Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.
I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this: 1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items 2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages 3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world 4) it smells rather like gambling...
I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.
it was lead item on our local bbc breakfast news (yorkshire). what it sounded like they were describing were games where you pay to spin a wheel to decide your prize. which they compared to a roulette wheel.
MD's got this basically right. Step (3) is only present in some games.
Games companies argue this is like buying a pack of trading cards; if there are seven cards in the pack you might get one valuable one or you might not. You might get seven you already have or you might need to buy seven packs to get the one to complete your collection - and few people would describe this as 'gambling'.
There is a bit of a backlash going over lootboxes, but the micro-transaction (where at least you know what you are getting) is here to stay.
That story pretty much encapsulates what's wrong with modern Britain. Utterly depressing.
38% profit margin (if you treat the >£400m paid to senior directors as profit).
If, as a country, we reduced the amount of money spent on gambling - say halved it - that would surely do a lot of good.
The liberalisation of gambling laws under New Labour was one of their worst errors.
Just back from business trip to USA and listened to Robert’s video which summed up all I see. Bet 365 is a company that helps our current account deficit. We soon are going to need all such companies even if they sell guns or tobacco. There is still a wilfull arrogance about the British and especially the English which as a Scot I see as the 1966 mentality. We think we are better than we are.
I am waiting for any politician to talk about increasing business investment levels which is going the wrong way fast. I will vote for whoever first comes up with a sensible plan to address this problem
Does Bet365 help the current account deficit?
Some problem gamblers end up borrowing lots of money, either to cover living expenses when they've lost their pay gambling, or in a desperate attempt to win back their losses. Isn't a lot of this borrowed money from abroad, with interest on it leaving the country?
It's amazing how lightly regulated gambling is given the broad cross-party consensus about its addictive nature and corrosive effects on social cohesion, mental health and bank balances.
We have seen a threefold increase in youth gambling, and it's all thanks to videogames getting our kids addicted to gambling via lootboxes.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.
I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this: 1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items 2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages 3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world 4) it smells rather like gambling...
I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.
it was lead item on our local bbc breakfast news (yorkshire). what it sounded like they were describing were games where you pay to spin a wheel to decide your prize. which they compared to a roulette wheel.
MD's got this basically right. Step (3) is only present in some games.
Games companies argue this is like buying a pack of trading cards; if there are seven cards in the pack you might get one valuable one or you might not. You might get seven you already have or you might need to buy seven packs to get the one to complete your collection - and few people would describe this as 'gambling'.
There is a bit of a backlash going over lootboxes, but the micro-transaction (where at least you know what you are getting) is here to stay.
In the game I play (*), Elite, microttransactions seem fair enough. They are purely cosmetic items, and do not affect gameplay one jot.
Microtransactions become really addictive when they involve pay-to-win: instead of playing well, you can buy your way into a good position. And the companies compound this by making it really, really hard to progress without the microtransactions.
Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.
I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this: 1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items 2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages 3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world 4) it smells rather like gambling...
I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.
it was lead item on our local bbc breakfast news (yorkshire). what it sounded like they were describing were games where you pay to spin a wheel to decide your prize. which they compared to a roulette wheel.
MD's got this basically right. Step (3) is only present in some games.
Games companies argue this is like buying a pack of trading cards; if there are seven cards in the pack you might get one valuable one or you might not. You might get seven you already have or you might need to buy seven packs to get the one to complete your collection - and few people would describe this as 'gambling'.
There is a bit of a backlash going over lootboxes, but the micro-transaction (where at least you know what you are getting) is here to stay.
In the game I play (*), Elite, microttransactions seem fair enough. They are purely cosmetic items, and do not affect gameplay one jot.
Microtransactions become really addictive when they involve pay-to-win: instead of playing well, you can buy your way into a good position. And the companies compound this by making it really, really hard to progress without the microtransactions.
(*) Not that I get time to at the moment ...
The most famous lootboxes, in CS:GO, are cosmetic only. But that didn't stop them selling for $100+ in what is effectively a speculator's market.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Who called the 2017 election?
Someone who made a mistake! That doesn't absolve responsibility from the voters who perversely, and it seems mainly for trivial reasons, decided to deprive her of the mandate need to implement their previous decision.
