Seems to me the basic problem with fishing is that everyone - Brits or others - wants to catch more fish than is sustainable. In an ideal world we'd just close our waters to EVERYBODY until 2022, then decide on a limited basis where our domestic trawlers could fish.
Except, we don't have any trawlers. There are no UK trawlers operating out of Grimsby these days, for instance. And much of that which is landed in UK harbours is exporte dto France and Spain. Fishing has always been one of the less convincing aspects of Brexit, unless you want to recreate a British trawler fleet.
It would be a bad thing to recreate a British trawler fleet?.
You going to take on a job as a deep sea fisherman then? UK fishing collapsed largely because people stopped wanting to do it as it was dangerous, smelly and unsocial.
Despite the romantic attachment to it, there is not going to be a rush of people wanting to take up employment come Brexit.
You would sound less, to borrow a phrase, swivel-eyed if you were not so obviously adamant that it cannot be conceded that Brexit will create even one new job. I seriously doubt your claim that the business collapsed because nobody wanted the work; for most things that you want done somebody will do them for the right price. And if nobody wants the work why are we and the EU arguing about it?
I don't remember too many miners in the 80s saying that, yeah, Maggie had done them a favour because the job was shit anyway.
Not to diminish the story in any way, but local politics in Ashfield (my home district) have been erm interesting for a decade or more.
There is a large group of independents who I believe were big enough to run the council some years back.
Labour lost some councillors to the BNP, including I believe a former council leader. Ashfield had one of the highest per capita BNP memberships in the UK as per their leaked membership list.
Lib Dems became very strong locally and almost won the seat in 2010; their candidate was spuriously charged with paedophilia offences just ahead of 2015 election and finally acquitted more than 2 years later. Lib Dem vote collapsed.
Tories despite having zero councillors came within a whisker of winning in 2017, doing not quite as exceptionally well as in Mansfield next door.
Report today of doubts being expressed by some of his MP's how they could fight a GE alongside him.
I think they're perfectly entitled to express doubts, or indeed to join other parties or stand as independents or retire. But, although I'm not in favour of deselection drives, I think they should make their feelings known to their CLPs before seeking reselection. They should not seek reselection as a Labour candidate and then start saying that, um, actually they aren't sure they can live with the leader. The CLP might reselect them anyway, if they felt they were just understandable qualms, or they might pick someone else. We can disagree on these things, but we need to be honest with each other.
Has a sitting president ever been involved in a divorce before? How much will it cost for Melania to either hang around until his term ends, or to go quietly with no fuss and no court case?
Someone I know once described the intelligence business as like doing a jigsaw
Unless you know exactly what pieces of information the other party already has then any piece of information is valuable. You don't know which one will allow them to make the connection A > B and conclude X.
Our intelligence services will not want to give Russia a sample. They don't know what Russia could learn from it.
There are no proposals beyond simply giving them a sample of their own nerve agent, presumably Russia would have already tested it. If you are given them some sample which you have already used secret methods to test then there is a chance they could see what methods you have used or something else along those lines. Simply giving them an unworked sample would give them nothing* more than they would already have.s.
If giving a sample away could reveal intelligence they wouldn't have given it to the OPCW either.
*I mean I guess using something mulitple times could help hone the technique but I feel they would need much more than a sample we would give them, If anything I imagine they would probably gain much more in that end from controlled tests they conduct themselves with access to all the material afterwards.
Neither of us know what intelligence Russia could learn from a sample
So let’s leave it to people who do?
Unless you are the intelligence services then that doesn't really back up your argument, it was you not the intelligence services who asserted they could learn something from the sample, so as you say maybe we should leave it to those who know....
If it was harmless to share it they would share it. The fact that they won’t implies it isn’t harmless
The obvious point, surely, is that if they have a sample they can start making all sorts of claims about it, like that they have analysed it and discovered beyond a doubt that it was made in Ukraine, or Porton Down, or whatever; and without a sample, they can't.
So the main worry is they may try to claim it was made in the Ukraine.
Which is not what they are doing now?
You genuinely don't see any relevant difference between them saying it was made in the Ukraine, and them saying: we can tell from a rigorous scientific analysis of the sample provided to us, that it was made in the Ukraine?
A lib dem remainer complaining about us not leaving the EU quickly enough
.
