Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Adebesi said:
I would like it to be more accountable. You have already dismissed my assertion that there is a democratic deficit in the EU so I dont suppose you will see anything substantive in that. Less of the waste, no decamping to Strasbourg once a month, more decisiveness.

Ultimately, as I have said before, I like Europe. So my desire for reform is less about a personal wish list, which might have things like less immigration or less red tape on it. I dont especially want to see less of either of those things, personally. But apparently a majority in the UK do want to see those kinds of things, and if we dont get them, meaning if the whole of the EU doesnt get them, we will be out. And that is what I dont want to see.

So if voters feel there is a problem with immigration, Id like to see reforms that addressed those concerns. Even though I personally dont have a problem with immigration, (people will tell me that is because my job is safe from the competition and wage pressures they bring.)

A tiered approach to EU integration is probably the only way forward that allows us to stay in. If I remember rightly that is something the UK has traditionally fought against - for the reasons Devilish hinted at, that the UK worries about a strong and functioning Europe, and a core that harmonised further without us there to put the breaks on would be impossible for the UK to control. But maybe we will get to the point where we transcend that kind of realpolitik. Further harmonisation is definitely needed to make the euro work, so the eurozone should push on with the necessary integration which will make it a core United States of Europe, there will be no end to the eurozone crises unless that happens. But obviously the UK would need to move in the opposite direction if it was to stay in.

So yes, reforms that address the concerns of UK voters (immigration and an end to the gravy train) and whatever concerns voters in other countries have. More accountable, with a core free to move ahead with more integration and others allowed to opt out of that and treat it more as a free trade zone with common standards.
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartely in terms of accountability. The EU is so obsessed in giving a voice to everybody that it completely opened itself to abuse. Its in such ridiculous level, that a region like Wallonia can completely sink a trade deal which took 7 years to complete and a country can vote to leave the EU and then refuse to activate article 50 keeping an entire continent in limbo forever with no one being to do anything about it.

The current EU is a bureaucratic monster which is toothless and whose decisions are taken on a glacier pace. It can’t even defend itself without the need of third party countries (ie the US) and a single country can simply show it the middle finger and go on with their lives as if nothing happened like Hungary did in terms of mandatory burden sharing. My country does the same in terms of hunting. Our so called hunters kill thousands of birds from endangered species and the pro hunting government keep dragging its feet knowing that the EU will take years to take any decision on the matter. Would it do the same if it risks being kicked out of the EU? I very much doubt it. Under such circumstances no wonder the EU is a laughing stock that gets abused by Erdogan, Orban, Boris, Putin, Farage, Grillo etc

PS there's already a tiered approach. There's EU membership, the EEA, the so called Swiss model, the custom union and a CETA like trade deal. The UK can choose from any of these deals. What it can't do is pick and choose which parts of deal it wants
 
@Adebesi I genuinely want to discuss the EU but the reason why I easily dismissed your assertions is because they are incredibly vague and lacks substance. I see where you are coming from but I also see that you understand that the EU isn't responsible for the problems you are pointing to.

So if you allow me I will try to debate through questions:

First how do you intend to make the EU more accountable? It would mean making the EU more accountable than any other institution/Country, how do you do that without going down the federal way?

Secondly, immigration is a home office matter, the EU has no power in that matter, there is no proper Custom and Police administration and the reason for that is that the members don't want to lose that power. So how do you want the EU to have a better control of immigration when its members refuse to give him that power?

Thirdly, the EU isn't a federation, it isn't a country, so you are not going to see more decisiveness at least not in a more democratic EU which is one of the grievance that you have, you are not going to accelerate the negotiation process while making sure that everyone agrees on every terms. So how do you make the EU more decisive without transforming it into a federation?

Again, more integration means going down the federal way and I think that you see where I am coming from, people are hypocrites they criticize the EU for basically not being a federation but at the same time they complain that the EU will become a federation. They are fighting both sides of the conversation in the most schizophrenic way.

So basically, we either give to the EU the proper tools and powers that it needs to do the mission that we are projecting to it or we stop complaining stupidly.
 
Adebesi said:
Certainly something very big would have to change. But in the UK there is a big feeling among the Remainers (or Remoaners) that there should be another referendum once the terms of Brexit are clear, because the whole thing was sold to voters on a lie, that they could have controlled immigration and access to the single market and an extra £350m a week for the NHS. It may be that, once the reality of what was on offer became clear, the UK would vote to remain. However, I dont suppose the EU will give us the right to do that - and I suspect the Tories wont give us that option either.

