Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[buctootim]

3 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

OCS

The courier company? 

[Tamesaint]

I think the weirdo would only be happy if the Government were to spend money buying poisons from him.

[Wes Tender]

37 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Lol all three were about the same Taxpayers Alliance campaign ffs. It was even the same guy writing the article in Conservative home as wrote the Taxpayers report PR release. I'm going to stop mocking you because I think you have a genuine medical issue.  

Likewise I think that you do too. You say that you won't respond to me, but your narcissism then kicks in and you are compelled to. You just can't do anything about it.

[Wes Tender]

35 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

Don't change the subject.

You said that 15-year forecasts were useless. Using your impressive academic qualifications and access to sophisticated computer modelling, what do you think will happen?

Read again. It is me who doesn't give any credence to long time forecasts, therefore academic qualifications and sophisticated computer modelling over a 15 year period are bunkum as far as I'm concerned. Only the passage of time will prove whether there was any basis for making them, and luckily for the authors, everybody will have forgotten them if they were wrong, and the authors will not allow it to be forgotten if they were right. If they were wrong, they can also try and fabricate no end of mitigating factors to excuse the outcome that differed from their forecasts. Charlatans the lot of them.

[Sheaf Saint]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/08/brexit-backers-tate-lyle-set-to-gain-73m-from-end-of-eu-trade-tariffs

Brexit backers and Tory donors Tate & Lyle in line to be the sole beneficiaries of rule changes on importing raw cane sugar post-Brexit, and will save £73m.

And I'm sure it's just pure coincidence that David Davis used to work for them.

[buctootim]

5 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/08/brexit-backers-tate-lyle-set-to-gain-73m-from-end-of-eu-trade-tariffs

Brexit backers and Tory donors Tate & Lyle in line to be the sole beneficiaries of rule changes on importing raw cane sugar post-Brexit, and will save £73m.

And I'm sure it's just pure coincidence that David Davis used to work for them.

Bizarre. That is a move which will both cost the government £73m in revenue and put pressure on Silver Spoon who make their sugar in Britain from sugar beet grown in East Anglia  

Edited 16 December, 2020 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

Three letters, mate. BBC

 

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

Or TFL.

 

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

Or PHE

 

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

OCS

What have you got against TLAs ?

[badgerx16]

56 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

I think the weirdo would only be happy if the Government were to spend money buying poisons from him.

He said he enjoyed riding in a helicopter that was spraying chemical pesticides/herbicides, but I can't recall where he claimed it to be ?

[Tamesaint]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

He said he enjoyed riding in a helicopter that was spraying chemical pesticides/herbicides, but I can't recall where he claimed it to be ?

The land of make believe ??

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

The land of make believe ??

Possibly he has been watching too many Vietnam war films.

[buctootim]

14 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

The land of make believe ??

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, buctootim said:

Cool story, bro 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Deals long been done. This is just theatre to sell it to the people. 

But which people need it selling to them....

[ecuk268]

3 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Read again. It is me who doesn't give any credence to long time forecasts, therefore academic qualifications and sophisticated computer modelling over a 15 year period are bunkum as far as I'm concerned. Only the passage of time will prove whether there was any basis for making them, and luckily for the authors, everybody will have forgotten them if they were wrong, and the authors will not allow it to be forgotten if they were right. If they were wrong, they can also try and fabricate no end of mitigating factors to excuse the outcome that differed from their forecasts. Charlatans the lot of them.

You said  "And forecasts for periods like 15 years are as worthless as long range weather forecasts." So what actual evidence are you basing this on? 

Governments and commercial organisations all use mathematical modelling to forecast future trends. That's how they do planning. You're saying it's all bunkum, based on what?

