with 2026, but through negotiation (that's give and take) both parties may agree to something different, give and take.

The second question, the UK agreed, in an internationally binding treaty, to having an internal border. Failure to comply would result in the same action as per fishing.

Whether the U.K. can change what you call an international binding agreement is immaterial Gerry, I asked you what will the EU do if the U.K. removes the Irish Sea border and tells the EU it's their problem? 

[Streetwalker]

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
At my local chippie prices are the same. So what are you on about?

WTH is this thread about?

Yes but you only eat Pouting along the Tidal basin ,even the French throw that back 

[Barry]

What's all the fuss about who's got which fish where?

The white fish that Brits love so much is shooting up in price, and the reasons cited are Ukraine war and Russian sanctions. Going to the local chippie has become a wallet-checking occasion.

Perhaps what's left of the UK fishing industry (after it sold quotas and vessels to overseas-owned fishing companies) should try harder to sell all the varieties it catches to the UK population. Any argument with the EU, though important, shouldn't be allowed to further destroy the UK fishing industry and fisheries.

Perhaps the best dream ticket outcome we could hope for now the choice is with 160,000 party members, who are likely to select Truss, which would make Starmer appear like an accomplished and capable leader. And although I can't see any real Labour policies, and my misgivings about a Lab-LibDem pact, it migh be the kick up the bottom Westminster needs to get it to take seriously the cost of living, energy prices, skills and personnel gaps, climate change, etc. Tax cuts shouldn't be the prime concern when the UK is one of the lower taxed countries in the G7...

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
At my local chippie prices are the same. So what are you on about?

WTH is this thread about?

[patman post]

What's all the fuss about who's got which fish where?

The white fish that Brits love so much is shooting up in price, and the reasons cited are Ukraine war and Russian sanctions. Going to the local chippie has become a wallet-checking occasion.

Perhaps what's left of the UK fishing industry (after it sold quotas and vessels to overseas-owned fishing companies) should try harder to sell all the varieties it catches to the UK population. Any argument with the EU, though important, shouldn't be allowed to further destroy the UK fishing industry and fisheries.

Perhaps the best dream ticket outcome we could hope for now the choice is with 160,000 party members, who are likely to select Truss, which would make Starmer appear like an accomplished and capable leader. And although I can't see any real Labour policies, and my misgivings about a Lab-LibDem pact, it migh be the kick up the bottom Westminster needs to get it to take seriously the cost of living, energy prices, skills and personnel gaps, climate change, etc. Tax cuts shouldn't be the prime concern when the UK is one of the lower taxed countries in the G7...

[GerryT]

The 25% is agreed until 2026, the rest is an annual agreement.

As for having all the fish and no market, this was the initial post. What is the EU going to do when they have no fish and no access to U.K. waters? I've asked 3 times and you've avoided every time.

25% of what though, I've explained that of the 76 fish categories 65% have less than a 10% drop, so explain what the 25% represents. Not that it's really important as the EU agreed to this with the UK, the EU are happy about it, in context of the overall trade deal, of which fishing is a part. But do expand, 25% of what, what fishing stocks, what fishing waters ?

You kept harping on about the 2 questions, they were:

We'll ask yourself 2 questions. 

What would the EU do if the French were not allowed to fish in U.K. waters?

And

What would the EU do if the U.K. said... The U.K. is having no internet border or customs checks, there is a border between NI and SI what are YOU going to do about it?

Under the current agreement, which runs to 2026, I said the EU would take action as outlined in the TCA, which fisheries is a part, including imposing tariffs and possible sanctions after going through an independent arbitration panel. That still stands. Post 2026 my guess is the EU would expect the % share of fishing would continue in line with 2026, but through negotiation (that's give and take) both parties may agree to something different, give and take.

The second question, the UK agreed, in an internationally binding treaty, to having an internal border. Failure to comply would result in the same action as per fishing.

[Nick]

It's not annually agreed, it's agreed up to 2026. It is part of the TCA and there are legal means for the EU to take action. From suspension of any agreed tariff reductions and a independent (not the ECJ) arbitration panel to settle disputes. Pretty much what I had said previously.
It's not a straight 5% cut per yr on everything. I'm looking at a list of 76 fish classifications, the first page is below:


Over the 6 yrs 30 fish classifications have no change in quota, 22 have less than a 5% drop, 13 have below a 10% drop. Only 4 fish classifications have more than a 25% drop. But either way this was negotiated and agreed, the EU are happy with this, otherwise they wouldn't have signed up to it. As with all negotiations there is give and take.

You can catch all the fish in the world but that's not much use if you can't sell them, what's happened since leaving, are fishermen ecstatic with this deal the Johnson team negotiated ?  are they far better off with the new arrangements.