The Scottish mps have been on the media expressing disappointment at the transistion period but recognizing that the UK gains control of it's coastal waters on 1st January 2021.
JRM and IDS have both said today that they are focussing on life after transisition, not the transition itself.
And no other party comes near to fulfilling the Scots fishermen on this and that includes the SNP who would hand it all back to Brussels
How can you say what will happen on 1st January 2021 when it hasn't been negotiated yet?
To help secure a good trade deal I'm sure the Tories will happily stuff the Scottish fishermen - worth remembering the SNP were historically referred to as the Tartan Tories.
Tory backbenchers won't, post transition control of Fisheries is a red line though not incompatible with a Canada style FTA
This month's red line is next month's negotiating objective, the month after that it's what we give way on in order to move the talks on to more important areas, the month after that it's an example of how constructive we're being in talks, the month after that, why are people (TRAITORS AND SABOTEURS AND ENEMIES OF THE PEEPUL) pretending it was ever an issue?
Just think back to where we were on the money question 6 months ago.
For all those Remainers who didn't feel a bit queasy about casting their vote for Remaining in the EU - maybe now you can get some insight into the mindset of those of us from whom the democracy deficit was what caused some of us to vote to Leave.
There is no other vote I could cast to get this clown Juncker removed from my life.
The letter seems to be Junckers acting on his own.
The man is a complete nightmare and should have been removed from office the day David Cameron resigned.
Junckers and Corbyn being useful idiots for Russia Today and Putin's cronies
I agree - Juncker should have resigned over the Brexit vote, and had a cannier operator been in place, the whole referendum could have worked out very differently. For example I've been consistently impressed by Donald Tusk who gets both the emotion and the legality.
I don't remember too many miners in the 80s saying that, yeah, Maggie had done them a favour because the job was shit anyway.
You'd be surprised (child of the 70s/80s here, grew up in a Notts mining village).
The redundancy money from the pit closures was massively generous and blokes over 55, close to retiring anyway, jumped at it. My miner granddad was happy to be made redundant in 1982 at 62 and much richer than had he soldiered on and retired normally at 65. He never missed being underground once though missed his workmates.
Some younger miners took on board Tebbit's "get on yer bike" philosophy and used their generous redundancy money to build successful businesses and, more often than not, move south. I know one such guy who's about 60 now and says that the pit closures were the best thing that ever happened to him.
The people really shafted by the collapse of coal mining were the school leavers aged 16 or so in the early 80s who really had no options at all in these places.
Looking at what’s happening to the share price, it might be in his interest to turn up and defend his company. On the other hand, slowly more and more people are realising that his product is personal data and his customers are advertisers and analytics companies.
Someone I know once described the intelligence business as like doing a jigsaw
Unless you know exactly what pieces of information the other party already has then any piece of information is valuable. You don't know which one will allow them to make the connection A > B and conclude X.
Our intelligence services will not want to give Russia a sample. They don't know what Russia could learn from it.
There are no proposals beyond simply giving them a sample of their own nerve agent, presumably Russia would have already tested it. If you are given them some sample which you have already used secret methods to test then there is a chance they could see what methods you have used or something else along those lines. Simply giving them an unworked sample would give them nothing* more than they would already have.s.
If giving a sample away could reveal intelligence they wouldn't have given it to the OPCW either.
*I mean I guess using something mulitple times could help hone the technique but I feel they would need much more than a sample we would give them, If anything I imagine they would probably gain much more in that end from controlled tests they conduct themselves with access to all the material afterwards.
Neither of us know what intelligence Russia could learn from a sample
So let’s leave it to people who do?
If it was harmless to share it they would share it. The fact that they won’t implies it isn’t harmless
The obvious point, surely, is that if they have a sample they can start making all sorts of claims about it, like that they have analysed it and discovered beyond a doubt that it was made in Ukraine, or Porton Down, or whatever; and without a sample, they can't.
So the main worry is they may try to claim it was made in the Ukraine.
Which is not what they are doing now?
You genuinely don't see any relevant difference between them saying it was made in the Ukraine, and them saying: we can tell from a rigorous scientific analysis of the sample provided to us, that it was made in the Ukraine?
Golly.
Up against us and others such as the OPCW saying otherwise no not really, if you haven't noticed some people like to look for other theories anyway, as they are already doing.
