Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[buctootim]

25 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Let's assume the rhetoric is true. With the USA threatening to severely reduce it's commitment to NATO, why shouldn't 'closer integration' of defence capabilities across Europe be beneficial ? Where does the UK's isolationist/indepedent stance then leave it ? Acting under the delusion that we are still a World Power with the ability to independently 'project force', or clinging to the coat tails of a self interested USA ?

Exactly. We have an army of 80,000 of which the large majority are logistics, admin, maintenance etc. Perhaps 4,000 ready to fight at short notice.

Since WW2 the US has bought political leadership by picking up the huge military tab for us and others. If they are changing course and cutting back we need a new strategy.  

   

[Wes Tender]

So is there going to be an EU Army or not? I thought that the very idea was being ridiculed. Could it be that by reading the quotes from Merkel, Macron, Verhofstadt and others of the EU hierarchy that you're warming to the idea that they are actually planning it?

 

[buctootim]

It's really not tricky. Military policy is a national competence not EU. European countries are free to discuss it but if it were to happen it would likely be outside of the EU framework as any single member of the EU could veto any proposal .    

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

So is there going to be an EU Army or not? I thought that the very idea was being ridiculed. Could it be that by reading the quotes from Merkel, Macron, Verhofstadt and others of the EU hierarchy that you're warming to the idea that they are actually planning it?

 

No, there is not going to be an EU army in the forseeable future, the EU constitution won't permit it, but no doubt it is on the wish list of some people who want to progress further, in the mid to long term, towards a federal Europe. ( Which may not be such a bad idea if implemented properly ). I suspect most of the selective quotes being bandied about are being deliberately taken out of context, but I haven't the time or inclination to go through each to debunk it in turn.

[Weston Super Saint]

42 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

No, there is not going to be an EU army in the forseeable future, the EU constitution won't permit it, 

Is there not a more practical reason as to why it won't happen given that there are 24 official langauges in the EU!  Which one would they use to speak to each other?

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is there not a more practical reason as to why it won't happen given that there are 24 official langauges in the EU!  Which one would they use to speak to each other?

Which one do NATO use now when on joint operations ?

Edited 30 September, 2020 by badgerx16

[Hockey_saint]

9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Let's assume the rhetoric is true. With the USA threatening to severely reduce it's commitment to NATO, why shouldn't 'closer integration' of defence capabilities across Europe be beneficial ? Where does the UK's isolationist/indepedent stance then leave it ? Acting under the delusion that we are still a World Power with the ability to independently 'project force', or clinging to the coat tails of a self interested USA ?

Because that would cause problems for the brexit boy's paymaster.....Putin. It's blindingly obvious, divide and conquer.

[Wes Tender]

7 hours ago, Hockey_saint said:

Because that would cause problems for the brexit boy's paymaster.....Putin. It's blindingly obvious, divide and conquer.

You crack me up. I understand that the BBC might b looking for somebody to replace Hislop and Merton on HIGNFY soon. Have you thought of applying?

No, on second thoughts, that's a complete non-starter; you are miles off their diversity requirements 😁

[Wes Tender]

Good luck with this one, EU. Maybe we ought to counter threaten legal action against the EU for their legal breaches.

[Wes Tender]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/priti-patel-and-foreign-office-at-war-over-asylum-plans-6m92vpwxg

It seems that there is a lot of fake news going on regarding the Government's plans for accommodating these economic migrants arriving on our shores, crossing the Channel in their hordes in inflatable boats. The possibility that there are Civil Servants who are leaking false information because they are leftie remoaners who despise Patel, Boris and the Conservatives needs to be investigated and action taken to discipline or sack those responsible for leaks. 

According to the BBC report of opinions from the more deranged lefties, accommodating these illegal immigrants in out of service ferries is in the same bracket as putting them in prison hulks in a bygone age. 🤣 No doubt if there was talk of using luxury cruise liners, the analogy would still be applied. Really, how can we possibly bear to cross the seas to our holidays in Europe on these ferries if they are not deemed good enough for immigrant accommodation?