Probably because they were asked to give her a mandate for a lot more than implementing that decision and understandably balked.
Had she gone into the election with a manifesto that stated: - This is how we're going to implement Brexit - Everything else is exactly as per our 2015 manifesto - We will pass legislation to bring the next election forward to 2020, when it was originally schedule, and back on the 5-year schedule thereafter...
It would indeed have been a Brexit election.
Blaming the voters for considering all of her offering and deciding not to give it their consent as a whole, and then characterising it only from the lens of Brexit does seem a bit harsh. We know that much of the backlash was on everything else in the manifestos. As the Conservatives would certainly have taken a majority as authorising them to carry out all of that, surely that's fair enough?
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price. You tend to get limited if you're good though.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
It will be politically dead by the end of the day.
I don't think it was ever really going to be alive, after it became clear the EU has no intention of giving way on its stupid and divisive backstop.
Both remainers and hard Brexiteers will rubbish it to death, just as they did with the withdrawal agreement. In any case it's not binding on anyone so it is hardly worth the paper it's written on.
Tusk: "I have just sent to EU27 a draft Political Declaration on the Future Relationship between EU and UK. The Commission President has informed me that it has been agreed at negotiators’ level and agreed in principle at political level, subject to the endorsement of the Leaders."
It will be politically dead by the end of the day.
I don't think it was ever really going to be alive, after it became clear the EU has no intention of giving way on its stupid and divisive backstop.
Both remainers and hard Brexiteers will rubbish it to death, just as they did with the withdrawal agreement. In any case it's not binding on anyone so it is hardly worth the paper it's written on.
It makes you wonder why anyone bothered really. If the EU is not prepared to engage in good faith with the UK to redraft the deal into something that has a chance of not being shat on by all sides here, then what has been the point of the whole sodding exercise?
Are they humouring May whilst they run down the clock? Does drafting shitty doomed deals make them hard?
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price. You tend to get limited if you're good though.
Sure, I agree wit you that nonFOBT is skill based but that is the sophistry at play that makes general gambling illegal and daily fantasy sports legal in America.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
The only winning move is not to play.
Thanks, WOPR.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
Mr. Stodge, was surprised the gambling story didn't make the news.
I do wonder if that's partly driven by lootboxes in videogames. Not my kind of game so I'm not au fait with all the detail, but it seems like this: 1) you spend a small amount on a lootbox, containing a small number of randomised items 2) these vary from very common to rare and can be cosmetic or have gameplay advantages 3) they can be resold (I think) through other sites for real world 4) it smells rather like gambling...
I'm not fond of multiplayer games, DLC generally or microtransactions in particular, so it's not my area, but my understanding of it makes me less than approving.
it was lead item on our local bbc breakfast news (yorkshire). what it sounded like they were describing were games where you pay to spin a wheel to decide your prize. which they compared to a roulette wheel.
MD's got this basically right. Step (3) is only present in some games.
Games companies argue this is like buying a pack of trading cards; if there are seven cards in the pack you might get one valuable one or you might not. You might get seven you already have or you might need to buy seven packs to get the one to complete your collection - and few people would describe this as 'gambling'.
There is a bit of a backlash going over lootboxes, but the micro-transaction (where at least you know what you are getting) is here to stay.
In the game I play (*), Elite, microttransactions seem fair enough. They are purely cosmetic items, and do not affect gameplay one jot.
Microtransactions become really addictive when they involve pay-to-win: instead of playing well, you can buy your way into a good position. And the companies compound this by making it really, really hard to progress without the microtransactions.
(*) Not that I get time to at the moment ...
The most famous lootboxes, in CS:GO, are cosmetic only. But that didn't stop them selling for $100+ in what is effectively a speculator's market.
Fortnite certainly proves you can drown in money with cosmetic boxes ! I'm massively in favour of cosmetic boxes, subsidise the game for people who like content (I accept this is an oxymoron wrt Fortnite as an example)
It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.
It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.
"The Peoples' Representatives have already had a vote..."
All this people who conclude that a bloc of silent Labour MPs are going to suddenly form a white knight cavalry and charge in to save May really need to show their working.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price. You tend to get limited if you're good though.
