But not enough in my opinion for it to be a supposed red line in negotiations for both sides.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
But not enough in my opinion for it to be a supposed red line in negotiations for both sides.
I don't think that it's actually a red line for the EU and I'm not sure if it's one for the UK either. It's more a matter of grandstanding but at the end of day, they are going to have an agreement that will most likely be close to what currently exists, the other issues such as protecting the integrity of the EU market are far larger than that.
Why is it so important to the British insert some insult about their stupidity. Why is it then so important for the EU insert a statement like this. The bias on this thread about this issue is unbelievable.
Granting access to UK waters was a demand made on the UK by the French when the UK joined the common market. The UK now has a chance to undo that because we are not in the EU anymore. It is important to both sides that is why the EU make it a prerequisite for any trade deal and the UK won't budge. The EU is not entitled to any say in UK EEZ post Brexit. Will EU countries who fish in the north sea be allowed some access post a trade deal, probably yes. Will the UK remain in the common fisheries policy probably not. Remember though its the EU that is demanding no change post Brexit which clearly has to happen as the UK is currently in the EU common fisheries policy having left The EU.
The UK is looking to address the imbalance which sees UK fishermen taking 35% of their own countries stocks and most fish stocks in the current EU waters are not at optimum sustainable take because the stocks can't grow due to over fishing. The EU fishing policy has been a disaster for UK fishermen and fish stocks and the marine environment. Hopefully we do a better job at it in the future.Either way it is the UK's EEZ to exploit under UN law.
The UK might capitulate on the principle yet and if so, so be it, but it seems unlikely at the moment. If the EU bans us from selling fish in to the EU then we can always leave them in the sea for a few years and harvest the long term greater bounty or try again when calmer heads return. Macron's problem is that all the EU countries benefit from a trade deal with the UK while only a small number benefit from over fishing British waters. If French intransigence blows the trade deal they probably won't be pleased but who knows its the EU and at least we don't have to get involved in those internal machinations anymore.
That's the thing that does my head in. Ignoring the part where you pretend that UK fisheries issues come from the EU, the man who is leading the fishing lobby is Gerard Van Balsfoort, he isn't french, he has nothing to do with Macron and he represents the foreign nation that has by far the biggest stake in UKs fishing industry. That type of narratives particularly aimed at France and Germany are nasty, they create bitterness for no good reason, there is no french intransigence, it's not a french problem, France aren't the ones that are going to fix or block things, it's a problem that concerns the fishing lobby at a continental level and while France are around the table, they aren't the larger player in it
Fishing is a tiny practically irrelevant part of our economy and giving up the chances of a deal over it is stupid as feck. It's a nationalist issue and nothing more. If we want stuff from the EU (and we obviously do) then we have to offer things in return.
As said so many times, apart from a few angry fishermen , nobody gives a toss and what is caught in UK waters is sold into Europe, if there's no agreement there's no point in the UK having the fish as they can't sell it and don't eat it.
Red herrings everywhere!
Red herrings everywhere!
The UK has withdrawn many of its demands from its current negotiating position precisely to avoid that prid quo pro. The EU chief negotiator has said as much. The current EU position that the UK has to give access on the current basis to UK EEZ before any deal can go ahead is an attempt to hold on to the price tolled for UK entry post its exit. Most people would see that as unreasonable if they could bring themselves a little distance from the matter.
And it is Macron who is leading the fight, up to the point of no deal, to hold the EU position because the fury of French fishermen when they can only catch fish in EU waters which will be half of its current size because the UK provides 50% of the current EU EEZ will be like that of a woman scorned.
Herring and mackerel are forage fish and part of the food chain. The fish we do eat feed on them, leaving them in UK waters would be a huge boost to that environment and increase the long term sustainable stocks for the future.
Banning UK fish from Europe might sound like a good idea but I'm not sure it is and treating UK differently to any other country post brexit breaks WTO rules anyway doesn't it?