And then the BBC featured a hostel in Glasgow, the Tartan Lodge, which the immigrants complained about. No doubt they were told that they would be accommodated in 4 star Hilton class hotels like many others have been. If they were paying for their accommodation as customers, then they are entitled to complain. If they are staying there because British taxpayers are bearing the cost, then they are just taking the piss, especially when comparisons can be made to the conditions in most of the refugee camps or the living conditions of the countries they have left. Maybe they were just upset at having to stay in what was formerly a Christian place of worship.

[buctootim]

On 02/10/2020 at 13:19, Wes Tender said:

The possibility that there are Civil Servants who are leaking false information because they are leftie remoaners who despise Patel, Boris and the Conservatives needs to be investigated and action taken to discipline or sack those responsible for leaks. 

 

Ha classic Wes. Didn't understand the article he posted and gets wrong end of the stick. What the story was actually about was lack of co-ordination and direction at the heart of Government.

The Number 10 policy group -ie Cumming's little coterie commissioned an options paper for dealing with asylum seekers without telling the Home Secretary Patel. Cummings had specifically asked them to investigate the possibility of using British Overseas Territories and ferries to 'store' people offshore like Australia does.  When this was leaked Patel went off on one blaming Civil servants for making it up, when in fact it was her own esteemed close and loving colleague Dom. An slight variant story has it that Dom did it deliberately to undermine Patel. Either way its funny-tragic as hell and demonstrates what a dysfunctional shower this is. .      

Edited 3 October, 2020 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

Ha classic Wes. Didn't understand the article he posted and gets wrong end of the stick. What the story was actually about was lack of co-ordination and direction at the heart of Government.

The Number 10 policy group -ie Cumming's little coterie commissioned an options paper for dealing with asylum seekers without telling the Foreign Secretary Patel. Cummings had specifically asked them to investigate the possibility of using British Overseas Territories and ferries to 'store' people offshore like Australia does.  When this was leaked Patel went off on one blaming Civil servants for making it up, when in fact it was her own esteemed close and loving colleague Dom. An slight variant story has it that Dom did it deliberately to undermine Patel. Either way its funny-tragic as hell and demonstrates what a dysfunctional shower this is. .      

Surely the first line gives away the truth of the matter ?

"The Foreign Office has been accused by Priti Patel’s allies of leaking “bizarre and unworkable” asylum policies to discredit her in an intensifying Whitehall blame game."

And then;

"......and it subsequently emerged that Downing Street had commissioned the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to explore options for overseas processing of asylum seekers."

 

So which "Leftie remoaner" is the problem, Priti or Dom ?

Edited 3 October, 2020 by badgerx16

[buctootim]

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Surely the first line gives away the truth of the matter ?

 

You would have thought so Badger, you would have thought so 😄

[Wes Tender]

46 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Ha classic Wes. Didn't understand the article he posted and gets wrong end of the stick. What the story was actually about was lack of co-ordination and direction at the heart of Government.

The Number 10 policy group -ie Cumming's little coterie commissioned an options paper for dealing with asylum seekers without telling the Foreign Secretary Patel. 

Classic Timmy, who doesn't even know that Patel is the Home Secretary, and that Dominic Raab is Foreign Secretary.

I based my comments on this line:-

The Foreign Office has been accused by Priti Patel’s allies of leaking “bizarre and unworkable” asylum policies to discredit her in an intensifying Whitehall blame game.

You will note that the accusations of leaks comes from Patel's allies, not her. The article says that they think that there have been leaks of false information to discredit her. Where do you think that these stories about the options being explored come from, Timmy? Do you have any links to the official statements from ministers that these stories are government policy instead of CS leaks?

 

[buctootim]

3 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

Classic Timmy, who doesn't even know that Patel is the Home Secretary, and that Dominic Raab is Foreign Secretary.

 

 

You will note that the accusations of leaks comes from Patel's allies, not her. The article says that they think that there have been leaks of false information to discredit her. Where do you think that these stories about the options being explored come from, Timmy? Do you have any links to the official statements from ministers that these stories are government policy instead of CS leaks?