Sure, I agree wit you that nonFOBT is skill based but that is the sophistry at play that makes general gambling illegal and daily fantasy sports legal in America.
I'm sure as hell glad I'm not playing for money with my team this week, Todd Gurley on a bye..; Dalvin Cook theoretically my best player...
I quite like Edam, although Red Leicester is the only cheese I eat regularly.
Mr. Rabbit, maybe. I've actually written something related to this for my blog (up in a few days) about the shift to digital-only and why it's Satanism. Some games really shouldn't have microtransactions. I refer to Shadow of War as a 'greedy little grease princess'.
According to Betfair, there is a 40% chance of a referendum next year and a 20% chance that we will not have left the EU by 2022. Does that imply that there is a 50% chance that the result of the referendum will be Remain?
If Remain is a better than 50% chance, given a referendum next year, is there value in betting that we will not have left the EU by 2022?
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
With any British book, if they suspect you'll be a long-term winner you'll find your account closed, or limited to tiny stakes.
It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.
The ERG and the rest of the stupid tory MPs really are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on this aren't they.
It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.
"The Peoples' Representatives have already had a vote..."
Besides, the British people might well have changed their mind in 3 years. But her policy implies that MPs are prone to change their mind in 3 days.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
The only winning move is not to play.
Thanks, WOPR.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
Morning ladies and gentlemen. Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances. Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
With any British book, if they suspect you'll be a long-term winner you'll find your account closed, or limited to tiny stakes.
At least with the premium charge on Betfair you can lump on when you think you're on to a good thing.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
The only winning move is not to play.
Thanks, WOPR.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
Morning ladies and gentlemen. Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances. Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.
Online betting is like having a pub or an offie on tap in your house. sounds like fun, but it's a terrible temption for addiction.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
The only winning move is not to play.
Thanks, WOPR.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
Morning ladies and gentlemen. Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances. Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.
The problem is it's very easy to cross over from an occasional flutter to getting addicted. I'm not sure what the solution is though.
It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.
The ERG and the rest of the stupid tory MPs really are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on this aren't they.
OT. I went to Liverpool yesterday and got a ferry accross the Mersey. I went to the large ticket office at the ferry terminal and was told by a man in uniform that they don't sell tickets. "You have to go down the road to a shop called 'Singhsbury' about a quarter of a mile down the road"
After a freezing walk a pleasant Asian woman in a very tiny shop said 'Yes this is the place where you buy ferry tickets. It's funny isn't it?' and then she chuckled.
Arriving back at the ticket office I was told I'd just missed the boat and the next one was in an hour. No I didn't need to show him my ticket I could show it when I get on the boat. "Ok" I said "But if you don't sell tickets and you don't take tickets do you mind if I ask what you do do in this ticket office?" "Don't ask me" He said "I'm not responsible for working out the system" and off he went to make a telephone call.
OT. I went to Liverpool yesterday and got a ferry accross the Mersey. I went to the large ticket office at the ferry terminal and was told that they don't sell tickets. "You have to go down the road to a shop called 'Singhsbury' about a quarter of a mile down the road"
After a freezing walk a pleasant Asian woman in a very tiny shop said 'Yes this is the place where you buy ferry tickets. It's funny isn't it?' and then she chuckled.
Arriving back at the ticket office I was told I'd just missed the boat and the next one was in an hour. No I didn't need to show him my ticket I could show it when I get on the boat. "Ok" I said "But if you don't sell tickets and you don't take tickets do you mind if I ask what you do do in this ticket office?" "Don't ask me" He said "I'm not responsible for working out the system" and off he went to make a telephone call.
OT. I went to Liverpool yesterday and got a ferry accross the Mersey. I went to the large ticket office at the ferry terminal and was told by a man in uniform that they don't sell tickets. "You have to go down the road to a shop called 'Singhsbury' about a quarter of a mile down the road"
After a freezing walk a pleasant Asian woman in a very tiny shop said 'Yes this is the place where you buy ferry tickets. It's funny isn't it?' and then she chuckled.
