I don't disagree with you but I have a sneaky suspicion that this wasn't in the minds of the people who voted Brexit nor what they are expecting in a week's time.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I don't disagree with you but I have a sneaky suspicion that this wasn't in the minds of the people who voted Brexit nor what they are expecting in a week's time.
Nah, it'll be fine. It'll be the end of Scotland if we actually let the fecktards in the SNP get their way. A bunch of halfwits who have the piss easy job of moaning about the UK government, and a bunch of halfwits who believe having a difference of opinion should mean division. Anti brexit, but pro nationalism. feck off. It's a mess up here.
It's a mess everywhere, to be fair. I don't share your optimism that it'll be fine, though. Nothing that this UK government has done shows that it'll be anything other than another spectacular shitshow. It'll be sold as a good thing though, such as their response that we'll know longer have access to a European criminal and weapons database being "it'll be fine because we'll just have stricter border controls".
Loads of stories on twitter of the debacle at Kent. 30 Polish doctors did 1200 tests and the Polish army and French firefighters also joined in. I also saw a post about a Polish guy who drove provisions down for the drivers. They had to find a hole in the fence to pass food through.
Thats why i said RELEVANT gor the Uk, not for a person or a group of persons. I am sure that other people was benefited by the pound plumeting or the young englush football players will have more opportunities bc there is no more Bosman law. The same of traffic schools that will have courses for european driving licenses or the travel insurances. And many more other clusters but RELEVANT for the UK that affects a majority and positively of the population economically speaking. Is there any?
Here's one by the BBC. Follow EU law or face more barriers? I guess that is to be expected. There's already a lot more barriers as it is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/55252388
1. Fishing
One of the most difficult issues in the negotiations: How many fish will EU boats be able to catch in UK waters in future, and how long will any transition period last before new measures come into full force? Officials involved in the negotiations say the UK initially wanted an 80% cut in the value of the fish caught by EU boats in UK waters, while the EU initially proposed an 18% cut. Who has given more ground?
Answer: The value of the fish caught by the EU in UK waters will be cut by 25% - which is a lot less than the UK initially asked for. The cut will be phased in over a transition period lasting five and a half years - which is a lot shorter than the EU initially asked for. Once the transition period is over, the UK will fully control access to its waters, and could make much deeper cuts If it decides to exclude EU fishing boats they can be compensated for their losses, either through tariffs on UK fishing products or by preventing UK boats from fishing in EU waters.
2. The "level playing field"
What will the rules on fair competition look like, to ensure that businesses on one side don't gain an unfair advantage over their competitors on the other? The definition of what constitutes reasonable levels of state aid, or government subsidies for business, will be important.
Answer: There are level playing field measures which commit both the UK and the EU to maintain common standards on workers rights, as well as many social and environmental regulations. This was a key EU demand. They don't have to be identical in the future, so the UK does not have to follow EU law, but they do have to be seen to protect fair competition.
The UK has also agreed to stick to common principles on how state aid regimes work, and to an independent competition agency which will assess them. But it can choose to develop a system which only makes decisions once evidence of unfair competition is presented. That is different from the EU system which assesses the likely impact of subsidies before they are handed out.
3. Dispute resolution
This will be the subject of years of negotiations to come. How will the deal actually be enforced if either side breaks any of the terms and conditions? If the UK chooses to move away more radically from EU rules in the future, how quickly can the EU respond? Will it have the ability to impose tariffs (or taxes on UK exports) in one area (for example on cars) in response to a breach of the agreement in another (fish, for example)?
Answer: If either side moves away from common standards that exist on 31 December 2020, and if that has a negative impact on the other side, a dispute mechanism can be triggered which could mean tariffs (taxes on goods) being imposed. It is based around a "rebalancing" clause which gives both the EU and the UK the right to take steps if there are significant divergences. This clause is much stricter than measures found in other recent EU trade deals, and was a key demand on the European side. It is a mechanism we may hear a lot more about in the coming years.
The overall policing of the trade agreement also means that tariffs can be targeted at a specific sector as a result of a dispute in another. There will be a binding arbitration system involving officials from both sides. It means that even though this is a tariff-free agreement, the threat that tariffs can be introduced as a result of future disputes will be a constant factor in UK-EU relations.