[Winnersaint]

7 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

John does not subscribe to the Climate Change scam

Do you reckon it would piss him off knowing that I have to teach about climate change to teenagers? Its also the bit at GCSE and A level that the kids are most interested in. Their futures not ours and not GMs. Maybe he can complain he can complain to the Daily Mail, get a bit more outrage going

[Wes Tender]

1 hour ago, ecuk268 said:

You said  "And forecasts for periods like 15 years are as worthless as long range weather forecasts." So what actual evidence are you basing this on? 

Governments and commercial organisations all use mathematical modelling to forecast future trends. That's how they do planning. You're saying it's all bunkum, based on what?

Based on all of the variables that can blow the forecasts completely off course, naturally. Just a really simple example, take this Chinese virus. I don't recall any forecaster taking that into account. Have any of the forecasts taken into account the Euro crashing, other member states leaving the EU, political changes, wars, etc?

[Guided Missile]

12 hours ago, Winnersaint said:

Do you reckon it would piss him off knowing that I have to teach about climate change to teenagers? Its also the bit at GCSE and A level that the kids are most interested in. Their futures not ours and not GMs. Maybe he can complain he can complain to the Daily Mail, get a bit more outrage going

When I did my Chemistry "A" level, climate change was not on the curriculum. It was normally taught in the History lessons. You know, Romans growing vines in the north of England, the Tudor Xmas Fair on the frozen Thames. Since then, climate change has crept into the science sphere, as if it is science. Personally, I think climate should still be taught in Geography and climate change in History lessons. Climate change and long range weather forecasting should be taught in Astrology lessons. 

Still as you are a teacher, I would love to be patronised by you, as it appears your students are. I can understand why, because the rigid discipline of real science does not provide the opportunity to apply all the anti-capitalist prejudices that our tax payer funded education system allows and real science needs the mental discipline, a lot of teenagers lack. 

So, enlightened one. I have a couple of questions that I would love to know the answers to, because the global climate and factors affecting it, are just too many and complicated for me to understand. 

1. Where is the evidence that the change in our climate is due mainly to the anthropogenic generation of CO2? To be clear, I'm looking for direct measurements of changing levels of CO2 and temperature, not proxy measurements like tree rings and ice bubbles. These are not scientific.
2. If you can answer question 1, then are you able to prove, again by direct measurements of temperature and CO2 levels, that the levels of CO2 are not simply following the changes in temperature, but preceeding them.

You see, your students should be questioning everything you teach them, not blindly following you. They might then think, why are we throwing billions at controlling carbon emissions, when it may have fuck all effect on global temperatures? They might also think, like me, does an increase in CO2 from the equivalent of 3 hours in a year to 4 hours in a year, (300-400ppm) really sound like an event that could have a major effect on our climate.

They also might think that even if it does, CO2 is good for growing trees and plants, as commercial greenhouses usually have CO2 introduced into them. Personally I wouldn't mind a return to increased grape production in England and warm weather year round.

In the absence of clear scientific evidence, I'm not convinced about this anthropogenic climate change malarkey.  It is the usual opportunity for virtue signalling politicians, capitalists and anti-capitalists to make hay while the sun shines, as it were.

Frankly, to call climate change studies a science is an insult to scientists. 

Edited 17 December, 2020 by Guided Missile
Typo

[AlexLaw76]

Anyone remotely interested, Wikileaks have dumped loads of documents online.

I am reading a report from a Bilderberg Meeting (1980).  As it turns out, the UK was encouraged back into the European fold way back when, to counter the economic rise of Germany.  France feared Germany would dominate Europe.  Never worked I guess

Thankfully, I do not recognise any names on the BNP members list

 

 

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

When I did my Chemistry "A" level, climate change was not on the curriculum. It was normally taught in the History lessons. You know, Romans growing vines in the north of England, the Tudor Xmas Fair on the frozen Thames. Since then, climate change has crept into the science sphere, as if it is science. Personally, I think climate should still be taught in Geography and climate change in History lessons. Climate change and long range weather forecasting should be taught in Astrology lessons. 

