Wes Tender

Furthermore, under the CFP, coastal waters around member states are a common resource to be fished by those states with quotas allocated to each. When we are free of the CFP and in control of our own coastal waters, the EU fishermen can concentrate their efforts more in the waters of the next nearest EU member, Ireland. I'm sure that they will love that.

I've been mulling this over and searching for an explanation over the Quota system, but could not find one. Surely the quotas were allocated under the CFP, which will terminate on 31st December, when we take control of our own coastal waters and make the rules ourselves covering who can fish in them and what and how much they can catch. We passed a Fisheries Bill at the end of January covering the future position on fisheries post CFP. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sustainable-fisheries-enshrined-in-law-as-uk-leaves-the-eu I see no mention of the government having to buy back quotas bought by foreign fishing companies, although of course I haven't read the Bill in any greater detail. Isn't it the case that those CFP quotas become null and void at the end of the year and new ones allocated at our whim? Maybe there is some onus on the EU to compensate their fishermen for lost revenue. They benefited greatly under the CFP at the expense of our fishing industry and now the boot is on the other foot and they must accordingly suffer a decline, as we did. As for whether our fishermen have the appropriate equipment to fish different species in UK waters, surely they can buy that equipment from foreign fishermen who will no longer have a need for it. 😉

I think that you'll find that neither Gove nor Cummings went to Eton

Agreed.We should place a ban on super trawlers fishing in our waters.

I'll describe it in my own terms, thank you. Regardless of the historical politics of it, the decline in our fishing industry ever since Grocer Heath sold our fishermen out as the price he paid for us joining the so-called "Common Market," our coastal waters and the fish stocks within them are now a resource to be brought back to our ownership and control. If some of those fish species are not commercially attractive to the UK market, then we can export it ourselves to the markets where it is wanted, rejuvenate our fisheries industry and pocket the profits ourselves. It is a great shame that the EU Channel coast fishery communities will suffer, but they benefited at our expense for the past few decades, so que sera, sera, eh?

Of course it isn't going to be better in its entirety if the EU believe that as a result of a FTA they can continue to plunder our fishery waters, dictate to us what actions our government can or can't take to protect our industries, what rules and regulations can be applied to them and that our laws should be subjugated to those of the EU courts The EU's stance has far less to do with our geographical and economical proximity and much more to do with the decades of increasing vassalage we have endured on the road to a federal Europe. From the start, once we voted to leave, our departure could not be seen to be easy and beneficial, encouraging others to follow us out, and the EU is scared witless that we will make a success of it and become a serious competitor right on their doorstep. Those are the interests they are trying to protect. There is no reason for the Germans to beat down Merkel's door just yet. As you may be aware, it is common negotiation tactics for the EU, (led by Germany) to hold out until the 11th hour, expecting the other side to blink first. So when we have not blinked then, that will be the time for the door hammering.

I did realise that our coastal waters are much closer to the EU than those of Canada, Japan and S. Korea. But the point is they are our coastal waters and therefore we should be permitted to determine who fishes in them, as those other countries are allowed to with theirs. Regarding your second sentence, does the fact that we trade 45% with the EU, a far greater proportion than those other countries do, suggest that we ought to be able to obtain a better or a worse deal with the EU than those other countries? I would have thought it merited a better deal. You?

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/boris-johnson-urged-by-eu-official-to-take-brexit-deal-1-6797029 EU urges Boris Johnson to take ‘unique and highly attractive’ offer over Brexit An EU official has urged Boris Johnson to take the ‘unique and highly attractive’ offer it has made to the UK which it says has never been offered to any country before. Correct. The EU would like us to accept an offer that has not been offered to anybody else before. Other third countries like Canada, Japan and S.Korea get FTA deals with the EU that don't have them needing to sign up to level playing field rules, access to their coastal fisheries and jurisdiction of EU law over their own law. This is exactly what we want to have too. We don't want a unique deal. When the EU tells us that it is an attractive deal, of course what they mean, is attractive to them. According to them, a no-deal Brexit is a disorderly one. Not if proper planning arrangements have been made it isn't. The New European is the media mouthpiece of the EU, so I wonder how long it will be before they stop parroting this nonsense about level playing fields, fisheries access and ECJ that we have told them we will not accept. How long will it take for the reality to dawn on them, that unless they drop those three parts that are red lines for us, there will be no FTA? I very much doubt that the Germans will believe for one moment that the situation is that we Brits have an unique and highly attractive EU deal in front of us. If they do, then they are in for a nasty shock when we walk away from it.

Bad Gateway several times over an extended period. Then when eventually the site opens, click on a particular topic in the Lounge, and it won't open. However, click on the name of the last person posting on that topic and it opens. Click on the Lounge again to view other topics and I can't, because again they won't open. Click on Saints Forum, opens right away.

I identify the disease by the country of origin. If you prefer, I will name it after the part of that country where it began, Wuhan. If that upsets your sensitive leftie Guardian mindset, then tough. Do you disagree that it originated there in China? If so, you sound like Xi Jinping

The decision to have continued schooling as early as possible is directly related to the ability of pupils to have been able to have sat their exams on the basis that they had not missed much direct teaching as a result of the virus. As you say, the scientific consensus regarding the affect of the virus on youngsters was known fairly early on, but the teachers unions wouldn't have been any more acquiescent towards schools reopening any earlier, than they would have been towards some system having been put in place to arrange for the sitting of exams. Thankfully Labour have finally come off the fence and agreed that schools should fully reopen in September, so the traditional union backing party has taken away that support from the teacher's union stance.