4. European Court of Justice (ECJ)
The EU's highest court will remain the ultimate arbiter of European law. But the UK government has said the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ in Britain will come to an end. So, will the European court play any role in overseeing the future relationship agreement?
Answer: The EU has dropped its demand that the ECJ should play a direct role in policing the governance of the agreement in future. That was a clear British red line. One place where the ECJ will still play a role is Northern Ireland, which has a special status under the terms of the Brexit withdrawal agreement. It will remain subject to EU single market and customs union rules, which means the European Court will remain the highest legal authority for some disputes in one part of the UK.
5. Travel
What will the rules be for British people who want to travel to the EU from 1 January 2021? We already know some of the details but will there be any additional agreements on things like social security or vehicle insurance? And will there be any detail on any arrangement to replace the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC)?
Answer: UK nationals will need a visa if they want to stay in the EU more than 90 days in a 180-day period. They will still be able to use their EHICs which will remain valid until they expire. The UK government says they will be replaced by a new UK Global Health Insurance Card (GHIC), but there are no further details yet on how to obtain it.
EU pet passports will no longer be valid, but people will still be able to travel with pets, following a different and a more complicated process.
The two sides agreed to co-operate on international mobile roaming, but there is nothing in the agreement that would stop UK travellers being charged for using their phone in the EU and vice versa. UK citizens will not need an International Driver's Permit to drive in the EU.
6. Financial services
The trade agreement is primarily about the rules for goods crossing borders. It will say far less about the trade in services. Is there going to be a separate statement from the EU which will recognise UK rules governing financial services as roughly "equivalent" to EU rules? That would make it much easier for UK firms which export services to continue doing business in the EU market.
Answer: There is, as expected, not a lot in this agreement for service companies to cheer about. The UK will still be hoping that the EU issues an "equivalence" decision on financial services in the near future, but service companies in general have not got as much help in this deal as the British government had been pushing for. The guaranteed access that UK companies had to the EU single market is over.
7. Data
This is a really important issue. What will the data protection rules be for UK companies that deal with data from the EU? Again, the UK is hoping the EU will issue separately what's known as a data adequacy decision recognising UK rules as equivalent to its own. But the detail will need to be scrutinised carefully.
Answer: Both sides say they want data to flow across borders as smoothly as possible, but the agreement also stresses that individuals have a right to the protection of personal data and privacy and that "high standards in this regard contribute to trust in the digital economy and to the development of trade."
That's why an EU decision to recognise formally that UK data rules are roughly the same as its own is so important - and we're still waiting for that. In the meantime the EU has agreed to a "specified period" of four months, extendable by a further two months, in which data can be exchanged in the same way it is now, as long as the UK makes no changes to its rules on data protection.
8. Product standards
We know there will be more bureaucracy and delays at borders in the future, for companies trading between the UK and the EU. But will the two sides agree any measures to make things a little easier? There's something called "mutual recognition of conformity assessment" which would mean checks on products standards would not need to be nearly as intrusive as they otherwise might be.
Answer: There's no agreement on conformity assessment even though the UK government had hoped there would be. It's just one reminder of how many new barriers to trade there are going to be. In future, if you want to sell your product in both the UK and the EU, you may have to get it checked twice to get it certified.
On other border issues, there is also no agreement on recognising each other's sanitary and safety standards for exporting food of animal origin, which means there will have to be pretty intrusive and costly checks for products going into the EU single market.
There will however be some measures which cut technical barriers to trade, and the mutual recognition of trusted trader schemes which will make it easier for large companies to operate across borders.
9. Professional qualifications
A lot of people, from accountants to chefs, work in different EU countries and didn't have to worry about crossing borders multiple times while the UK was part of the EU. But will UK professional qualifications be recognised across the EU in the future, and what restrictions will there be?
Answer: The short answer is no - they won't be recognised automatically. That will make it harder for UK citizens supplying any kind of service to work in the EU. They will often have to apply to individual countries to try to get their qualifications accepted, with no guarantee of success. There is a framework in the deal for the UK and EU to agree on mutually recognising individual qualifications but that's weaker than what professionals have now.