 

Too slow as always Wes. I'd already spotted my typo and corrected it by the time you maneuvered off the day chair. 

Read again, It was an option paper drawn up to discuss, erm, options. Not government policy and therefore there wont be any official statements. The story is that ministers are even considering dumping people on Ascension island. That of course sailed over your head.     

[Wes Tender]

19 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Surely the first line gives away the truth of the matter ?

"The Foreign Office has been accused by Priti Patel’s allies of leaking “bizarre and unworkable” asylum policies to discredit her in an intensifying Whitehall blame game."

And then;

"......and it subsequently emerged that Downing Street had commissioned the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to explore options for overseas processing of asylum seekers."

 

So which "Leftie remoaner" is the problem, Priti or Dom ?

So you are agreeing that it was the Foreign Office Civil Servants who leaked details of what was being considered as options? The very basis of my point, that CS  leaks of information should be investigated a those responsible sanctioned or sacked.

[buctootim]

6 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

So you are agreeing that it was the Foreign Office Civil Servants who leaked details of what was being considered as options? The very basis of my point, that CS  leaks of information should be investigated a those responsible sanctioned or sacked.

Seriously. wtf is wrong with you that you can no longer read and understand clear and simple English?  

Patel's allies accused the Foreign office officials of making stuff up BEFORE it became clear that had actually been instructed by Cummings to do exactly what had been claimed. Neither Badger or anybody else has agreed it was foreign office civil servants leaking. Could have been anybody. Most likely other ministers or advisers who think she is an incompetent liability. 

Edited 3 October, 2020 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

6 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

So you are agreeing that it was the Foreign Office Civil Servants who leaked details of what was being considered as options? The very basis of my point, that CS  leaks of information should be investigated a those responsible sanctioned or sacked.

It all depends on whether the CS leaked the details because they are 'leftie remoaners', or the Ministerial aides leaked them at Dom's behest to undermine Priti. You pays your money, you takes your choice. I konow where I'm putting my stake.

Edited 3 October, 2020 by badgerx16

[Wes Tender]

Just now, buctootim said:

Too slow as always Wes. I'd already spotted my typo and corrected it by the time you maneuvered off the day chair. 

Read again, It was an option paper drawn up to discuss, erm, options. Not government policy and therefore there wont be any official statements. The story is that ministers are even considering dumping people on Ascension island. That of course sailed over your head.     

I have read all of the suggestions, Timmy, including some crackpot ones that are almost certainly fake, like the ones proposing that offshore barriers and wave machines be deployed in the Channel. Of course I had read about the Ascension Island one, and also St Helena. I expect that as a Conservative member I get a lot more inside information than you do about policy proposals and insider party politics. 

[Wes Tender]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It all depends on whether the CS leaked the details because they are 'leftie remoaners', or the Ministerial aides leaked them at Dom's behest to undermine Priti. You pays your money, you takes your choice. I konow where I'm putting my stake.

My money is on remoaner CSs. Cummings isn't exactly their best friend, especially when he is proposing draining the swamp of some of them. So it is far more likely that they are attempting to create mischief by sowing the seeds of discontent between him and Ministers where it doesn't exist.

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

My money is on remoaner CSs. Cummings isn't exactly their best friend, especially when he is proposing draining the swamp of some of them. So it is far more likely that they are attempting to create mischief by sowing the seeds of discontent between him and Ministers where it doesn't exist.

What a peculiar World view you hold.

[Wes Tender]

12 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Seriously. wtf is wrong with you that you can no longer read and understand clear and simple English?  

Patel's allies accused the Foreign office officials of making stuff up BEFORE it became clear that had actually been instructed to do exactly what had been claimed by Cummings. Neither badger or anybody else has agreed it was foreign office civil servants leaking. could have ben anybody. Most likely other ministers or advisers who think she is an incompetent liability. 

I refer you to my original post:-

It seems that there is a lot of fake news going on regarding the Government's plans for accommodating these economic migrants arriving on our shores, crossing the Channel in their hordes in inflatable boats. The possibility that there are Civil Servants who are leaking false information because they are leftie remoaners who despise Patel, Boris and the Conservatives needs to be investigated and action taken to discipline or sack those responsible for leaks.