Even if they did, it might be that that second referendum would be lost anyway, if the EU had been seen to be excessively punitive in its treatment of the UK. I think there's a good chance the whole process will create so much ill feeling between us that people who were formerly remainers would vote to leave.
Click to expand...

Either way, the UK credibility will end up being damaged and no one in Europe will trust the UK anymore. Don’t take me wrong, if the UK decides to backtrack after pushing the red button (ie article 50) then probably the EU will be able to close an eye to that. However if that had to happen then I can see the EU moving quickly (lets say quicker) to make the necessary reforms needed to be able to kick countries out of the EU if needs be.

If you ask me, I think that the UK will head to a Hard Brexit.

A- The UK is reluctant to accept an off the shelf solution

B- The EU will not be able to develop an ad hoc solution for the UK in 2 years and rest assured that someone will object in giving the UK more time to conclude the deal

C- There’s not enough political will from the EU to offer the UK an ad hoc deal (cherry picking)

D- The EU can’t afford to look weak at its crucial stage of history

E- The Tories cant afford to bend over backwards to the EU because that will give UKIP the chance to pounce back
 
JPRouve said:
@Adebesi I genuinely want to discuss the EU but the reason why I easily dismissed your assertions is because they are incredibly vague and lacks substance. I see where you are coming from but I also see that you understand that the EU isn't responsible for the problems you are pointing to.

So if you allow me I will try to debate through questions:

First how do you intend to make the EU more accountable? It would mean making the EU more accountable than any other institution/Country, how do you do that without going down the federal way?

Secondly, immigration is a home office matter, the EU has no power in that matter, there is no proper Custom and Police administration and the reason for that is that the members don't want to lose that power. So how do you want the EU to have a better control of immigration when its members refuse to give him that power?

Thirdly, the EU isn't a federation, it isn't a country, so you are not going to see more decisiveness at least not in a more democratic EU which is one of the grievance that you have, you are not going to accelerate the negotiation process while making sure that everyone agrees on every terms. So how do you make the EU more decisive without transforming it into a federation?

Again, more integration means going down the federal way and I think that you see where I am coming from, people are hypocrites they criticize the EU for basically not being a federation but at the same time they complain that the EU will become a federation. They are fighting both sides of the conversation in the most schizophrenic way.

So basically, we either give to the EU the proper tools and powers that it needs to do the mission that we are projecting to it or we stop complaining stupidly.
Click to expand...
Ha, id be happy with either of those last options! Anything to end the constant Europe bashing in the British media. Tho it would have been a harmless annoyance if Cameron hadn't opened this Pandora's Box.

In all seriousness tho, I understand the contradictions you have highlighted. I would go Federal. But there is no chance the UK would go for that.
 
Well the UK already has a complex that the rest of Europe resents and dislikes it (not unlike the paranoia of United fans.) So if the rest of Europe actually started resenting and disliking us I doubt we'd really notice.

But yes it'll surely be a hard Brexit.
 
Adebesi said:
Ha, id be happy with either of those last options! Anything to end the constant Europe bashing in the British media. Tho it would have been a harmless annoyance if Cameron hadn't opened this Pandora's Box.

In all seriousness tho, I understand the contradictions you have highlighted. I would go Federal. But there is no chance the UK would go for that.
Click to expand...

I don't know what I want, I know that the federation is the most straightforward way to answer all the questions that the public wants answered but I also know that most people don't want that and the politicians hate that idea, at the exception of Juncker.

The problems that you are seeing and highlighting are the fruits of two fronts that most people refuse to see, national politicians are happy with the EU as it is because it means less spendings in a lot of matters like for example customs, they don't want to higher dozens of thousands of custom officers and actually control their borders but at the same time the EU( the Commission and parliament) don't want to go in a frontal war against the gang of double faced national politicians, they are still dreaming of la la land.

So in the end nothing happens and the people who are purposely blocking everything win the populist battle.
 
devilish said:
The funny thing is that Brexit will make any reform in terms of FOM more difficult. EU beurocrats who might have been keen to tweak the rules a bit to make sure it remains in the EU will now argue that they won't accept any reforms because that will allow the UK to cherry pick it deal. The UK was way more influential in Europe when it was part of the EU then outside of it
Click to expand...