10. Security
It's not just about trade. The UK will lose automatic and immediate access to a variety of EU databases which the police use every day - covering things such as criminal records, fingerprints and wanted persons. So what kind of access will they have, and how will security co-operation work in the future?
Answer: The UK loses access to some very key databases but will have continued access to others, including the system which cross-checks fingerprints across the continent. But overall, security cooperation will no longer be based on "real time" access. And in some cases, such as access to data on which flights people take, that data will only be made available under much stricter conditions.
An agreement has been reached on extradition, and the UK's role in Europol, the cross-border security agency, allows it to sit in on meetings but not have a direct say in decisions. Both of these are positive, and on a par with the best other countries have achieved.
Disagreements over data will be dealt with by a new committee, not by the European Court of Justice - again, a red line for the UK. But taken together, the speed with which the UK gets important data, and the influence it has on decisions, has been reduced.
https://www.bbc.com/news/55252388
1. Fishing
One of the most difficult issues in the negotiations: How many fish will EU boats be able to catch in UK waters in future, and how long will any transition period last before new measures come into full force? Officials involved in the negotiations say the UK initially wanted an 80% cut in the value of the fish caught by EU boats in UK waters, while the EU initially proposed an 18% cut. Who has given more ground?
Answer: The value of the fish caught by the EU in UK waters will be cut by 25% - which is a lot less than the UK initially asked for. The cut will be phased in over a transition period lasting five and a half years - which is a lot shorter than the EU initially asked for. Once the transition period is over, the UK will fully control access to its waters, and could make much deeper cuts If it decides to exclude EU fishing boats they can be compensated for their losses, either through tariffs on UK fishing products or by preventing UK boats from fishing in EU waters.
2. The "level playing field"
What will the rules on fair competition look like, to ensure that businesses on one side don't gain an unfair advantage over their competitors on the other? The definition of what constitutes reasonable levels of state aid, or government subsidies for business, will be important.
Answer: There are level playing field measures which commit both the UK and the EU to maintain common standards on workers rights, as well as many social and environmental regulations. This was a key EU demand. They don't have to be identical in the future, so the UK does not have to follow EU law, but they do have to be seen to protect fair competition.
The UK has also agreed to stick to common principles on how state aid regimes work, and to an independent competition agency which will assess them. But it can choose to develop a system which only makes decisions once evidence of unfair competition is presented. That is different from the EU system which assesses the likely impact of subsidies before they are handed out.
3. Dispute resolution
This will be the subject of years of negotiations to come. How will the deal actually be enforced if either side breaks any of the terms and conditions? If the UK chooses to move away more radically from EU rules in the future, how quickly can the EU respond? Will it have the ability to impose tariffs (or taxes on UK exports) in one area (for example on cars) in response to a breach of the agreement in another (fish, for example)?
Answer: If either side moves away from common standards that exist on 31 December 2020, and if that has a negative impact on the other side, a dispute mechanism can be triggered which could mean tariffs (taxes on goods) being imposed. It is based around a "rebalancing" clause which gives both the EU and the UK the right to take steps if there are significant divergences. This clause is much stricter than measures found in other recent EU trade deals, and was a key demand on the European side. It is a mechanism we may hear a lot more about in the coming years.
The overall policing of the trade agreement also means that tariffs can be targeted at a specific sector as a result of a dispute in another. There will be a binding arbitration system involving officials from both sides. It means that even though this is a tariff-free agreement, the threat that tariffs can be introduced as a result of future disputes will be a constant factor in UK-EU relations.
4. European Court of Justice (ECJ)
The EU's highest court will remain the ultimate arbiter of European law. But the UK government has said the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ in Britain will come to an end. So, will the European court play any role in overseeing the future relationship agreement?
Answer: The EU has dropped its demand that the ECJ should play a direct role in policing the governance of the agreement in future. That was a clear British red line. One place where the ECJ will still play a role is Northern Ireland, which has a special status under the terms of the Brexit withdrawal agreement. It will remain subject to EU single market and customs union rules, which means the European Court will remain the highest legal authority for some disputes in one part of the UK.