You appear to admit that there were leaks, you don't know for sure who made them, you think that apart from CSs, it could even be Ministers or advisers. My stated opinion was that this sort of damaging mischief should be investigated and the culprits should face the consequences. I stand by my post and nothing you have argued causes me  to want to retract a single word of it.

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, Wes Tender said:

I refer you to my original post:-

 

You appear to admit that there were leaks, you don't know for sure who made them, you think that apart from CSs, it could even be Ministers or advisers. My stated opinion was that this sort of damaging mischief should be investigated and the culprits should face the consequences. I stand by my post and nothing you have argued causes me  to want to retract a single word of it.

The point is that you see things in text which aren't there. You can believe whatever you want, no matter how improbable - just stop trying to bolster those beliefs by misrepresenting what has been written.  

[Wes Tender]

1 minute ago, buctootim said:

The point is that you see things in text which aren't there. You can believe whatever you want, no matter how improbable - just stop trying to bolster those beliefs by misrepresenting what has been written.  

You read into text what you want to infer from it, as do I and everybody else. 

[buctootim]

27 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

You read into text what you want to infer from it, as do I and everybody else. 

Again, wrong. Some people want to know the facts and then come to a view. Some people, of which you are a prime example, are tribal. Regardless of what their tribe does they will simply seek out and interpret information in such a way that confirms what they already believe. It's called confirmation bias and avoids cognitive dissonance. 

Edited 3 October, 2020 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

Again, wrong. Some people want to know the facts and then come to a view. Some people, of which you are a prime example, are tribal. Regardless of what their tribe does they will simply seek out and interpret information in such a way that confirms what they already believe. It's called confirmation bias and avoids cognitive dissonance. 

So you know the facts of the story we have been discussing and have arrived at a view on it, have you? And yet your view is full of conjecture, not facts,  which I recognise to be the case, even if you don't. I have to laugh at the inference that you aren't tribal too. Your tribe lost the referendum and the last two elections and are feeling rather bitter about it, so I rather think that the cognitive dissonance applies to you.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Some people, of which you are a prime example, are tribal. Regardless of what their tribe does they will simply seek out and interpret information in such a way that confirms what they already believe.

Another prime example is.......you. 

 

 

[John B]

So protection of our genuinely 'world-beating' food standards has gone, and the German car industry still hasn't arrived to save us... It's almost as if 'Brexiters' were talking undiluted twaddle about absolutely everything.

[Sheaf Saint]

2 hours ago, John B said:

So protection of our genuinely 'world-beating' food standards has gone, and the German car industry still hasn't arrived to save us... It's almost as if 'Brexiters' were talking undiluted twaddle about absolutely everything.

I can't wait for Batman to come along and tell us this is absolutely fine because "all politicians lie".

[mickn]

59 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I can't wait for Batman to come along and tell us this is absolutely fine because "all politicians lie".

I fear you may have to wait a while for Batman's response 🙂

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, John B said:

So protection of our genuinely 'world-beating' food standards has gone, and the German car industry still hasn't arrived to save us... It's almost as if 'Brexiters' were talking undiluted twaddle about absolutely everything.

Are the UK parliament not able to regulate food standards? 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Are the UK parliament not able to regulate food standards? 

The Amendment was an attempt to ensure they keep to their election promise, though to be fair the Governent have said they will simply transfer into UK law the existing EU regulations. We shall have to see if they actually deliver, when Tory back benchers are coming out with comments such as these :

"

But Conservative MP John Lamont supported the government, saying the amendments were "not in the interests" of food producers or standards and would be "bad for trade".

Party colleague Anthony Mangnall said there had been a "huge amount of fear-mongering" over the importation of chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, and that "has to stop".

".

Edited 13 October, 2020 by badgerx16

[Wes Tender]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Are the UK parliament not able to regulate food standards? 

Of course they are. They don't need the assistance of the EU in formulating these standards either, as in most areas our food standards are higher then theirs. And I  don't see where the Tories will be in breach of their manifesto promises either, unless and until there is anything that comes to pass in a future trade deal that can be argued as lowering those standards.