Still as you are a teacher, I would love to be patronised by you, as it appears your students are. I can understand why, because the rigid discipline of real science does not provide the opportunity to apply all the anti-capitalist prejudices that our tax payer funded education system allows and real science needs the mental discipline, a lot of teenagers lack. 

So, enlightened one. I have a couple of questions that I would love to know the answers to, because the global climate and factors affecting it, are just too many and complicated for me to understand. 

1. Where is the evidence that the change in our climate is due mainly to the anthropogenic generation of CO2? To be clear, I'm looking for direct measurements of changing levels of CO2 and temperature, not proxy measurements like tree rings and ice bubbles. These are not scientific.
2. If you can answer question 1, then are you able to prove, again by direct measurements of temperature and CO2 levels, that the levels of CO2 are not simply following the changes in temperature, but preceeding them.

You see, your students should be questioning everything you teach them, not blindly following you. They might then think, why are we throwing billions at controlling carbon emissions, when it may have fuck all effect on global temperatures? They might also think, like me, does an increase in CO2 from the equivalent of 3 hours in a year to 4 hours in a year, (300-400ppm) really sound like an event that could have a major effect on our climate.

They also might think that even if it does, CO2 is good for growing trees and plants, as commercial greenhouses usually have CO2 introduced into them. Personally I wouldn't mind a return to increased grape production in England and warm weather year round.

In the absence of clear scientific evidence, I'm not convinced about this anthropogenic climate change malarkey.  It is the usual opportunity for virtue signalling politicians, capitalists and anti-capitalists to make hay while the sun shines, as it were.

Frankly, to call climate change studies a science is an insult to scientists. 

Did your wife never tell you quantity is no substitute for quality? 
 

Back to chemistry primer for you. There is always natural climate change and there is man made climate change. Since people overwhelmingly live in the areas which have climates hospitable to human life changing that climate would be a bad thing. The analogy I like to use for Portsmouth poly students is not burning your house  down now just because the area might have warmed a bit naturally in a thousand years time . 
 

btw the Romans usually had to add honey to make  wine in England because the grapes didn’t ripen fully. I don’t need to do that now for the grapes in my garden 

Edited 17 December, 2020 by buctootim

[spyinthesky]

12 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Based on all of the variables that can blow the forecasts completely off course, naturally. Just a really simple example, take this Chinese virus. I don't recall any forecaster taking that into account. Have any of the forecasts taken into account the Euro crashing, other member states leaving the EU, political changes, wars, etc?

Wes,
I understand that most Govts have plans for a number of 'worst case' scenarios such as pandemics, nuclear war etc.
Throughout history there have been a number of pandemics that appear to have started in Asia (apart from the Flu epidemic in 1918/19 which seems to have started in Kansas)so the medical world would have been alert to the possibility.

 

[Wes Tender]

4 minutes ago, spyinthesky said:

Wes,
I understand that most Govts have plans for a number of 'worst case' scenarios such as pandemics, nuclear war etc.
Throughout history there have been a number of pandemics that appear to have started in Asia (apart from the Flu epidemic in 1918/19 which seems to have started in Kansas)so the medical world would have been alert to the possibility.

 

Ah, so those Government forecasts of the UK's economic position in 15 years time against what they would have been had we not gained our independence from the EU were based on the worst case scenario then? One including pandemics, nuclear war etc. Right.

[badgerx16]

20 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Did your wife never tell you quantity is no substitute for quality? 
 

Back to chemistry primer for you. There is always natural climate change and there is man made climate change. Since people overwhelmingly live in the areas which have climates hospitable to human life changing that climate would be a bad thing. The analogy I like to use for Portsmouth poly students is not burning your house  down now just because the area might have warmed a bit naturally in a thousand years time . 
 

btw the Romans usually had to add honey to make  wine in England because the grapes didn’t ripen fully. I don’t need to do that now for the grapes in my garden 

I assume John lives sufficiently above sea level that the melting Greenland ice shelf doesn't worry him. He is probably as unconcerned about those areas of the Earth's surface that are currently 'green' but will soon start to become deserts.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

I assume John lives sufficiently above sea level that the melting Greenland ice shelf doesn't worry him. He is probably as unconcerned about those areas of the Earth's surface that are currently 'green' but will soon start to become deserts.