5. Travel
What will the rules be for British people who want to travel to the EU from 1 January 2021? We already know some of the details but will there be any additional agreements on things like social security or vehicle insurance? And will there be any detail on any arrangement to replace the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC)?
Answer: UK nationals will need a visa if they want to stay in the EU more than 90 days in a 180-day period. They will still be able to use their EHICs which will remain valid until they expire. The UK government says they will be replaced by a new UK Global Health Insurance Card (GHIC), but there are no further details yet on how to obtain it.
EU pet passports will no longer be valid, but people will still be able to travel with pets, following a different and a more complicated process.
The two sides agreed to co-operate on international mobile roaming, but there is nothing in the agreement that would stop UK travellers being charged for using their phone in the EU and vice versa. UK citizens will not need an International Driver's Permit to drive in the EU.
6. Financial services
The trade agreement is primarily about the rules for goods crossing borders. It will say far less about the trade in services. Is there going to be a separate statement from the EU which will recognise UK rules governing financial services as roughly "equivalent" to EU rules? That would make it much easier for UK firms which export services to continue doing business in the EU market.
Answer: There is, as expected, not a lot in this agreement for service companies to cheer about. The UK will still be hoping that the EU issues an "equivalence" decision on financial services in the near future, but service companies in general have not got as much help in this deal as the British government had been pushing for. The guaranteed access that UK companies had to the EU single market is over.
7. Data
This is a really important issue. What will the data protection rules be for UK companies that deal with data from the EU? Again, the UK is hoping the EU will issue separately what's known as a data adequacy decision recognising UK rules as equivalent to its own. But the detail will need to be scrutinised carefully.
Answer: Both sides say they want data to flow across borders as smoothly as possible, but the agreement also stresses that individuals have a right to the protection of personal data and privacy and that "high standards in this regard contribute to trust in the digital economy and to the development of trade."
That's why an EU decision to recognise formally that UK data rules are roughly the same as its own is so important - and we're still waiting for that. In the meantime the EU has agreed to a "specified period" of four months, extendable by a further two months, in which data can be exchanged in the same way it is now, as long as the UK makes no changes to its rules on data protection.
8. Product standards
We know there will be more bureaucracy and delays at borders in the future, for companies trading between the UK and the EU. But will the two sides agree any measures to make things a little easier? There's something called "mutual recognition of conformity assessment" which would mean checks on products standards would not need to be nearly as intrusive as they otherwise might be.
Answer: There's no agreement on conformity assessment even though the UK government had hoped there would be. It's just one reminder of how many new barriers to trade there are going to be. In future, if you want to sell your product in both the UK and the EU, you may have to get it checked twice to get it certified.
On other border issues, there is also no agreement on recognising each other's sanitary and safety standards for exporting food of animal origin, which means there will have to be pretty intrusive and costly checks for products going into the EU single market.
There will however be some measures which cut technical barriers to trade, and the mutual recognition of trusted trader schemes which will make it easier for large companies to operate across borders.
9. Professional qualifications
A lot of people, from accountants to chefs, work in different EU countries and didn't have to worry about crossing borders multiple times while the UK was part of the EU. But will UK professional qualifications be recognised across the EU in the future, and what restrictions will there be?
Answer: The short answer is no - they won't be recognised automatically. That will make it harder for UK citizens supplying any kind of service to work in the EU. They will often have to apply to individual countries to try to get their qualifications accepted, with no guarantee of success. There is a framework in the deal for the UK and EU to agree on mutually recognising individual qualifications but that's weaker than what professionals have now.
10. Security
It's not just about trade. The UK will lose automatic and immediate access to a variety of EU databases which the police use every day - covering things such as criminal records, fingerprints and wanted persons. So what kind of access will they have, and how will security co-operation work in the future?
Answer: The UK loses access to some very key databases but will have continued access to others, including the system which cross-checks fingerprints across the continent. But overall, security cooperation will no longer be based on "real time" access. And in some cases, such as access to data on which flights people take, that data will only be made available under much stricter conditions.
An agreement has been reached on extradition, and the UK's role in Europol, the cross-border security agency, allows it to sit in on meetings but not have a direct say in decisions. Both of these are positive, and on a par with the best other countries have achieved.