As for that dopey weirdo Caroline Lucas, why would hormone fed beef or chlorinated chicken affect her, as she's almost certainly a vegan.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Wes Tender said:

As for that dopey weirdo Caroline Lucas, why would hormone fed beef or chlorinated chicken affect her, as she's almost certainly a vegan.

Because she cares about animal welfare.

[John B]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Are the UK parliament not able to regulate food standards? 

They are not regulating food standards they are letting in inferior food

 

Mince which is horsemeat, pork with swine flu, birds with avian flu, Brazil and Argentina meat full of chemicals. If British farmers aren’t around because cheap food has undercut them then you won’t have a choice. 

 

 

[Wes Tender]

46 minutes ago, John B said:

They are not regulating food standards they are letting in inferior food

Mince which is horsemeat, pork with swine flu, birds with avian flu, Brazil and Argentina meat full of chemicals. If British farmers aren’t around because cheap food has undercut them then you won’t have a choice. 

What, like the horse meat that the French put into Findus lasagne you mean? 

If the government does a proper job, they will ensure that everything is labelled to identify country of origin, ingredients, fat/salt/sugar/preservative content, etc. The consumer can then make an informed choice on what they buy. You talk as if there isn't a market for high quality products commanding a higher price.  It's amazing that those farmers in Japan producing their Wagyu beef have survived in view of all the cheap beef there is about. There is probably a John B on a website there somewhere bemoaning how their beef farmers will suffer from cheaper beef imports now they have a trade deal with us.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

Because she cares about animal welfare.

I bet she doesn’t oppose halal practises. 

[aintforever]

31 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I bet she doesn’t oppose halal practises. 

Dunno, here’s there policy on animal slaughter:  We shall ensure that when slaughter does take place it is done so as to cause least suffering to the animal, with due regard to species and individual animal factors, and is monitored without prejudice towards minority religious and cultural groups. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

What a load of old waffle & pony. 

 

It’s basically “we support animal welfare and are against animal cruelty by whitey”. 

Edited 13 October, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[Wes Tender]

https://order-order.com/2020/10/14/read-in-full-major-european-business-organisations-call-on-eu-to-agree-a-brexit-trade-deal/

Remoaners have been very fond of telling us that EU businesses will not be knocking on Merkel's, Macron's or any other leader's door pleading for them to do a deal with us. Apparently it was far more important that they stick together, united in their devotion to the integrity of the single market and their desire to punish us for having the audacity to leave their gravy train.

Well, here are the presidents of the main business groups of Germany, France and Italy pleading with the EU the day before the EU summit, to do a deal with us.

And there is Merkel pleading with Macron to come to his senses and accept that France isn't going to get the same fisheries deal that they enjoyed under the CFP, so he is being an utter twat risking a no deal Brexit by insisting that there can be no talks on trade unless we grant them that. The penny might eventually drop with the pocket Napoleon that in the event of no deal, they will be entitled to zero fishing rights in our territorial waters.

Frosty believes that Boris should hang fire on his decision to leave the negotiations unless the EU are prepared to accept our red lines, because he feels that a deal can be achieved in a couple of weeks. I think that unless the EU has shown some give by Friday, and if Macron still insists on his ludicrous position of fishing, Boris should walk away and tell them that until they are prepared to accept our position, there really is no point in wasting time going round in circles.

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

 France isn't going to get the same fisheries deal that they enjoyed under the CFP, so he is being an utter twat risking a no deal Brexit by insisting that there can be no talks on trade unless we grant them that. The penny might eventually drop with the pocket Napoleon that in the event of no deal, they will be entitled to zero fishing rights in our territorial waters.

 

Nope. You still havent realised two basic facts about fishing.

1. Although the EU set national quotas the nation states decide who gets what share of those quotas. And the UK allowed most of ours to be sold by British boats and bought up by EU ones. That isn't going to change after we leave the CFP - the owners have a UK permit to catch those fish and will sue if anyone tries to take that away without full compensation 

2. Most fish are highly mobile. They spawn in one location, juvenile fish mature in another location and mature fish move at different times of the year to feed. Britain will still need a shared stock management plan with other European countries, including national quotes, if stocks aren't to be wiped out.        