Woke pony. The climates been changing since time began, won’t make a blind bit of difference to our lives. 

Edited 17 December, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[ecuk268]

15 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Based on all of the variables that can blow the forecasts completely off course, naturally. Just a really simple example, take this Chinese virus. I don't recall any forecaster taking that into account. Have any of the forecasts taken into account the Euro crashing, other member states leaving the EU, political changes, wars, etc?

Forecasting doesn't just use one set of parameters, they are made with a wide variety of parameters to provide a range of different outcomes.

We cannot predict the future, but modelling techniques and the increasing use of AI can be a useful tool in planning.

 If they were as useless as you believe, nobody would use them.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Woke pony. The climates been changing since time began, won’t make a blind bit of difference to our lives. 

Tell that to the people living on Pacific islands, or those in areas of the USA and Australia where declining rainfall has greatly increased thd risk of wildfire.

Edited 17 December, 2020 by badgerx16

[Wes Tender]

15 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

Forecasting doesn't just use one set of parameters, they are made with a wide variety of parameters to provide a range of different outcomes.

We cannot predict the future, but modelling techniques and the increasing use of AI can be a useful tool in planning.

 If they were as useless as you believe, nobody would use them.

So the figures that were provided, forecasting a percentage reduction in GDP over a 15 year period were therefore predicated on one set of parameters then, because if they were based on a set of parameters, logically there would be a range of outcomes, wouldn't there? The range would be between a best case scenario and a worst case scenario. The Treasury in particular has form on painting the bleakest possible picture for the economy post Brexit, as they are all remoaners to the core, so they were happy to stoke the fires of project fear in the run up to the referendum and afterwards. Large holes were picked in their modelling and the assumptions that they based their forecasts on, the most pessimistic figures they could manufacture, whilst largely ignoring any potential upside developments. I understand in this regard that they assumed a massive loss of trade with the EU, whilst simultaneously not being at all optimistic in factoring in the potential trade gains with the rest of the World.

As I said, 15 year forecasts are no more reliable than long term weather forecasts, largely guesswork. 

[buctootim]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Woke pony. The climates been changing since time began, won’t make a blind bit of difference to our lives. 

Not at your age but it will make a difference to younger people and - because there is a long lag between carbon emissions and feeling the full effect, to people not even born yet. Around 100 years of further warming is already locked in even if we stop emitting now. 

Why is it you think that just because natural climate change is real, man made climate change isn't?  

Edited 17 December, 2020 by buctootim

[spyinthesky]

4 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Ah, so those Government forecasts of the UK's economic position in 15 years time against what they would have been had we not gained our independence from the EU were based on the worst case scenario then? One including pandemics, nuclear war etc. Right.

Wes,
Sorry but I was focussing on your comment about pandemics.
I assume there were previous exchanges on the EU and economic forecasting which I hadn't picked up on.
Mea culpa.

[Winnersaint]

https://www.universetoday.com/39012/milankovitch-cycle/#:~:text=A Milankovitch cycle is a,%2C axial tilt%2C and precession.

Just to confirm, in all GCSE Geography specifications this is taught as part of the unit on climate change. So climate change since the year dot is considered. At A Level its linked to carbon and water cycles. It is entirely possible that a student at A Level could conjure an anti-man-made climate change argument if they so wished and receive just as much credit for doing so as someone writing an opposite view. The idea that a particular view is rammed down the throats of young people is the sort of wholly inaccurate tripe that the right wing gutter press use to enrage their readers. Trust me there is no 'lefty' conspiracy in this as, at the time  it was Gove and Cummings at the DfE who brought about the changes. So on their watch be it.  It is more likely that particular views on climate change amongst young people are circulated through trending on social media rather than 'Woke' indoctrination by teachers. Unless you are practicing teachers and have first hand knowledge of this sort of bias, may I suggest your views on this are merely uninformed supposition.