Won't accept any reforms?
So it is the beurocrats that run the EU then.
 
Adebesi said:
Well the UK already has a complex that the rest of Europe resents and dislikes it (not unlike the paranoia of United fans.) So if the rest of Europe actually started resenting and disliking us I doubt we'd really notice.

But yes it'll surely be a hard Brexit.
Click to expand...

That’s the cultural shock/miscommunication which I have been talking about which is why I don’t think that the UK should be in the EU. Most countries do not hate the UK. The Eastern & Southern European countries look up to the UK. They appreciate their effort during WW2, they would love to work in the UK and they want to emulate what it did. The rest see the UK as an EU success story ie a country who entered the EU as the sick person of Europe and is now a financial powerhouse.

The problem is that many UK citizens are completely detached from the EU politics. That lead to them appointed Eurosceptics as MEPs, whom in turn, gave a bad image of the UK into Europe and lied about the EU to their constituents. This sort of thing is happening everywhere. Most of these people are lazy (UKIP has some of the laziest MEPs in all Europe), who hold no tertiary education and do not know what politics is. Some, like Salvini and Bossi have never done a decent day work in all their lives and constantly change ideology to keep on riding the populist wave.

I admit it’s the EU fault for not getting more involved in answering to accusations addressed towards it. Politics should get closer to the people and speak the people’s language something that is failing massively on that regard (not just the EU but everywhere). However as JPRouve clearly said, we’re living in a time when the EU is damned either way. If the EU starts answering to the likes of Farage, making them look silly in the process then probably it would end up being accused on interfering on the country’s sovreignity.
 
Adebesi said:
It probably does to some extent. That's OK when the sun is shining but becomes a problem when times are tough. So I doubt Trump will be the only "anti establishment" victory we'll see in coming months.
Click to expand...

Are times much tougher now than 5 years ago? Are times so bad we need a complete overhaul of the basic parts of western democracy (e.g. free media, tolerance, rule of law)?

I think you're right but I can't see it helping. When times are good, the poor benefit the least. When times are bad, they suffer the most. Trump, May etc. won't prioritise the poor over the next few years and I'd be shocked if their lives don't just get harder. In a few years when they turn back from those anti-establishment figures, we'll spend a few years working to fix the damage they've done.
 
devilish said:
That’s the cultural shock/miscommunication which I have been talking about which is why I don’t think that the UK should be in the EU. Most countries do not hate the UK. The Eastern & Southern European countries look up to the UK. They appreciate their effort during WW2, they would love to work in the UK and they want to emulate what it did. The rest see the UK as an EU success story ie a country who entered the EU as the sick person of Europe and is now a financial powerhouse.

The problem is that many UK citizens are completely detached from the EU politics. That lead to them appointed Eurosceptics as MEPs, whom in turn, gave a bad image of the UK into Europe and lied about the EU to their constituents. This sort of thing is happening everywhere. Most of these people are lazy (UKIP has some of the laziest MEPs in all Europe), who hold no tertiary education and do not know what politics is. Some, like Salvini and Bossi have never done a decent day work in all their lives and constantly change ideology to keep on riding the populist wave.

I admit it’s the EU fault for not getting more involved in answering to accusations addressed towards it. Politics should get closer to the people and speak the people’s language something that is failing massively on that regard (not just the EU but everywhere). However as JPRouve clearly said, we’re living in a time when the EU is damned either way. If the EU starts answering to the likes of Farage, making them look silly in the process then probably it would end up being accused on interfering on the country’s sovreignity.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that but wrt the bolded part, I think it's the public who should try and understand the issues rather than expect politicians to dumb it down to their level which is essentially what Farage and Trump do. Simple solutions to every problem. Actually this year has made me think that keeping power away from most of the public is a very good thing.
 
Tyrion said:
I agree with all of that but wrt the bolded part, I think it's the public who should try and understand the issues rather than expect politicians to dumb it down to their level which is essentially what Farage and Trump do. Simple solutions to every problem. Actually this year has made me think that keeping power away from most of the public is a very good thing.
Click to expand...