Disagreements over data will be dealt with by a new committee, not by the European Court of Justice - again, a red line for the UK. But taken together, the speed with which the UK gets important data, and the influence it has on decisions, has been reduced.
Last edited:
The fact that Brexiteers have been unable to elucidate specific material benefits (to a population in which many are deeply sceptical about the whole project) should answer your question.
Beyond nebulous concepts like sovereignty, there is very little gained and much lost. Taking three favourite Brexiteer arguments:
1. Immigration - the UK does now have greater control of immigration in relation to the EU 27. But, assuming the economy returns to something like pre-Covid levels, the UK still needs immigrants so we won’t be returning to the homogenous society of the 1950s.
2. Fishing - whether the new arrangement is better or worse for the UK fisherman, ultimately, in GDP terms, it’s like finding 5 pence down the back of the sofa.
3. Future re-positioning of the UK economy - this idea could have some merit but is currently lacking in any meaningful detail. “Asia is growing and we need to be in there” is bag of a fag packet, long pub lunch strategising. The fact that the CBI and the City (the wider industry, not hedge funds in Mayfair) are very anti-Brexit should also raise a red flag. Why aren’t they licking their lips in anticipation at these new opportunities? Could it be they know more about the realities of running a business than Bill Cash, Steve Baker and Dan Hannan?
At this point I have to agree. That fishing thing, I always found funny. There's so much hullabaloo going around about UK sovereign waters and getting rid of the EU for stealing fishes. In the end, the negotiation results favored the EU. The UK had to compromise more than the EU. Even if we ignore that and claim the UK can close their fishing waters after 5 years, where do these people think UK fish goes to? Half of UK fish goes to the EU. The EU can easily block or tariff UK fish. What were they thinking?
An excellent and considered post.
The UK fishermen who saw their share allocated to fish in what they saw as their own 'traditional' waters go down because of how the 'historical catches' were calculated in the 70s and a subsequent increase in fishing fleets from countries far away that traditionally did not fish in British waters. Not to mention that they had less to gain from fishing in other EU countries' waters than those countries had to gain from fishing in British waters.
This is not to absolve successive UK governments for constant mismanagement (and liberalisation) of how fishing licences are given out or the fact that overfishing was likely to be a problem regardless or how little fishing matters in the grand scheme of things to most people (and myself).
I think it is totally acceptable to think that the EU is overall an incredible organisation which I love, whilst also acknowledging that it does not work for all people all the time (as nothing can) and that, at times, its rules can actually impact people (and at times other things like the environment) negatively.
And yet fishing remains a factor as to why neither Iceland nor Norway for instance want to join the EU. It is clearly very difficult to understand for many of us on here (including me) why it would have such an effect on international relations but it clearly does.
There's a big difference. They're not already part of the EU. As an outsider, they have made trade deals with the EU. EEA, etc. Opposite directions. Literally.
But I get what you mean about human behavior and I somewhat agree. People tend to see only from their own narrow perspectives rather than the bigger picture.
Well, from what I've seen, you won't need an international driver's permit to carry on driving in the EU after Brexit but I personally don't think so, no.
I don't see how economically, culturally or socially we are better off out. And actually, even if hypothetically we were somehow better off out, I would still say that it would not have been worth it for the upheaval and the divisions it has caused in our country, the scars it has left and the bitterness it leaves many Brits with, myself included, towards those who voted to do this.
Who knows though. I'm not an economist.
Yes but the point is that, amongst other reasons, remains a part of the reason they would not want to join. It may be a silly reason to most of us and perhaps both countries would do better fully within the EU. But they have made the active decision not to, at least partly because of that.
And of course, the UK has just made a trade deal with the EU, of which fishing is part. And that agreement covers 5 years for fishing quotas. After that, they can set quotas through direct quotas, just as Norway already does with the EU now.
Historically both Iceland and Norway relied on fishing for their livelihoods. They remain large industries today and, understandably, both countries place a premium on protecting them. The UK has a minuscule fishing industry but a huge services industry. For some reason, agitating on behalf of the former has become a higher priority for many of our politicians than safeguarding the latter.