Edited 17 December, 2020 by Winnersaint

[ecuk268]

2 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

So the figures that were provided, forecasting a percentage reduction in GDP over a 15 year period were therefore predicated on one set of parameters then, because if they were based on a set of parameters, logically there would be a range of outcomes, wouldn't there? The range would be between a best case scenario and a worst case scenario. The Treasury in particular has form on painting the bleakest possible picture for the economy post Brexit, as they are all remoaners to the core, so they were happy to stoke the fires of project fear in the run up to the referendum and afterwards. Large holes were picked in their modelling and the assumptions that they based their forecasts on, the most pessimistic figures they could manufacture, whilst largely ignoring any potential upside developments. I understand in this regard that they assumed a massive loss of trade with the EU, whilst simultaneously not being at all optimistic in factoring in the potential trade gains with the rest of the World.

As I said, 15 year forecasts are no more reliable than long term weather forecasts, largely guesswork. 

There are a range of outcomes and a probability with a statistical significance is assigned to each. The most probable is the one that is quoted.

What evidence can you provide that everyone in the Treasury is a "remoaner to the core". Have you spoken to them all? If you have, how do you know that they're telling you the truth. I suggest that your statement is largely guesswork.

[Wes Tender]

39 minutes ago, spyinthesky said:

Wes,
Sorry but I was focussing on your comment about pandemics.
I assume there were previous exchanges on the EU and economic forecasting which I hadn't picked up on.
Mea culpa.

That's quite alright. The original response was to some forecast regarding the comparison of GDP against what it would be had we remained in the EU. I accept that long term forecasting in other areas can assist investment decisions, or provide useful assistance when it comes to assessing the affects of a pandemic on a country's economic future. It is only when vested interests interfere that the potential for statistical accuracy can be skewed to reflect a particular desired result, (much like with opinion polls.)

[Wes Tender]

2 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

There are a range of outcomes and a probability with a statistical significance is assigned to each. The most probable is the one that is quoted.

What evidence can you provide that everyone in the Treasury is a "remoaner to the core". Have you spoken to them all? If you have, how do you know that they're telling you the truth. I suggest that your statement is largely guesswork.

As the forecast is "educated" guesswork substantially, it is a nonsense to only publish what they consider to be the most probable one rather than caveating it with best case/worst case outcomes. Who decides what the most probably one is? As for the political inclination of the Treasury Civil Servants towards us remaining or leaving the EU at the time of the referendum, somebody would have to be incredibly naive not to recognise their pro-EU bias, given the sort of doom and gloom forecasts that they made; what was it? Every household would be £4200 worse off? There would be an immediate recession just if we voted to leave? Other economists dissected their methods for arriving at those forecasts and picked large holes in them, so credibility in their forecasts since is shot.

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Woke pony. The climates been changing since time began, won’t make a blind bit of difference to our lives. 

[badgerx16]

If Pompey is now in tier 3, does that mean that the Fisheries Protection vessels can't leave the area ?

[Guided Missile]

4 hours ago, Winnersaint said:

Unless you are practicing teachers and have first hand knowledge of this sort of bias, may I suggest your views on this are merely uninformed supposition.

You're the expert on uninformed supposition, as your posts about me and climate change amply demonstrate. You demonstrate why climate change and it's causes are not scientifically based. You see, scientific facts are not a matter of views. You can't have a view on whether water freezes at zero degrees centigrade or not, or whether e equals mc squared. It's a matter of fact and any of your students who state otherwise should fail their science A levels. You also demonstrate why teachers are failing their students in this country. No wonder they end up taking useless degrees and not difficult degrees like Chemistry, Maths or Physics, subjects that are all about truth not "views". 