Edited 15 October, 2020 by buctootim

[buctootim]

40 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

https://order-order.com/2020/10/14/read-in-full-major-european-business-organisations-call-on-eu-to-agree-a-brexit-trade-deal/

Remoaners have been very fond of telling us that EU businesses will not be knocking on Merkel's, Macron's or any other leader's door pleading for them to do a deal with us. Apparently it was far more important that they stick together, united in their devotion to the integrity of the single market and their desire to punish us for having the audacity to leave their gravy train.

Well, here are the presidents of the main business groups of Germany, France and Italy pleading with the EU the day before the EU summit, to do a deal with us.

 

 

Haha. There speaks a man who has neither read the letter nor understood it. The letter calls on both parties to reach a deal but fires a shot across EU leaders bows to not compromise the integrity of the single market by letting Britain gain an unfair advantage through lower standards and state aid or using NI as a trojan horse for grey exports - exactly what Johnson is trying to achieve. Its a call to remain strong not a call to cave. 

"We call on the leaders of both sides to stay committed to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, be pragmatic and explore all possible options to reach a solution which ensures smooth trade conditions, while maintaining the conditions for fair competition between the Union and its British partner. This necessary agreement should not call into question what is at the heart of our European commitment and of our activities throughout the Union's territory: the solidarity of the 27 and the regular functioning of the single market.

[badgerx16]

47 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

https://order-order.com/2020/10/14/read-in-full-major-european-business-organisations-call-on-eu-to-agree-a-brexit-trade-deal/

Remoaners have been very fond of telling us that EU businesses will not be knocking on Merkel's, Macron's or any other leader's door pleading for them to do a deal with us. Apparently it was far more important that they stick together, united in their devotion to the integrity of the single market and their desire to punish us for having the audacity to leave their gravy train.

Well, here are the presidents of the main business groups of Germany, France and Italy pleading with the EU the day before the EU summit, to do a deal with us.

And there is Merkel pleading with Macron to come to his senses and accept that France isn't going to get the same fisheries deal that they enjoyed under the CFP, so he is being an utter twat risking a no deal Brexit by insisting that there can be no talks on trade unless we grant them that. The penny might eventually drop with the pocket Napoleon that in the event of no deal, they will be entitled to zero fishing rights in our territorial waters.

Frosty believes that Boris should hang fire on his decision to leave the negotiations unless the EU are prepared to accept our red lines, because he feels that a deal can be achieved in a couple of weeks. I think that unless the EU has shown some give by Friday, and if Macron still insists on his ludicrous position of fishing, Boris should walk away and tell them that until they are prepared to accept our position, there really is no point in wasting time going round in circles.

"....solemnly call on the negotiators on both sides of the Channel ...."

"We call on the leaders of both sides to stay committed to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, ".

So, calling on BOTH sides to stop being intransigent. Not quite as Guido is reporting it, nor as you are reading it.

Edited 15 October, 2020 by badgerx16

[Wes Tender]

3 hours ago, buctootim said:

Nope. You still havent realised two basic facts about fishing.

1. Although the EU set national quotas the nation states decide who gets what share of those quotas. And the UK allowed most of ours to be sold by British boats and bought up by EU ones. That isn't going to change after we leave the CFP - the owners have a UK permit to catch those fish and will sue if anyone tries to take that away without full compensation 

2. Most fish are highly mobile. They spawn in one location, juvenile fish mature in another location and mature fish move at different times of the year to feed. Britain will still need a shared stock management plan with other European countries, including national quotes, if stocks aren't to be wiped out.        

You don't seem to realise that we are no longer tied by the CFP, It is now we who will set the quotas and who we allow to fish our waters. There might well be instances of compensation for permits rescinded, but if we wish to take back permits granted to foreign states under the CFP, that will be our decision to make.