I don't understand why so many people have a problem with the UK committing to a level playing field that maintains worker rights? What do they have against decent working conditions?
Again, they're moving in opposite directions. UK is potentially losing more than they are potentially gaining. The other countries, on the other hand, are gaining access to something they never had. There is no reason to sacrifice any further as they are already getting more than they had before. Also, fishing make up either a huge chunk of their GDP or is one of their top exports. Fishing is neither for the UK.
But as you have mentioned, people, for better or for worse, see things in their own narrow perspectives. And others like you will have to suffer for it.
Well said (and the excellent posts by @africanspur, too). I'm old enough to remember the original fishing disputes, which were feisty, to say the least. However, in terms of what's important to the UK's economy and employment situation today, fishing comes a very long way down the line.
Of course, in some smaller communities it's a huge concern. But nationally - car manufacturing (for instance) has to be more important, and the big companies are already closing down some plants and moving out of the UK because of fears about maintaining their supply chains.
I agree with this analysis.
The "Asia is growing" sounds suspiciously like something you would hear back in the 1990s. Not quite sure Asia will be growing in the future Brexiteers envision. The whole thing is shrouded in vague long run benefits in tech sectors we don't even know exist yet. It is almost as if EU countries are just sitting there not innovating. Some of the most high value recent tech companies are in the EU, and pound for pound, arguably, some EU countries such as Finland at least match the Asian tigers in developing new tech.
In my opinion, Brexit only makes sense in the political terms of taking back control of your own affairs. There will be no future material gains the UK could not have otherwise achieved within the EU. I have not heard any bright ideas to convince me otherwise: the best Brexiteers can come up with is a copy and paste folder of existing schemes and draping them in the union flag.
Totally agree. It also has to be said, besides cars; services, especially financial services, is vital to the UK and there are concerns about this post Brexit.
By historically, how far back are we going here?
Norway's fishing industry today apparently contributes 0.4% of their GDP, not exactly a situation that different from the UK's 0.1%. We're talking miniscule amounts for the national economy but an outsized importance to the local communities which rely on them.
I'm not talking about the politicians here at all (I doubt Johnson, Gove or JRM care about fishing or its significance to certain coastal communities) but about the importance of it to those people and the outsized importance it can have in how a country views its international relations.
As I've said, I honestly couldn't care less personally, other than the occasional sushi, I don't even eat fish! But I think it is perhaps easy for us to dismiss the concerns of some of these people. And of course, the more logical approach is to keep the status quo and focus on the far more important parts of the economy. For better or worse though, fishing became a huge issue in the national debate in the past few years, having been something I'd literally never thought about in the years prior.
Fishing is one of Norway's top 3 exports. IINM. In 2018, it was top 2 if I'm reading the chart correctly.
On the other hand, services is like 70 - 80% of the GDP of UK and it barely got a mention in the Brexit deal. Even the BBC describes it like this
On the other hand, services is like 70 - 80% of the GDP of UK and it barely got a mention in the Brexit deal. Even the BBC describes it like this
But one key issues that you allude to with the mention of historical catches but not actually state is that those british fishermen didn't fish the pelagic fishes that the EU countries fish and consume. It's not honest to say that they have been screwed, when they didn't fish the fishes that we are talking about, the british consumers didn't consume and still don't consume those fishes, british fishermen sold their licenses to foreign fleets because they weren't interested in those market and also because the few who were interested weren't financially supported by the UK in the 70s-80s unlike fisheries from other EU countries. These people have been screwed by themselves and Thatcher.
An other thing, the foreign owned trawlers that are at the heart of the issue are british registered, they are going nowhere anyway.
It is one of their top exports, because they don't export a lot of things. As a total of their economy though, it still doesn't make up very much.
https://www.worldfishing.net/news10...ustry is the,the total Norwegian export value.
Even if you include all agriculture and all the value added bits to the economy from both agriculture and fishing, they make up 1.9% of Norway's total GDP last year.