You appear to be confused. It was me, not WSS who said that the "Nobody including scientists had a really clear idea of what its impact would be", so you can't use that as an attempt to infer that WSS has contradicted himself over his opinion on whether the teachers should have gone back earlier. My position on that, is that when it became clear fairly early on that children were at very low risk of suffering severe effects from the Chinese virus, that was the time that the return to school should have been implemented, possibly with a week on, week off staggering of classes first. But then the bolshie leftie teachers union would have been far less amenable to that than they are to having them go back to school in September.

Brexit is coming along just fine. We're holding our nerve, telling the EU what is and what is not acceptable to us, and either the EU relents in their quest to keep us subjugated to their rules and laws as an associate member and agrees a FTA in our mutual interests, or we will go WTO. I don't mind either at this stage. Regarding your first sentence, no doubt you would be perfectly capable (with the help of the leftie media's opinions), of listing all the things which needed to have been done to avoid these problems with the benefit of hindsight. Unfortunately crystal ball gazing isn't a reliable way of forecasting the outcome of a pandemic like this Chinese one. Nobody including scientists had a really clear idea of what its impact would be, as we had zero previous experience of a virus like this one to guide us. And yes, the teacher's union are a bolshie lot of lefties who need to be faced down by the Government over their reluctance to allow their pupils to return to their proper schooling in September. The vast majority of parents polled favour that policy.

Nobody comes anywhere close to being as unfunny as Nish Kumar. The only things remotely funny about him are his face, and his belief that he is a comedian.

And in other much more lightweight news, overpriced Yank ice-cream manufacturer Ben & Jerry's have decided that there might be media mileage in raising their profile (without expenditure from their advertising budget), by sticking their unwanted oar into the debate. They have attempted to climb the virtue signalling ladder by using twatter to condemn Priti Patel's policy to try and stem the tide of illegal entry into the UK by these immigrants crossing the Channel from France. And they have certainly got great mileage for the exposure of their brand in the national red tops, but also some pretty cutting responses telling them to stick to selling their over-priced junk food ice-cream instead of poking their noses in matters they know nothing about. I expect that their sales will increase among the woke leftie community and correspondingly decrease among the political right.

In my opinion, there is greater certainty that you are dealing with genuine refugees if you take them (and their families) directly from refugee camps in countries bordering the conflict zones. There is a far greater chance that mostly fit, single young men arriving illegally in boats having traveled often thousands of miles to get here, are more likely to be economic migrants or will even include some terrorists.

duplicate post

Throw a pebble into a pond and it makes ripples. How far away do you want to go to make comparisons of numbers? Compare France's figures against Timmy's for a country directly adjoining a war zone and you can make this argument against them too. And yet many of these people hoping to enter the UK illegally from France are from Syria, North Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, all over the place. In the same way that there will be immigrants wanting to come here from our ex-colonial territories, France had substantial colonial interests in Africa, so many French speakers from there will favour France for that reason.

Didn't you see the bit where I said that many of the "refugees" flowing into France came from Libya or North Africa? I put the word "refugees" in quotes, as any economic migrants from sub-Saharan Africa would also come via that route. There was a very good article on Conservative Home this morning that covers my position very well "Allowing illegal migrant boats to cross the Channel is false compassion" Essentially it argues that our best policy it to take a share of refugees directly from camps such as those in the Lebanon, instead of allowing an allocation of those who claim to be refugees, but couldn't be bothered to claim asylum in the first safe country they got into, and expected to jump the queue of those being allowed into the UK.

Where did I dispute any statistics on immigration? Show me. You can't, so this sort of line is the sort of pathetic approach I have come to expect from you. Of course France received many more asylum applications than us last year. It is due north across the Mediterranean from Libya and North Africa, so the obvious destination for refugees and economic migrants from there. What has that got to do with our stance on immigrants entering our country from across the channel? Those who are genuinely fleeing danger in their own countries and see France as a safe place, apply for asylum there in accordance with the rules. Those who cross one or more safe countries to get here with no identity papers are far less likely to be asylum seekers and if proven not to be, should not be allowed to stay.

There is every reason for the French to want to get rid of these immigrants, so that they will not be a burden on their housing, health and education services. But that is not a valid excuse for them choosing to ignore their legal responsibilities, is it?

I read that Dawn Butler has made the headlines accusing the Police of "racial profiling her" when they stopped a car she was in. However, it now appears after a little scrutiny that the driver of the car was in fact white. Frankly, I'm heartily fed up with the BLM situation and the way that our police have given the knee in supplication to the cause, and now they have taken to victimising white drivers in order to demonstrate that racism is not endemic in the Met. They had spotted Dawn Butler in the car and thought it an ideal time to demonstrate to her how even-handed they were, but unfortunately it backfired because she mistakenly thought that it was her being profiled and not her white driver.

We have many, many offshore islands, but maybe we ought to put them all up in an old Pontin's Holiday Camp. Camber Sands isn't too long a coach journey. Otherwise a retired ocean liner might suit, moored a few miles off the coast.

International Law didn't do much to help immigrants trying to get into Australia, did it? It isn't helpful sending out the message that we will put them up in smart hotels and give them free guided tours of Anfield.

We have a government with a very strong majority. If the will is there, it shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to change the law so that the entire process can be shortened considerably. Legal challenges are only feasible if the law is unclear.