This is the part that is slightly confusing to me, unless you believe giving the Russians a sample is equivalent to believing everything they say then there really isn't much to lose from it.
Someone I know once described the intelligence business as like doing a jigsaw
Unless you know exactly what pieces of information the other party already has then any piece of information is valuable. You don't know which one will allow them to make the connection A > B and conclude X.
Our intelligence services will not want to give Russia a sample. They don't know what Russia could learn from it.
There are no proposals beyond simply giving them a sample of their own nerve agent, presumably Russia would have already tested it. If you are given them some sample which you have already used secret methods to test then there is a chance they could see what methods you have used or something else along those lines. Simply giving them an unworked sample would give them nothing* more than they would already have.s.
If giving a sample away could reveal intelligence they wouldn't have given it to the OPCW either.
*I mean I guess using something mulitple times could help hone the technique but I feel they would need much more than a sample we would give them, If anything I imagine they would probably gain much more in that end from controlled tests they conduct themselves with access to all the material afterwards.
Neither of us know what intelligence Russia could learn from a sample
So let’s leave it to people who do?
Unless you are the intelligence services then that doesn't really back up your argument, it was you not the intelligence services who asserted they could learn something from the sample, so as you say maybe we should leave it to those who know....
If it was harmless to share it they would share it. The fact that they won’t implies it isn’t harmless
Well yes that was part of my argument, if even a sample could risk intelligence they would not have shared it with anyone, that is why your claim, followed up by we should leave it to those who know seems a bit suspect unless you yourself are actually one of those who know.
No the OCW is a neutral third party. One would assume there are appropriate protections in place. There is a difference between sharing with an antagonist and with an international body
Gove will eventually betray Brexiteers won't he, it's in his nature.
That reminds me of something I read about Francois Mitterrand recently, that he had a compulsion to sell everyone out to prove to himself that he was the cleverest of them all.
An Iraqi friend quoted this little arab saying at me: "it is better to be an enemy of the British than a friend, because they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
Has a sitting president ever been involved in a divorce before? How much will it cost for Melania to either hang around until his term ends, or to go quietly with no fuss and no court case?
Towards the end of his presidency there was lots of speculation that George W & Laura Bush would divorce after he left office, though in the end they haven't....happily free from the strains of office they seem to have patched things up.
There are no proposals beyond simply giving them a sample of their own nerve agent, presumably Russia would have already tested it. If you are given them some sample which you have already used secret methods to test then there is a chance they could see what methods you have used or something else along those lines. Simply giving them an unworked sample would give them nothing* more than they would already have.s.
If giving a sample away could reveal intelligence they wouldn't have given it to the OPCW either.
*I mean I guess using something mulitple times could help hone the technique but I feel they would need much more than a sample we would give them, If anything I imagine they would probably gain much more in that end from controlled tests they conduct themselves with access to all the material afterwards.
Neither of us know what intelligence Russia could learn from a sample
So let’s leave it to people who do?
Unless you are the intelligence services then that doesn't really back up your argument, it was you not the intelligence services who asserted they could learn something from the sample, so as you say maybe we should leave it to those who know....
If it was harmless to share it they would share it. The fact that they won’t implies it isn’t harmless
Well yes that was part of my argument, if even a sample could risk intelligence they would not have shared it with anyone, that is why your claim, followed up by we should leave it to those who know seems a bit suspect unless you yourself are actually one of those who know.
No the OCW is a neutral third party. One would assume there are appropriate protections in place. There is a difference between sharing with an antagonist and with an international body
I don't think we would risk our intelligence on assumptions. A more logical assumption would be that a sample would not compromise our intelligence and that is why it was shared. Especially given, yourself aside, I haven't seen anyone claim a sample would somehow contain risk to our intelligence but we shared it with the OPCW anyway.
I think we might have to agree to disagree on our various risk assessments seen this is getting dangerously close to circles
Has a sitting president ever been involved in a divorce before? How much will it cost for Melania to either hang around until his term ends, or to go quietly with no fuss and no court case?
Towards the end of his presidency there was lots of speculation that George W & Laura Bush would divorce after he left office, though in the end they haven't....happily free from the strains of office they seem to have patched things up.