This is a case for the positives of Brexit regarding UK tech from someone in the industry.
https://capx.co/brexit-can-be-a-boo...il&utm_term=0_b5017135a0-bf1e351d0d-241901333
And still doesn't change the fact it is their top export and many citizens will be affected by it. For Iceland it is 30% of their GDP. Which does not apply to UK as it is neither a huge chunk of GDP nor a top export. Services on the other hand ......
Like you said earlier. People tend to make decisions on their narrow point of view. And others, like you, have to suffer for it. I think many here agree with the large gist of it. But we will have to disagree on whether Norway and Iceland are justified in their negotiations with the EU with regards to fishing.
They're not moving in opposite directions. The two former countries are countries outside of the EU, who either set quotas with the EU or in Iceland's case, set no quotas at all. While the latter will now also be a country outside of the EU, who will long term also sell fish to the EU.
I think people sometimes almost want an adversarial relationship between the UK and the EU long term reading on here. I personally think the UK are definitely losing far more than they're gaining overall but that's not the very narrow issue I'm referring to. Just that some countries can lose out when it comes to fishing within the EU and that fishing can make up an outsized section of their general approach to IR in this regard.
That is not to say Brexit is a good idea, that UK governments havent fecked fishermen over or that even if this is better for UK fishermen, it is worth the price we're paying overall. I do think, on this thread in particular, and perhaps because of how polarised the debate has become overall, that some people really struggle to acknowledge any point from the other side at all.
Edit: Just seen your post. Let's agree to disagree then.
Second edit: Just realised in the original post I wrote its like asking a dog to understand how a dog is thinking. What I of course meant was what a cat is thinking.
I think you'll need to clarify if this boom is due to Brexit or despite of Brexit. And how much of the technical talent propping up those companies are not immigrants?
I don't disagree entirely with that article. Some their points are arguable, but, yes, UK tech is a relative strength and could be said to be booming, but even that article says its boom is 'despite Brexit': my point is I haven't yet heard a good explanation why UK tech will do better because of Brexit.
I don’t really want to spend Boxing Day googling the Norwegian fishing industry but, whatever its value (small probably but, in relative terms, a fair bit bigger than the UK’s), Norway is rich enough with its fossil fuel reserves and sovereign wealth fund to promote culturally significant sectors if it wishes. I doubt Norway would prioritise fishing over oil though, which is essentially what the UK has done with its withdrawal from the single market.
Since this is a United forum, I’ll conclude with the following analogy. Phil Jones’s contract is understandably important to Phil Jones. From the club’s point of view though, you would not expect Woodward & co to prioritise Phil’s contract if it meant we couldn’t keep Bruno.
Have you read the article? It isn’t addressing either of those points as they’re irrelevant as to where we go from here. It seeks to explain how Brexit can advantage UK tech.
It addresses that in the article surely? The streamlining of responding to the market through legislation as an independent nation and trade deals like the the one achieved with Japan that are more tailored to the UK‘s specific needs in the sector.
The fishing debate is interesting, and obviously ridiculously outsized compared to the tiny economic impact (on both sides). That said, I think it's acting as a proxy for the fate of costal towns, which have been hollowed out in the UK and are generally depressing places with little economic opportunity.
Those of us on the left are basically short on ideas of how to revive those communities. All we seem to be able to offer them is saying benefit payments are too low and the minimum wage should be a bit higher. Both those points are true, but it's hardly an inspiring vision for the future of their towns.
So when the Tories come along and start throwing around ideas such as sovereign control of fishing waters and new Freeports, I can sort of understand why they might seem attractive and important to people in costal towns who feel forgotten. They might be bad ideas, but they are at least promising some kind of change. I think those of us on the left need to start thinking about what vision we can offer those left-behind places, because telling them 'we have to prioritise the successful sectors like financial services in London', while making complete sense economically, also makes them hate us.
Those of us on the left are basically short on ideas of how to revive those communities. All we seem to be able to offer them is saying benefit payments are too low and the minimum wage should be a bit higher. Both those points are true, but it's hardly an inspiring vision for the future of their towns.
So when the Tories come along and start throwing around ideas such as sovereign control of fishing waters and new Freeports, I can sort of understand why they might seem attractive and important to people in costal towns who feel forgotten. They might be bad ideas, but they are at least promising some kind of change. I think those of us on the left need to start thinking about what vision we can offer those left-behind places, because telling them 'we have to prioritise the successful sectors like financial services in London', while making complete sense economically, also makes them hate us.