The EU is extremely complex mate. I had worked in a ministry myself (my direct boss was the head of communication) and even I struggled to understand certian things about it. Ive also met MEPs (not some uneducated gimp like Farage but lawyers who are specialised in EU law) who struggled interpreting certian things

I think that most people would rather see the EU spending its money to explain things and collect feedback rather then on trivialities.
 
devilish said:
The EU is extremely complex mate. I had worked in a ministry myself (my direct boss was the head of communication) and even I struggled to understand certian things about it. Ive also met MEPs (not some uneducated gimp like Farage but lawyers who are specialised in EU law) who struggled interpreting certian things

I think that most people would rather see the EU spending its money to explain things and collect feedback rather then on trivialities.
Click to expand...

Extremely complex is a bit of a stretch, it's as complex as any other constitutional or institutional subject. It's constitutional law.
 
JPRouve said:
Extremely complex is a bit of a stretch, it's as complex as any other constitutional or institutional subject. It's constitutional law.
Click to expand...

And we both agree that normal people need someone to translate it for them in laymen's words
 
devilish said:
And we both agree that normal people need someone to translate it for them in laymen's words
Click to expand...

Yeah definitely, personally the only thing I will say to people is that the EU works like most of its members.

The EU Council is the head of the executive but instead of having one president, chancellor or PM; It has 28.

The commission is the state and the commissioners are ministers, they are nominated by the council following the advises of the commission's president who is basically the equivalent of a french prime minister; in France the prime minister is the head of the council of ministers and he is nominated by the president(for the EU by the Council); the parliament audition every potential commissioners and can disapprove the list of candidates as a whole.

The parliament is the same organ than in any other parliamentary system. The difference being that in most countries laws are supposed to mainly come from the parliament but in reality they mainly come from the government and are only checked by the parliament. So the EU decided to not even bother with that lie and give the initiative to the commission but the parliament has a clear role of monitor and in some cases like for example deals with foreign countries the parliament has a say and can veto(it's technically not a veto).

That's the only things that people absolutely need to know the rest will depend on what concerns each citizens depending on their work, their place of residence, their nationality, etc...
 
Tyrion said:
Are times much tougher now than 5 years ago? Are times so bad we need a complete overhaul of the basic parts of western democracy (e.g. free media, tolerance, rule of law)?

I think you're right but I can't see it helping. When times are good, the poor benefit the least. When times are bad, they suffer the most. Trump, May etc. won't prioritise the poor over the next few years and I'd be shocked if their lives don't just get harder. In a few years when they turn back from those anti-establishment figures, we'll spend a few years working to fix the damage they've done.
Click to expand...
Things aren't worse than 5 years ago at all but we're following a fairly classic cycle. Political upheaval doesn't happen at the point of maximum economic distress. People are too busy trying to keep their heads above water. It tends to happen in the period after the economic nadir when growth is sluggish and unevenly distributed, highlighting inequality. That's happened time and again in revolutions from history, the French revolution etc. It happened after the Wall St Crash, first you had the Great Depression and only then did you get the rise of nationalism in Europe. And its the same now: crisis in 08, depression after that, and only now, 8 years after the main crisis, the full political fall out.
 
devilish said:
The problem is that many UK citizens are completely detached from the EU politics.
Click to expand...
That's true.

I'm a long term subscriber to The Economist which as you'll know has a European section. Of particular interest is the Charlamagne column which usually basically outlines the goings on in the EU, any big controversies or issues that are topical that week.

What I find most interesting about this - and it's one of 3 or 4 articles I'll read every week no matter what, even if I'm too busy to read it all - is this information isn't available anywhere else. There is no serious coverage of what is going on in the EU, in any newspaper. There's a section on the BBC website but it's not as good and it's hard to find, I had to look for it. It's not something people will stumble across.
 
Just saw an interview with a dutch fisheries owner that is shit scared of brexit as 87% of the fish comes from British waters. from Holland this fish goes to loads of countries. So playing hardball on either side is cutting ones nose off.
 
Stanley Road said:
Just saw an interview with a dutch fisheries owner that is shit scared of brexit as 87% of the fish comes from British waters. from Holland this fish goes to loads of countries. So playing hardball on either side is cutting ones nose off.
Click to expand...

The eu isnt the one whose hesitating to activates article 50 nor its the one begging for a transition period. Its early days of course but all they seem to want is the uk out


Also do you really want to piss of your biggest client who buys 80% of your fish. Can you imagine if the eu slaps its usual 16-20% tariff on the uk fish?
 