Reportedly W had a major sense of humour failure with HMQEII when she tried to sympathise over the strains on a marriage in the public eye....
"The obvious point, surely, is that if they have a sample they can start making all sorts of claims about it, like that they have analysed it and discovered beyond a doubt that it was made in Ukraine, or Porton Down, or whatever; and without a sample, they can't."
It would be an act of lunacy to share it. An anecdote from some years ago ...
I visited Huntingdon Research Centre (the bete noire of the Animal Liberation Front) one day and had I good look around. Very well run, and the animal handlers were all pet-lovers. "Why don't you open it up for day visits?" I suggested.
"We did exactly that for a time," they said. "99% of the visitors were very impressed but the other 1% went away, declaring that it was an animal Auschwitz that was worse than they could ever have imagined. In fact, they did imagine it and embellished it too. These were the only people who received the news headlines."
As it would be with the nerve agent. Just imagine the twitter storm ... "Russia debunks fake news. It was definitely made in Porton Down and Mrs May's fingerprints have been found on the container."
Aren't we seeing a dress rehearsal here for the main issue? The Brexiteers are saying they can maybe just about put up with unrestricted access for the transition, but after that no way. The EU are saying they need unrestricted access during the transition, and after that let's see. The Government is saying that after transition we should be free to sign details and (sotto voce) these deals might include any amount of access as part of some wider package. In other words, the Brexiteers are trying to signal that this is a red line for them, in an area where the Government would otherwise be tempted to split the difference.
Yes, I think that's spot-on. No one cares about a 21-month delay in 'taking back control' after half a century.
What's more, the fishermen are right to think that they are likely to get shafted, although they've only themselves to blame if they really believed that they could retain access to the EU27 markets whilst excluding EU fishing fleets (many of whom bought their quotas from UK fleets) from UK waters.
The picture of Blair and Osborne together makes me think about the dangers of tribal politics becoming too personal. Politicians of all parties get on: as I know with one old friend of mine, it's possible to have radically different political viewpoints, debate at the pub over them, and still go home at the end of the evening as best buddies.
For the centrists such as the Blairites and the Cameroons, there is more that unites them than divides them, yet we had nearly twenty years of division based upon what were mostly differences in detail.
Perhaps we should remember that most of us, whether left or right, Brexit-loon or remoaner, generally want what we think is best for the country. You may think the other guy is wrong, but generally they're wrong for good, not base, motives. Just as we ourselves might be wrong with good motives.
It'd therefore be good if politicians of all stripes could call out their own supporters when they go too far.
The picture of Blair and Osborne together makes me think about the dangers of tribal politics becoming too personal. Politicians of all parties get on: as I know with one old friend of mine, it's possible to have radically different political viewpoints, debate at the pub over them, and still go home at the end of the evening as best buddies.
For the centrists such as the Blairites and the Cameroons, there is more that unites them than divides them, yet we had nearly twenty years of division based upon what were mostly differences in detail.
Perhaps we should remember that most of us, whether left or right, Brexit-loon or remoaner, generally want what we think is best for the country. You may think the other guy is wrong, but generally they're wrong for good, not base, motives. Just as we ourselves might be wrong with good motives.
It'd therefore be good if politicians of all stripes could call out their own supporters when they go too far.
Politics is getting far too stupidly divisive.
The problem is that Blair and Osborne were only too willing to play politics for their own/party's advantage.
Has a sitting president ever been involved in a divorce before? How much will it cost for Melania to either hang around until his term ends, or to go quietly with no fuss and no court case?
Are those PP markets still up from Trump's big hands (feet?) comments in the election campaign
Aren't we seeing a dress rehearsal here for the main issue? The Brexiteers are saying they can maybe just about put up with unrestricted access for the transition, but after that no way. The EU are saying they need unrestricted access during the transition, and after that let's see. The Government is saying that after transition we should be free to sign details and (sotto voce) these deals might include any amount of access as part of some wider package. In other words, the Brexiteers are trying to signal that this is a red line for them, in an area where the Government would otherwise be tempted to split the difference.
excluding EU fishing fleets (many of whom bought their quotas from UK fleets) from UK waters.
As DavidL pointed out earlier a lot of the “blame” for British fishing’s decline lies in Britain....