Putting to one side of the question whether or not the UK and its fishermen have a real grievance, how can it be sensible policy to risk significant disruption to the manufacturing and services sector in the hope of benefiting a tiny industry which contributes a fraction of 1% of GDP? It is just cynically playing to the gallery of ill-informed, knuckled-headed nationalism.
You're the one not looking at it with some distance. Try and remember that finding a deal is beneficial to both sides. Yes the EU will try and extract as many benefits as they can from the deal, and why wouldn't they? They're negotiating for their citizens and their industries and economies. If the EU are refusing to sign a deal though, then its because the proposed deal isn't good enough to warrant the sacrifices it will cost them. At that point it doesn't matter what the UK think is fair or want, if the EU doesn't gain enough to benefit then they won't sign up to a deal, its very simple.
We warned you about this right back before the referendum even happened. Negotiating a complex trade deal with a much more powerful group is never going to result in a deal in your favour. It's certainly never going to result in a deal that is even close to as beneficial as the deal you had while part of that group.
Except the EU is doing exactly the same thing without being questioned or judged at all with obviously less justification for their position and about that there is an eery silence on here.
Maybe but the UK mainly eats fish like cod which are not in UK waters. They won't be banned from selling in Europe but there'll be standards to meet , duties, customs, angry fishermen not letting British trawlers dock at the European ports etc, a lot of problems for very little benefit. Back to the 60s and 70s.
Basically a lot of fuss about very little .
Who told you that UK fishes would be banned? It just won't be as competitive and the main issue is that you don't have the vessels to exploit pelagic fishes which is why many british quotas owners sold their quotas to larger british fisheries and why foreign fisheries were able to buy british licenses and quotas too. And by the way the vast majority of fishermen in the UK are coastal fishermen, they aren't in the herring and mackerel business and they don't/won't have the capicity to become pelagic fishermen.
So stop arguing that it is fair then and we can leave it at that. This thread is full of people claiming the UK is being unreasonable at least you drop that facade and so also the infuriating pretense that the UK is cherry picking and admit that its the EU pressing beyond equity. Progress at last. It might be the UK gives way in the end but as a negotiating tactic you want full value for the concession. You don't get that by allowing the idea that it was a fair request in the first place.Which it isn't.
I voted remain on the balance of risk as I don't share your love of all things EU. I didn't hear or need your warning for what its worth and I doubt your expertise in complex trade deals is any more advanced than mine.
No one has ever suggested what you are saying. People have quite clearly stated that the larger market will dictate its will, that's how it has always worked the UK used to benefit from it as a member of a large market.
Yeah, the fate of fish fingers was uppermost in Brexiteers minds when they voted.
The only people talking about that kind of childish definition of 'fairness' are Brexiters who seem to think that everyone should treat the UK like an equal or superior. The UK IS cherry picking, its asking for more than its economic weight justifies while refusing to give ground in return.
Probably not, but I'm damn sure that Paul's is. Maybe you should listen to him?
"
I thought you were keeping up but here is one example for you.
Warning of the dangers of a confrontation on fisheries, Ms de Montchalin issued a veiled threat to UK fishermen, suggesting France could ban the sale of British fish in the EU if access to UK fishing waters is denied.
On the BBC for instance A Marr show from a couple of months ago.
What next JPR you going to pretend she is not French or has nothing to do with the EU?
I'm afraid neither of you are really worth listening too on this thread. You are both too invested in your ant UK/ brexit bullshit.
So you are talking about the irrational example that she used and clearly stated as irrational and not beneficial? In response to a question from Marr that highlighted a theoretical intransigence from the british government when he said that it would be literally impossible to grant access to UK's waters to EU vessels?
And she didn't say that France would ban it either.
No irony there champ, for sure.