Last edited:
Stanley Road said:
Just saw an interview with a dutch fisheries owner that is shit scared of brexit as 87% of the fish comes from British waters. from Holland this fish goes to loads of countries. So playing hardball on either side is cutting ones nose off.
Click to expand...
Plenty more fish in the sea.
 
devilish said:
The eu isnt the one whose hesitating to activates article 50 nor its the one begging for a transition period. Its early days of course but all they seem to want is the uk out


Also do you really want to piss of your biggest client who buys 80% of your fish. Can you imagine if the eu slaps its usual 16-20% tariff on the uk fish?
Click to expand...
They don't buy 80% of our fish, they fish our waters.

Some 43 per cent of England’s fishing quota is held by foreign fishing businesses, according to figures published by Defra, the environment department.

European rules dating back to 1999 means that foreign-owned boats are allowed to access the UK quota - as long as half the crew is domiciled in Britain or half the catch is landed in a UK port.

Government statistics reveal the Cornelis Vrolijk (Dutch owned), a giant 370ft trawler, holds 23 per cent of the limited fishing permits allocated to England by the EU


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-fishing-quota-Holland-holds-23-permits.html
Click to expand...
 
devilish said:
The eu isnt the one whose hesitating to activates article 50 nor its the one begging for a transition period. Its early days of course but all they seem to want is the uk out


Also do you really want to piss of your biggest client who buys 80% of your fish. Can you imagine if the eu slaps its usual 16-20% tariff on the uk fish?
Click to expand...
You've missed the point somewhat.

I guess uk could come to a deal if the eu were willing.
 
Red Defence said:
They don't buy 80% of our fish, they fish our waters.
Click to expand...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/360-million-of-uk-seafood-making-a-splash-on-european-menus

85% of all UK shellfish exports headed for European shores in 2015, generating millions for the UK economy.

Exports of all UK fish and fish products to the EU were worth over £900 million to our growing economy in 2015, almost 70% of our total exports for the sector

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-would-brexit-really-mean-for-the-uks-fishing-industry/

At present the UK exports around 80% of its wild-caught seafood, with four of the top five destinations being European countries.



I wonder how that had would turn out if it slapped with a 10-20% tarriff
 
Last edited:
Stanley Road said:
You've missed the point somewhat.

I guess uk could come to a deal if the eu were willing.
Click to expand...

Well the UK will be desperate for a deal considering that its fish and fish products is worth over £900m. In total, 60% of UK food and drink exports go to the EU, worth over £11billion to UK economy.
 
Last edited:
Stanley Road said:
And with countries desperate for.our fish its win win
Click to expand...

Well the devil is in the detail isn’t it? The EU might offer the UK a free tariff deal as long as they keep obeying the EU laws on this sector to the letter (ie the status quo). Which mean Spanish, French and Dutch fishermen will keep on fishing in the UK sea as they are currently did.

That would probably irk the fishermen for 2 reasons
a- They were promised complete sovereignty over the UK seas. Something they won’t get with that deal
b- They will lose out on the EU funding they get which helped fishermen greatly

On the other side of the spectrum the UK might push for full sovereignty on this but will be slapped by tariffs which will basically impact their access to the single market greatly.

Also
a- Some marital/fishing rules are old, very old (ie medieval times old) which will have to be revised and fought in court. That will take years to sort
b- The only way the UK has to make sure no one oversteps into it seas is to monitor those seas closely. That will mean millions in surveillance which means another hole to that debt crater
c- The good old days are long gone. The Uk fishermen will not return to the good old overfishing ways because there’s international law that helps sustainability of the Northern sea.
d- Unlike Brexiters, fish tend not to be obsessed about borders. That means a big chunk of that fish will move into EU controlled seas eventually
Dutch fishermen will probably catch less fish, but they would also lose their main competitor in the sector so fish prices will go up and they will get more money for less effort.
 
devilish said:
Well the devil is in the detail isn’t it? The EU might offer the UK a free tariff deal as long as they keep obeying the EU laws on this sector to the letter (ie the status quo). Which mean Spanish, French and Dutch fishermen will keep on fishing in the UK sea as they are currently did.