Fish are mobile? Who knew? As we now control our coastal waters, we will put in place our own policies for managing the fish stocks in our waters. What the EU do about the fish in their waters is up to them. Me, I'd stop super trawlers fishing in our waters, but I hear that in the Fisheries Bill just passed we have not done that. Apparently according to Greenpeace, we had a bloody great big German super trawler fishing in one of our marine protected zones in the last few days.

[buctootim]

15 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

You don't seem to realise that we are no longer tied by the CFP, It is now we who will set the quotas and who we allow to fish our waters. There might well be instances of compensation for permits rescinded, but if we wish to take back permits granted to foreign states under the CFP, that will be our decision to make.

Fish are mobile? Who knew? As we now control our coastal waters, we will put in place our own policies for managing the fish stocks in our waters. What the EU do about the fish in their waters is up to them. Me, I'd stop super trawlers fishing in our waters, but I hear that in the Fisheries Bill just passed we have not done that. Apparently according to Greenpeace, we had a bloody great big German super trawler fishing in one of our marine protected zones in the last few days.

You don't seem to understand contract law. You can't unilaterally cancel a contract. In any event they are permits issued by the UK Government to foreign owned boats. The mega trawlers are licensed by the UK government, in part because they'd rather regulate 20 mega boats with a lot to lose than 5,000 12m boats with an incentive to cheat.  

Ditto you don't seem to understand fisheries. Yes fish move. Maybe they spawn in Dutch waters, have nursery grounds in France, and the adults feed at different times of the year in the waters of three other countries. Unless you manage them as a single population with internationally agreed quotas then one nation can wipe out the entire stock. Simply waving the Union Jack over your patch of water isnt going to stop the fish disappearing unless all countries have a common interest in preserving the stock and managing it it for the long term.  

Edited 15 October, 2020 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

3 hours ago, buctootim said:

 

Haha. There speaks a man who has neither read the letter nor understood it. The letter calls on both parties to reach a deal but fires a shot across EU leaders bows to not compromise the integrity of the single market by letting Britain gain an unfair advantage through lower standards and state aid or using NI as a trojan horse for grey exports - exactly what Johnson is trying to achieve. Its a call to remain strong not a call to cave. 

"We call on the leaders of both sides to stay committed to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, be pragmatic and explore all possible options to reach a solution which ensures smooth trade conditions, while maintaining the conditions for fair competition between the Union and its British partner. This necessary agreement should not call into question what is at the heart of our European commitment and of our activities throughout the Union's territory: the solidarity of the 27 and the regular functioning of the single market.

Your usual response; I neither read or understood it *yawn* 

Of course it calls for both parties to arrange a deal, but it came from the main trade bodies of the three main countries in the EU, so clearly the main thrust of it was aimed  at the EU. After all your bluster about how EU businesses would not be knocking on the doors of their Country's leaders, I can understand why you're so intent in deflecting from the evidence that these cracks are beginning to appear in EU unity.

[quote]be pragmatic and explore all possible options to reach a solution which ensures smooth trade conditions,[/quote]

Of course they want to tie us into terms that make us a vassal colony, hamstrung from realising our full potential as a very competitive thriving rival on their doorstep, so naturally they will express their desire for the negotiators to attempt to achieve that result. I notice though that you skipped lightly over the part of the letter that expressed the dire outcome for both parties (but especially them) if no free trade deal was arranged, the main reason for sending the letter of course.

And no solution will be reached if the frogs continue to insist on their fishing remaining as before and we don't want to sign up for their level playing field.

 

[buctootim]

2 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

Your usual response; I neither read or understood it *yawn* 

Of course it calls for both parties to arrange a deal, but it came from the main trade bodies of the three main countries in the EU, so clearly the main thrust of it was aimed  at the EU. After all your bluster about how EU businesses would not be knocking on the doors of their Country's leaders, I can understand why you're so intent in deflecting from the evidence that these cracks are beginning to appear in EU unity.