 

[Tamesaint]

Come on. We all know that degrees from Pompey Poly were  not very difficult.

Did you go to a proper university? 

 

Edited 17 December, 2020 by Tamesaint

[Tamesaint]

1 minute ago, Tamesaint said:

 

 

Duplicate

Edited 17 December, 2020 by Tamesaint

[Winnersaint]

41 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

You're the expert on uninformed supposition, as your posts about me and climate change amply demonstrate. You demonstrate why climate change and it's causes are not scientifically based. You see, scientific facts are not a matter of views. You can't have a view on whether water freezes at zero degrees centigrade or not, or whether e equals mc squared. It's a matter of fact and any of your students who state otherwise should fail their science A levels. You also demonstrate why teachers are failing their students in this country. No wonder they end up taking useless degrees and not difficult degrees like Chemistry, Maths or Physics, subjects that are all about truth not "views". 

Not doing Science A Levels you over opinionated prick. So you and Brexit? Truth or view? Be honest

 

[Wes Tender]

9 hours ago, Winnersaint said:

 

Oh dear. One must feel very real concern at teachers who attempt to draw a parallel between the assimilation and interpretation of the data available on Climate change and that regarding Brexit. Please tell me that you don't draw comparisons between the two in your classes.

[Winnersaint]

Not all. Making the point that views are valid, that it doesn't have to be about truth or fact as long as both sides of an argument are presented equably. Being able to do that, particularly when you hold an opinion on a subject is what we have to do as teachers. I now have my own business working as a consultant teacher in three schools in both public and private sector. In  two of them part of my brief is the redesign of A Level programmes of study and within that making sure that there is balance in what is delivered especially where issues of contention imprint on the geography specifications. I have a view on climate change it may well be the complete opposite of yours but I park it when teaching. Could you or GM do the same in similar circumstances?

[Guided Missile]

2 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Oh dear. One must feel very real concern at teachers who attempt to draw a parallel between the assimilation and interpretation of the data available on Climate change and that regarding Brexit. Please tell me that you don't draw comparisons between the two in your classes.

You'd think that it would be enough to patronise your students, without patronising and insulting taxpayers that pay you salary, wouldn't it? Just demonstrates what I have always thought about so many teachers. The minute they start teaching, they stop learning. 

Thankfully, online learning will make them largely irrelevant. Knowledge develops too fast to be learnt from a textbook...

[Guided Missile]

Quote

...it doesn't have to be about truth or fact as long as both sides of an argument are presented equably...

Jesus H. Christ...

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Jesus H. Christ...

Despite everything, be assured He loves you too.

[badgerx16]

...it doesn't have to be about truth or fact as long as both sides of an argument are presented equably...

  24 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Jesus H Christ 

-----------------------------

A lack of truth and facts doesn't normally stop you posting.

Edited 18 December, 2020 by badgerx16

[Wes Tender]

We reach the stage whereby there are just 13 days remaining until we are at the end of the Implementation Period and therefore clear of the Withdrawal Agreement terms, and the SM and CU. Naturally as we draw closer to that deadline, a degree of panic is starting to show in the EU, because a FTA has not been agreed, and we are headed to trading with each other on WTO terms. Macron has within the past three days urged Barnier to stand firm in his negotiation stance, insisting that the UK will fold to their demands and fudge our red lines on fisheries, the so-called level playing field and governance of the deal. They have insisted in imposing a deadline on the talks of close of play this Sunday. They have also falsely made propaganda claims that we are showing signs of caving in to their demands.