Brexit is a really stupid thing to do, always has been , always will be, for whatever reason people pretend why they voted thus. I'm quite confident that you will become of the same opinion within a year or so. All the warnings and predictions of outcomes were ignored because random Brexiters suddenly became experts on trade and WTO and blind faith that Britain will succeed simply because they're British.
I would say the same if France were ever that stupid as well.
Irony on irony. Will your next post be about how there is no such thing as irony or that only naive Brexiteers use the word to mean irony I wonder.
Personally I think Brexiteers are fecking idiots, but luckily for me I live in France so when the UK doesn't get its magic deal, and all the things we warned about and got called liars over come to pass, I'll just be drinking a beer and wishing them the best. Good luck with your little Englander outlook, I'm sure it'll be worth something at the negotiating table.
Yeah, the fate of fish fingers was uppermost in Brexiteers minds when they voted.
This always reminded me of a kind of "Spot the Ball" competition.... but was changed to "Spot the EU citizen".
How's things going with permanent residency there? Is it easy to do if you've already been residing there for a while? I feel fortunate that I have PR in Canada now. The UK looks so unattractive to me as a place to live right now.
"Uwe Richter, managing director of the Euro Baltic Fish Processing Company in Sassnit, Germany, said hundreds of fishermen from his own country risked going out of business if the UK stuck to its strict demands on access to its rich waters. He said fishermen in the UK "understand" that EU member states will not buy anything they land unless their own boats can continue to reap the same benefits they enjoyed before Brexit. "
No one has ever said they would ban UK fish though right, that was me just being stupid and making up shit?
Theoretically how many people would I have to quote threatening to ban or invoking the threats of others to ban UK fish unless they have access to UK waters would it take to prove my point that people were threatening to ban UK fish.
Followed hopefully by you retracting the point that no one ever threatened to ban UK fish.
I'm just asking
I know mate and its lucky for everyone in the UK that you do too.
This thread really is the worst and brings out the worst of literally all possible sides on this particular debate 
.
.Yeah, you can have it (or nationality) after 5 years. Unfortunately you also need to be able to speak French, and my brain doesn't seem to like it very much (to my French gf's annoyance).
I've been thinking about this recently in a slightly abstract, existential kind of way, after you posted something similar a week or so ago. I'd been thinking about returning to Australia even before Brexit if I'm honest, the quality of life is so much better there than it is in the UK.
This doesn't apply to Kentonio or Paul for instance I guess as they have moved to stay within the EU and the free movement that provides. But I did think there was something slightly funny about moving to escape this decision and the changes it will make in terms of freedom of movement, to a country that offers absolutely no more freedom of movement at all and which has an immigration system that the right wing in this country salivate over. The same applies to Canada I assume in terms of free movement etc?
Yeah, you can have it (or nationality) after 5 years. Unfortunately you also need to be able to speak French, and my brain doesn't seem to like it very much (to my French gf's annoyance).
I took the UK sample test for applicants for the UK the other day that was in the Guardian .- got 100% right - application refused, reason: you're far too intelligent
So now you are quoting a fishermen who talks about a potential boycott and not a ban. You would have to find one person who threatened the UK and is in a position to do anything.
Also I didn't call you stupid, I asked you a simple question without insult, so don't play the victim.
Last edited:
Yeah as of right now I don't benefit from freedom of movement at all just because I'm just a permanent resident, but once I get citizenship in a couple of years I'll have freedom of movement within Schengen via my Canadian passport (you get a stamp when you enter and another once you leave). It'll probably be the same for UK citizens I guess?
I actually moved to Canada because I met a Canadian girl. She has a dog so it was easier for me to move to Canada than for her to move to the UK. What I have found though is that I feel more at home here in Canada than I did in the UK, especially after the Brexit vote. It feels like people in the UK have different opinions to me. I also earn far more living in Toronto than I ever would've staying in the town where I used to live in the UK.