That would probably irk the fishermen for 2 reasons
a- They were promised complete sovereignty over the UK seas. Something they won’t get with that deal
b- They will lose out on the EU funding they get which helped fishermen greatly

On the other side of the spectrum the UK might push for full sovereignty on this but will be slapped by tariffs which will basically impact their access to the single market greatly.

Also
a- Some marital/fishing rules are old, very old (ie medieval times old) which will have to be revised and fought in court. That will take years to sort
b- The only way the UK has to make sure no one oversteps into it seas is to monitor those seas closely. That will mean millions in surveillance which means another hole to that debt crater
c- The good old days are long gone. The Uk fishermen will not return to the good old overfishing ways because there’s international law that helps sustainability of the Northern sea.
d- Unlike Brexiters, fish tend not to be obsessed about borders. That means a big chunk of that fish will move into EU controlled seas eventually
Dutch fishermen will probably catch less fish, but they would also lose their main competitor in the sector so fish prices will go up and they will get more money for less effort.
Click to expand...
87% less
 
Stanley Road said:
87% less
Click to expand...

Are you drunk? 87% is an arbitrary number brought up by you without anything to back it up, I very much doubt it is true that 23% of British fishing rights make up 87% of Dutch fishing :D devilish made a very good point here. The fishermen were probably the dumbest of them all in supporting Brexit. The best they can hope for is that nothing changes for them.

Also, I'm willing to bet my house British fishermen are also fishing outside of UK waters...
 
devilish said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/360-million-of-uk-seafood-making-a-splash-on-european-menus

85% of all UK shellfish exports headed for European shores in 2015, generating millions for the UK economy.

Exports of all UK fish and fish products to the EU were worth over £900 million to our growing economy in 2015, almost 70% of our total exports for the sector

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-would-brexit-really-mean-for-the-uks-fishing-industry/

At present the UK exports around 80% of its wild-caught seafood, with four of the top five destinations being European countries.



I wonder how that had would turn out if it slapped with a 10-20% tarriff
Click to expand...
Well that's brilliant news isn't it. The EU countries need our fish exports. They'll need them even more if they lose the right to fish in our waters.
 
Red Defence said:
Well that's brilliant news isn't it. The EU countries need our fish exports. They'll need them even more if they lose the right to fish in our waters.
Click to expand...

It's not needed, it goes to EU shores because in the EU, exactly in France there is Rungis, the largest wholesale food market in the world, and almost everything goes there and is sold everywhere in the world.
 
Red Defence said:
Well that's brilliant news isn't it. The EU countries need our fish exports. They'll need them even more if they lose the right to fish in our waters.
Click to expand...

Doesnt the prosecco rule work on this?

The bigger winners will probably be norway who catch loads of fish and unlike the uk they already have a tarriff free trade on this. Unless the uk manages to set a deal on this then poof one of their major competitors is gone
 
Last edited:
fcbforever said:
Are you drunk? 87% is an arbitrary number brought up by you without anything to back it up, I very much doubt it is true that 23% of British fishing rights make up 87% of Dutch fishing :D devilish made a very good point here. The fishermen were probably the dumbest of them all in supporting Brexit. The best they can hope for is that nothing changes for them.

Also, I'm willing to bet my house British fishermen are also fishing outside of UK waters...
Click to expand...

Just watch nos news on nederland 1 from last night,.rhis was the owner of a huge fishery that was asked how much of his daily haul was caught in british waters. How more factual do you want? Maybe he's lying.

And i doubt develish made a good point
 
Red Defence said:
Well that's brilliant news isn't it. The EU countries need our fish exports. They'll need them even more if they lose the right to fish in our waters.
Click to expand...
We had this conversation in the general 5 years ago. Lobster caught in british waters mostly goes to spain cos there isnt the demand in the uk.

The europeans can moan about it but they cant cherry pick what they want from a deal
 
Stanley Road said:
Just watch nos news on nederland 1 from last night,.rhis was the owner of a huge fishery that was asked how much of his daily haul was caught in british waters. How more factual do you want? Maybe he's lying.

And i doubt develish made a good point
Click to expand...

He will have to adapt to changes. Businesses hate that. If aint damaged....
 
Stanley Road said:
We had this conversation in the general 5 years ago. Lobster caught in british waters mostly goes to spain cos there isnt the demand in the uk.

The europeans can moan about it but they cant cherry pick what they want from a deal
Click to expand...

What about the prosecco rule? Does that work only when the brits are buying goods?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.