We in turn have stated categorically that we will not be extending the deadline, which will not be this Sunday, but the 31st December. We have also made it clear that if a deal has been not agreed by then, we will be out on WTO terms and do not intend to return to negotiations on a FTA once we are out without a deal. We have also made it clear that despite the EU's optimism that we will cave in on our red lines, we see the current position being that no deal is the more likely outcome. The so-called level playing field terms hit a late buffer when the EU insisted that they be allowed to bale out their industries affected by the Chinese virus with billions in state subsidies, but that if the UK wished to do the same with ours, they reserved the right to impose tariffs on us as a punishment. How arrogantly stupid can they be?

The penny is finally beginning to drop with the EU that their traditional tactics of leaving the decisions to the 11th hour have not worked with us, and panic is setting in across the Channel. MEPs are breaking ranks and accusing the EU of mistreating and disrespecting us in the talks. BMW are knocking loudly on Merkel's door telling her how much their losses will be if tariffs are imposed on their car sales. French fishermen are threatening blockades against our ferry access to Calais on the one hand, and realising that without access to our fishery grounds, their own fisheries grounds will face far greater competition from the  trawlers of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Spain, etc.

Speaking of fisheries, one of the major stumbling blocks in the negotiations, I understand that within the past day or so, the EU CFP had issued substantial quota reductions for their Western coastal areas, reductions of up to 75% in many fish types. This doesn't seem to have made the mainstream media here, and it is to be wondered why this information has surfaced just now, so late in the negotiations. One theory is that the EU wanted their member states to blame the decline of the quotas on the UK. It certainly gives credence to the demands by Macron that the French in particular ought to be allowed to plunder our fish at the levels that they have enjoyed historically under the CFP.

[Wes Tender]

https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2020/12/18/eu-fisheries-council-fails-to-ensure-sustainable-exploitation-of-fish-stocks/

This must be the background to the fisheries quota reductions that has the EU in a tizzy, additionally because of the catch reductions in the Mediterranean too. These measures were to have been in place by 2020, but naturally the EU's fishery states didn't have the political courage to introduce them for fear of losing votes in coastal areas. Far easier to blame those nasty Brits for the loss of catches and for wanting to take back control of their territorial waters and the resources contained within them.

[badgerx16]

As we get nearer to Dec 31st and WTO trading due to no-deal, Wes seems to be getting more and more excited. The UK is driving off a cliff, yet it is all the fault of those pesky, inflexible, foreigners.

Edited 18 December, 2020 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

4 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

 

Speaking of fisheries, one of the major stumbling blocks in the negotiations, I understand that within the past day or so, the EU CFP had issued substantial quota reductions for their Western coastal areas, reductions of up to 75% in many fish types. This doesn't seem to have made the mainstream media here, and it is to be wondered why this information has surfaced just now, so late in the negotiations. One theory is that the EU wanted their member states to blame the decline of the quotas on the UK. It certainly gives credence to the demands by Macron that the French in particular ought to be allowed to plunder our fish at the levels that they have enjoyed historically under the CFP.

But, but, but, but, fishing is irrelevant, it's the proverbial 'red herring', it's worth a miniscule amount to the UK's GDP so it can't possibly be of any significance to negotiations, or something like that  

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

But, but, but, but, fishing is irrelevant, it's the proverbial 'red herring', it's worth a miniscule amount to the UK's GDP so it can't possibly be of any significance to negotiations, or something like that  

Economically it is insignificant, politically it's where Boris has hung his balls. If it is worth throwing away any chance of a deal with the EU over that particular point of principle is a matter of opinion. Is it worth putting %50 of UK GDP in jeopardy for 0.1% ? You may think so, Wes certainly thinks so, I don't. If an FTA with the EU can be done by their conceding something on the 'level playing field' and the UK giving some ground over fisheries, surely the overall benefit to the economies on both sides is worth it.

But of course it's only those pesky Eurcrats, propping up[ their sclerotic and failing cartel, that are causing an FTA to fail.

[badgerx16]

5 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

 BMW are knocking loudly on Merkel's door telling her how much their losses will be if tariffs are imposed on their car sales.

Evidence ?