The 25% is agreed until 2026, the rest is an annual agreement. 

As for having all the fish and no market, this was the initial post. What is the EU going to do when they have no fish and no access to U.K. waters? I've asked 3 times and you've avoided every time. 

[Barry]

Jeremy Hunt is out. Esther McVey has now thrown away any future chance of being in leadership, because she backed a real loser.

[GerryT]

I didn't say it wasn't in the agreement. I was replying to your point about reneging on the deal and pointing out that it's agreed annually, not that it wasn't there.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9174/

It's not annually agreed, it's agreed up to 2026. It is part of the TCA and there are legal means for the EU to take action. From suspension of any agreed tariff reductions and a independent (not the ECJ) arbitration panel to settle disputes. Pretty much what I had said previously.

Quote
Under the agreement 25% overall of the existing EU quota in UK waters will be transferred to the UK over a 5 ½ year period to 30 June 2026, with specific percentages of annually agreed Total Allowable Catches (TACs) agreed for each fishing stock.


Suppose you're going to argue with the commons library Gerry!

It's not a straight 5% cut per yr on everything. I'm looking at a list of 76 fish classifications, the first page is below:


Over the 6 yrs 30 fish classifications have no change in quota, 22 have less than a 5% drop, 13 have below a 10% drop. Only 4 fish classifications have more than a 25% drop. But either way this was negotiated and agreed, the EU are happy with this, otherwise they wouldn't have signed up to it. As with all negotiations there is give and take.

You can catch all the fish in the world but that's not much use if you can't sell them, what's happened since leaving, are fishermen ecstatic with this deal the Johnson team negotiated ?  are they far better off with the new arrangements. 

[Nick]

You said fishing wasn't in the TCA, now you're saying it is. Your summary of what's in there is very sparce. Annex 35 is a table of fish types and the allocation of those types allowable for the EU and UK to catch in each others waters That table covers years from 2021 to 2026. The table in Annex 35, of the TCA only deals with fish and it stretches from pages 1884 to 1894, that's 11 pages covering hundreds of fish types, over a period of 6 years. Unless you can point to where in the TCA your claim of a reduction of 5%/yr up to 25% is again bullsh1t.  I'll await your reply referencing the TCA page/reference which states this. I did answer your questions, you're just not listening.

I didn't say it wasn't in the agreement. I was replying to your point about reneging on the deal and pointing out that it's agreed annually, not that it wasn't there.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9174/

Under the agreement 25% overall of the existing EU quota in UK waters will be transferred to the UK over a 5 ½ year period to 30 June 2026, with specific percentages of annually agreed Total Allowable Catches (TACs) agreed for each fishing stock.

Suppose you're going to argue with the commons library Gerry!

[GerryT]

It doesn't matter how many times the word fish appears, it's what it says.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-fish-stocks/eu-uk-fishing-quotas/

In line with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed by the EU and the UK and which applies from 1 January 2021, every year the two parties will hold consultations to set their respective fishing opportunities for the shared stocks for the year to come.

The EU automatically loses 5% from the available pot every year, up to 25%

I notice you haven't actually answered the question though.

You said fishing wasn't in the TCA, now you're saying it is. Your summary of what's in there is very sparce. Annex 35 is a table of fish types and the allocation of those types allowable for the EU and UK to catch in each others waters That table covers years from 2021 to 2026. The table in Annex 35, of the TCA only deals with fish and it stretches from pages 1884 to 1894, that's 11 pages covering hundreds of fish types, over a period of 6 years. Unless you can point to where in the TCA your claim of a reduction of 5%/yr up to 25% is again bullsh1t.  I'll await your reply referencing the TCA page/reference which states this. I did answer your questions, you're just not listening.

[Streetwalker]

Well somebody needs to tell the UK govt and the EU that. The word Fish appears 191 times in the TCA, there is a full section (part 2 Heading 5) dedicated to fishing, this outlines conservation, quota shares and access to each others waters (Art.500)
Art501 deals with compensation in the unlikely event of a party reducing or withdrawing access to it's waters. Remedial action is permitted (art506) such as removal of preferential tariffs etc.. Failing resolution art 744 covers resolution via an Arbitration Tribunal.
The UK can take unilateral action, it would be breaking the TCA and I doubt fishing outweighs the benefits the UK has with that agreement.

From what Im hearing from friends, keen fishermen ,  along the south coast any deal should weigh very heavily with conservation . In years to come feck all % of feck all wont be worth arguing about .

What threat does the NI situation hold ?  apart from the NI economy being far better performing, because of it's closer ties to the EU. A daily reminder to the UK govt of the folly that brexit is.

And a daily reminder to the EU that a frictionless trade deal  with the UK would produce similar results and why they insist on keeping the economic handcuffs on