Last edited:
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in what British fishermen mostly caught in the 70s. What I do know is that a good portion of the 70s, which is used as the reference point for 'historical' catches, a lot of the British fleets were in what is now an Icelandic exclusive economic zone and therefore not counted towards the quotas allocated by the CFP. Many of them also seem to say that fleets started appearing from other countries during this time frame to boost their numbers for the upcoming CFP allocations, which have obviously held decades later.
Just because British people don't consume these fish, it does not mean that British fishermen can't catch and sell these fish to French, Spaniards, Poles etc who do. And the British fleets do contain pelagic fishing boats too.
The above also does not absolve the British government's shocking mismanagement of the situation over decades. The people have been screwed by themselves, by successive UK governments and also the quota system of the CFP. Its OK to acknowledge that without it being a sufficient reason to leave the EU. The EU isn't perfect and I would hope people can acknowledge that, its why they change stuff as time goes on.
I did. And there are parts I disagree with. And it ties with what I said earlier. The only thing I saw that comes close to sayin how Brexit can advantage UK tech is the part he mentions UK can start bringing in talent based on skills rather than color of passport. Which is the very anti thesis of what Brexit is all about. It is about getting rid of immigrants while the article was talking about bringing in more immigrants.
I agree that Fin Tech is booming and it is because Fin Tech is the next big thing. And why UK is getting more, like the article mentions, is because of the (1) English language and in my opinion (2) UK has a huge services sector of which financial services is a large chunk of it.
Fin tech was always going to boom in the UK and imposing work permits not just on other foreigners, but also EU citizens, means that getting tech talent is going to be a lot harder than before. Not easier. Which seems more like a hindrance to me, than actually helping the industry. Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems to be the case right now.
I never said though that its worth the UK leaving the EU for. In fact, I said above that even if hypothetically Brexit is somehow better off for the UK economy long term, I still would have been against it because of the upheaval its caused and what I believe it says about the people I share an island with.
Either way, happy boxing day!
If that is the explanation then it is incredibly vague. The article says the Japan deal has one of the biggest digital chapters or something along those lines, which might simply mean more attention is being paid to the sector; this would make sense in any new deal given how much more salient tech is today. Your assumption, which is surely wrong-headed, is that EU countries won't give it as much salience.
I haven't read the article yet but this part is not going to be how it plays out I think. One of my wife's nieces is a software developer and works in AI. He's Egyptian, educated in Egypt and currently works for a tech start-up in London. I know the UK had one of the most difficult visa application processes in Europe anyway but his application process was tortuous and his company essentially had to prove that there was both nobody in the UK or the EU who could do the same job first. All in all, I think the company spent about £10k pushing his application through. That would have been the same for an American, Ugandan or Japanese developer.
Last time I was speaking to him, he said there's someone joining the team from a non European country who has gone through a much cheaper and less strenuous process to get the work visa starting next year.
Unless the pound drops significantly in value, I don't think its going to be much more difficult to hire tech talent.
In healthcare on the other hand, where the salaries are not as generous, we're already seeing an exodus of some of our Italian/Spanish/Portugese nurses. Which loses us valuable and excellent colleagues.
The article goes further and says it is the most comprehensive digital chapter in any trade deal in history. Taking the author at his word and considering this trade deal was signed 8 months after the EU - Japan trade deal, doesn’t it actually imply that the UK deal gives more priority to the sector than the EU one?
Here is the point that I'm trying to make and is made by the chief of scottish fishermen's organization:
He told Unearthed: “While it is true that there has been considerable consolidation within the pelagic catching sector over the past 20 years, with a trend towards fewer, more efficient vessels each with a greater concentration of fishing opportunity, the economic reality is that small-scale, inshore fishermen, many of whom are also members of the SFO, do not have the necessary capacity or markets needed to fully utilise the pelagic quotas that are already available to them.”
The deal the UK now have with Japan is less advantageous than the deal the UK had with Japan through EU membership. Unsure why you would cite this example.