The picture of Blair and Osborne together makes me think about the dangers of tribal politics becoming too personal. Politicians of all parties get on: as I know with one old friend of mine, it's possible to have radically different political viewpoints, debate at the pub over them, and still go home at the end of the evening as best buddies.
For the centrists such as the Blairites and the Cameroons, there is more that unites them than divides them, yet we had nearly twenty years of division based upon what were mostly differences in detail.
Perhaps we should remember that most of us, whether left or right, Brexit-loon or remoaner, generally want what we think is best for the country. You may think the other guy is wrong, but generally they're wrong for good, not base, motives. Just as we ourselves might be wrong with good motives.
It'd therefore be good if politicians of all stripes could call out their own supporters when they go too far.
Politics is getting far too stupidly divisive.
The problem is that Blair and Osborne were only too willing to play politics for their own/party's advantage.
Oh, indeed. But that doesn't negate the point of my post.
The picture of Blair and Osborne together makes me think about the dangers of tribal politics becoming too personal. Politicians of all parties get on: as I know with one old friend of mine, it's possible to have radically different political viewpoints, debate at the pub over them, and still go home at the end of the evening as best buddies.
For the centrists such as the Blairites and the Cameroons, there is more that unites them than divides them, yet we had nearly twenty years of division based upon what were mostly differences in detail.
Perhaps we should remember that most of us, whether left or right, Brexit-loon or remoaner, generally want what we think is best for the country. You may think the other guy is wrong, but generally they're wrong for good, not base, motives. Just as we ourselves might be wrong with good motives.
It'd therefore be good if politicians of all stripes could call out their own supporters when they go too far.
Politics is getting far too stupidly divisive.
+1.
My parents were Tories, and I've had friends right across the spectrum. No reason not to, as you say - nearly everyone starts with good intentions. That's not the same as being a centrist - sometimes people on one wing or the other may be right about something - e.g. the abolition of slavery was once seen as a fringe obsession.
How far one has to go to rein in others is trickier. I think that party leaders have a duty to rein in members of their (Shadow) Cabinets if necessary , but we shouldn't expect them to comment on every loony member or local councillor - that's one of the things that party organisations are for. Primarily, though, leaders should set a good example. May and Corbyn are both pretty good at not being personal - Cable, not so much (viz. his "Stalin to Mr Bean" crack at someone he said was an old friend).
The picture of Blair and Osborne together makes me think about the dangers of tribal politics becoming too personal. Politicians of all parties get on: as I know with one old friend of mine, it's possible to have radically different political viewpoints, debate at the pub over them, and still go home at the end of the evening as best buddies.
For the centrists such as the Blairites and the Cameroons, there is more that unites them than divides them, yet we had nearly twenty years of division based upon what were mostly differences in detail.
Perhaps we should remember that most of us, whether left or right, Brexit-loon or remoaner, generally want what we think is best for the country. You may think the other guy is wrong, but generally they're wrong for good, not base, motives. Just as we ourselves might be wrong with good motives.
It'd therefore be good if politicians of all stripes could call out their own supporters when they go too far.
Politics is getting far too stupidly divisive.
Unfortunately it's a key feature of our electoral system. We have a "majoritarian" system, which promotes a winner-take-all adversarial environment. The alternative is a "representative" system, which promotes a consensus environment.
Moving from one to the other is extremely difficult, as the key players in parties want to be in the position of the winner-who-takes-all and, given that they're usually the most ideological members of the public and have cut their teeth in the current environment, see politics through an adversarial prism.
Social media and increasing connectivity exacerbate the tendency. So we have the US system and our system, both of which are increasingly divisive and adversarial - but as long as the possibility of being the winner (and taking all) remains, it is hugely preferable to them to having to compromise to seek consensus.
Comments
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/976080531417903104
I don't remember too many miners in the 80s saying that, yeah, Maggie had done them a favour because the job was shit anyway.
There is a large group of independents who I believe were big enough to run the council some years back.
Labour lost some councillors to the BNP, including I believe a former council leader. Ashfield had one of the highest per capita BNP memberships in the UK as per their leaked membership list.
Lib Dems became very strong locally and almost won the seat in 2010; their candidate was spuriously charged with paedophilia offences just ahead of 2015 election and finally acquitted more than 2 years later. Lib Dem vote collapsed.