[quote]be pragmatic and explore all possible options to reach a solution which ensures smooth trade conditions,[/quote]

Of course they want to tie us into terms that make us a vassal colony, hamstrung from realising our full potential as a very competitive thriving rival on their doorstep, so naturally they will express their desire for the negotiators to attempt to achieve that result. I notice though that you skipped lightly over the part of the letter that expressed the dire outcome for both parties (but especially them) if no free trade deal was arranged, the main reason for sending the letter of course.

And no solution will be reached if the frogs continue to insist on their fishing remaining as before and we don't want to sign up for their level playing field.

 

That's the thing though. No matter how many times something is explained to you, and no matter how clearly you still don't get it. Or more precisely don't want to get it because then you'd have to change your view.  

Edited 15 October, 2020 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

6 minutes ago, buctootim said:

You don't seem to understand contract law. You can't unilaterally cancel a contract. In any event they are permits issued by the UK Government to foreign owned boats. The mega trawlers are licensed by the UK government, in part because they'd rather regulate 20 mega boats with a lot to lose than 5,000 12m boats with an incentive to cheat.  

Ditto you don't seem to understand fisheries. Yes fish move. Maybe they spawn in Dutch waters, have nursery grounds in France, and the adults feed at different times of the year in the waters of three other countries. Unless you manage them as a single population with internationally agreed quotas then one nation can wipe out the entire stock. Simply waving the Union Jack over your patch of water isnt going to stop the fish disappearing unless all countries have a common interest in preserving the stock and managing it it for the long term.  

 

7 minutes ago, buctootim said:

You don't seem to understand contract law. You can't unilaterally cancel a contract. In any event they are permits issued by the UK Government to foreign owned boats. The mega trawlers are licensed by the UK government, in part because they'd rather regulate 20 mega boats with a lot to lose than 5,000 12m boats with an incentive to cheat.  

Ditto you don't seem to understand fisheries. Yes fish move. Maybe they spawn in Dutch waters, have nursery grounds in France, and the adults feed at different times of the year in the waters of three other countries. Unless you manage them as a single population with internationally agreed quotas then one nation can wipe out the entire stock. Simply waving the Union Jack over your patch of water isnt going to stop the fish disappearing unless all countries have a common interest in preserving the stock and managing it it for the long term.  

Contract law can be changed by treaties. The situation is altered by our leaving the rules of the CFP and determined by our newly passed Fisheries Bill.

As for fish migration, I reiterate that we will put in place policies to manage the stocks in our waters and what the EU do to manage stocks in their waters is up to them. We can agree internationally which species are endangered by over fishing, but ultimately it is still down to us to manage our waters, and what action we take. You almost sound as if you are arguing that just because the fish spawned in Dutch waters and had nursery grounds in France, that the Dutch and French have a right to fish in our waters when the fish are fully grown 😁 That's just how the cookie crumbles,the fish belong to the country in whose waters they are caught.

[Wes Tender]

14 minutes ago, buctootim said:

That's the thing though. No matter how many times something is explained to you, and no matter how clearly you still don't get it. Or more precisely don't want to get it because then you'd have to change your view.  

There are few on here with more entrenched views than you when it comes to Brexit. You won't even accept that Norway is not a option.

[buctootim]

40 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

 

Contract law can be changed by treaties. The situation is altered by our leaving the rules of the CFP and determined by our newly passed Fisheries Bill.

No it wont. The Fisheries Bill has no provision to change ownership of English quotas - some 55% of which are controlled by foreign companies. Why do you just randomly make up things you want to be true but aren't?      

 

Quote

As for fish migration, I reiterate that we will put in place policies to manage the stocks in our waters and what the EU do to manage stocks in their waters is up to them. We can agree internationally which species are endangered by over fishing, but ultimately it is still down to us to manage our waters, and what action we take. You almost sound as if you are arguing that just because the fish spawned in Dutch waters and had nursery grounds in France, that the Dutch and French have a right to fish in our waters when the fish are fully grown 😁 That's just how the cookie crumbles,the fish belong to the country in whose waters they are caught.

Wow you really are catastrophically stupid. What part of "If the Dutch catch them in February they wont be in British waters in March" don't you get?  

 

Edited 15 October, 2020 by buctootim