Canada is generally more welcoming to immigrants than the UK is right now, but they do control the numbers. For example if you want to apply for a working holiday visa and go to Australia and don't have a criminal record/haven't overstayed on a visa, then it takes about 20 minutes and you have it. If you're applying for the same visa for Canada then they only give out a certain number of them each year, so you end up in a pool of people hoping you get picked to apply. Some people can sit in the pool for years and never get picked. Right now there are 2,500 working holiday visa's available to UK citizens aged between 18 & 30, and about 7 or 8 thousand waiting to be picked. I consider myself lucky that I was picked out of the pool and then moved here. It's led to me becoming a PR and being able to build a life here. I didn't really have much going on in the UK when I left. I don't even have a bank account in the UK now.
Honestly if you have the option to go to Australia instead of living in the UK then I would take it. Everyone I've spoken to seems to enjoy life there much more and enjoy a better life style.
@Jonno I think you wrote a post a while ago about living in Australia and how great it's been for you?
"French intransigence over access to UK fisheries threatens chances of trade deal compromise
French parliamentarians are pressuring Emmanuel Macron to stand his ground over access to UK fishing grounds in Brexit trade negotiations, potentially making it harder for EU negotiator Michel Barnier to reach a sought after but as yet elusive compromise with Britain.
In a report approved by the National Assembly’s European affairs committee on Thursday, lawmakers urged the government to fight to keep French fishermen’s right to work in British waters.
“The (European) Union must continue to guarantee that fishing won’t be sacrificed to save other sectors,” a report seen by Reuters says. It was co-written by Jean-Pierre Pont, a member of parliament for Macron’s party who represents the town of Boulogne on the English Channel, France’s busiest fishing port.
The issue is becoming one of the main sticking points in the Brexit transition negotiations.
Britain intends to become an “independent coastal state” after a transition ends this year, arguing it should have yearly negotiations to set fishing quotas with the EU as Norway does. London also does not want any agreement on fisheries to be linked to a free trade deal.
EU diplomats had told Reuters last month the bloc was willing to shift its stance on fisheries and move from the “maximalist position” of maintaining the existing situation to help forge a trade deal with Britain.
But any French refusal to budge could make it harder for Barnier, who negotiates on behalf of the EU’s 27 members.
“The government must stay as firm as possible,” Pont told Reuters. “Britain can’t be better off outside than inside.”
The increased pressure on Macron comes after his foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, who is from the coastal region of Brittany, warned he was determined to defend access to British waters.
The lawmakers also urged Paris to do more to prepare for a no-deal, which they said was the “most likely scenario”."
What is the relevance of that? France have been around the table alongside several other countries, no one disputed that. Now there is a minor problem with the title because none of Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, France, Denmark, Ireland and Belgium are allegedly willing to compromise. I kind of hope that british negotiators don't overlook the others, they need to convice everyone.https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-uk-fishing-in-troubled-waters-in-brexit-talks/
Yes mate I absolutely did, I lived in Oz for 2 years, and then an even better country in NZ for 2 years in terms of how it's ran, governments etc.
I only moved home to sunny Lancashire because the Mrs got pregnant - D'oh! We were on the verge of coming over to your neck of the woods, I had my visa approved and was all set.
Oh nice where you headed? Did you apply for PR or get a working holiday visa? Seems like they are allowing people to enter with WHV's or new PR's under some circumstances.
Thinking about this ridiculous fishing issue, is there any chance the UK are building it up so they can later trade it as a “major concession” for something that actually matters? Or do I give Johnson and co far too much credit?
The problem is that while the subject is serious for a part of the fishing lobby, it's not the biggest problem in these negotiations. The first point that Barnier mentioned is infinitely more important yet it has barely made the news:
That point affects everything and doesn't allow a lot of room for concesssions while the fisheries issue is manageable, I don't think that the UK's proposition to have a deal comparable to Norway is unreasonable in theory, the issue is mainly that fishing lobbies don't want to give in but I think that the UK should talk to them directly.