Tories despite having zero councillors came within a whisker of winning in 2017, doing not quite as exceptionally well as in Mansfield next door.
Golly.
Just think back to where we were on the money question 6 months ago.
I agree - Juncker should have resigned over the Brexit vote, and had a cannier operator been in place, the whole referendum could have worked out very differently. For example I've been consistently impressed by Donald Tusk who gets both the emotion and the legality.
The redundancy money from the pit closures was massively generous and blokes over 55, close to retiring anyway, jumped at it. My miner granddad was happy to be made redundant in 1982 at 62 and much richer than had he soldiered on and retired normally at 65. He never missed being underground once though missed his workmates.
Some younger miners took on board Tebbit's "get on yer bike" philosophy and used their generous redundancy money to build successful businesses and, more often than not, move south. I know one such guy who's about 60 now and says that the pit closures were the best thing that ever happened to him.
The people really shafted by the collapse of coal mining were the school leavers aged 16 or so in the early 80s who really had no options at all in these places.
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/975387407519485952
On the other hand, slowly more and more people are realising that his product is personal data and his customers are advertisers and analytics companies.
https://twitter.com/GrandPrixDiary/status/976090776739483650
Nothing new under the sun.
I think we might have to agree to disagree on our various risk assessments seen this is getting dangerously close to circles
@The_Apocalypse Interesting read.
"The obvious point, surely, is that if they have a sample they can start making all sorts of claims about it, like that they have analysed it and discovered beyond a doubt that it was made in Ukraine, or Porton Down, or whatever; and without a sample, they can't."
It would be an act of lunacy to share it. An anecdote from some years ago ...
I visited Huntingdon Research Centre (the bete noire of the Animal Liberation Front) one day and had I good look around. Very well run, and the animal handlers were all pet-lovers. "Why don't you open it up for day visits?" I suggested.
"We did exactly that for a time," they said. "99% of the visitors were very impressed but the other 1% went away, declaring that it was an animal Auschwitz that was worse than they could ever have imagined. In fact, they did imagine it and embellished it too. These were the only people who received the news headlines."
As it would be with the nerve agent. Just imagine the twitter storm ... "Russia debunks fake news. It was definitely made in Porton Down and Mrs May's fingerprints have been found on the container."
What's more, the fishermen are right to think that they are likely to get shafted, although they've only themselves to blame if they really believed that they could retain access to the EU27 markets whilst excluding EU fishing fleets (many of whom bought their quotas from UK fleets) from UK waters.
For the centrists such as the Blairites and the Cameroons, there is more that unites them than divides them, yet we had nearly twenty years of division based upon what were mostly differences in detail.
Perhaps we should remember that most of us, whether left or right, Brexit-loon or remoaner, generally want what we think is best for the country. You may think the other guy is wrong, but generally they're wrong for good, not base, motives. Just as we ourselves might be wrong with good motives.
It'd therefore be good if politicians of all stripes could call out their own supporters when they go too far.
Politics is getting far too stupidly divisive.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/20/west-virginia-senate-republicans-blankenship-472050
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700
NEW THREAD
My parents were Tories, and I've had friends right across the spectrum. No reason not to, as you say - nearly everyone starts with good intentions. That's not the same as being a centrist - sometimes people on one wing or the other may be right about something - e.g. the abolition of slavery was once seen as a fringe obsession.
How far one has to go to rein in others is trickier. I think that party leaders have a duty to rein in members of their (Shadow) Cabinets if necessary , but we shouldn't expect them to comment on every loony member or local councillor - that's one of the things that party organisations are for. Primarily, though, leaders should set a good example. May and Corbyn are both pretty good at not being personal - Cable, not so much (viz. his "Stalin to Mr Bean" crack at someone he said was an old friend).
We have a "majoritarian" system, which promotes a winner-take-all adversarial environment.
The alternative is a "representative" system, which promotes a consensus environment.
Moving from one to the other is extremely difficult, as the key players in parties want to be in the position of the winner-who-takes-all and, given that they're usually the most ideological members of the public and have cut their teeth in the current environment, see politics through an adversarial prism.
Social media and increasing connectivity exacerbate the tendency. So we have the US system and our system, both of which are increasingly divisive and adversarial - but as long as the possibility of being the winner (and taking all) remains, it is hugely preferable to them to having to compromise to seek consensus.