Arriving back at the ticket office I was told I'd just missed the boat and the next one was in an hour. No I didn't need to show him my ticket I could show it when I get on the boat. "Ok" I said "But if you don't sell tickets and you don't take tickets do you mind if I ask what you do do in this ticket office?" "Don't ask me" He said "I'm not responsible for working out the system" and off he went to make a telephone call.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
The only winning move is not to play.
Thanks, WOPR.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
Morning ladies and gentlemen. Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances. Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.
Online betting is like having a pub or an offie on tap in your house. sounds like fun, but it's a terrible temption for addiction.
One can deal with English/Scottish domiciled companies but how does one restrict an offshore company from selling? Hasn't the US tried this with varying views on success?
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
The only winning move is not to play.
Thanks, WOPR.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
Morning ladies and gentlemen. Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances. Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.
Online betting is like having a pub or an offie on tap in your house. sounds like fun, but it's a terrible temption for addiction.
People have no self control. The majority should not suffer because of a minority. Government should have very tight rules on bookies to ensure people cannot lose fortunes.
OT. I went to Liverpool yesterday and got a ferry accross the Mersey. I went to the large ticket office at the ferry terminal and was told by a man in uniform that they don't sell tickets. "You have to go down the road to a shop called 'Singhsbury' about a quarter of a mile down the road"
After a freezing walk a pleasant Asian woman in a very tiny shop said 'Yes this is the place where you buy ferry tickets. It's funny isn't it?' and then she chuckled.
Arriving back at the ticket office I was told I'd just missed the boat and the next one was in an hour. No I didn't need to show him my ticket I could show it when I get on the boat. "Ok" I said "But if you don't sell tickets and you don't take tickets do you mind if I ask what you do do in this ticket office?" "Don't ask me" He said "I'm not responsible for working out the system" and off he went to make a telephone call.
Could it be the Irish influence?
That’s very reminiscent of the process for entering the People’s Palace in Bucharest. You have to visit 3 separate ticket counters for no obvious reason.
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
The only winning move is not to play.
Thanks, WOPR.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
Morning ladies and gentlemen. Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances. Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.
Online betting is like having a pub or an offie on tap in your house. sounds like fun, but it's a terrible temption for addiction.
One can deal with English/Scottish domiciled companies but how does one restrict an offshore company from selling? Hasn't the US tried this with varying views on success?
It's akin to the war on drugs really. Both are highly addictive, and controlled to a greater or lesse degree.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Who called the 2017 election?
Someone who made a mistake! That doesn't absolve responsibility from the voters who perversely, and it seems mainly for trivial reasons, decided to deprive her of the mandate need to implement their previous decision.
Probably because they were asked to give her a mandate for a lot more than implementing that decision and understandably balked.
Had she gone into the election with a manifesto that stated: - This is how we're going to implement Brexit - Everything else is exactly as per our 2015 manifesto - We will pass legislation to bring the next election forward to 2020, when it was originally schedule, and back on the 5-year schedule thereafter...
It would indeed have been a Brexit election.
Blaming the voters for considering all of her offering and deciding not to give it their consent as a whole, and then characterising it only from the lens of Brexit does seem a bit harsh. We know that much of the backlash was on everything else in the manifestos. As the Conservatives would certainly have taken a majority as authorising them to carry out all of that, surely that's fair enough?
It's fair enough if voters don't think ensuring Brexit isn't a disaster is the priority right now. Presumably they didn't, and will have to live with the consequences unless opposition MPs come round to backing what does look like a pretty good deal by any standard.
It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.
The ERG and the rest of the stupid tory MPs really are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on this aren't they.
Yes, almost certainly.
But I think there are some on the leavers side who actually quite like playing the victim of the evil EU empire and will be quite happy to go back to their political comfort zone whilst others sort out the unholy mess that they have created. If, or rather when, Brexit implodes UKIP is likely to have something of a revival and it wouldn't be a massive surprise if a certain Mr Farage reappears as leader of a grouping, including some Tories perhaps, who will spend the rest of their lives bemoaning the betrayal of their dream.
"Look, I've tried to reason with these f*ckers. I've given what they wanted. Then they wanted more. They couldn't agree amongst themselves what more - just they wanted more.
Well' I've f*cking had it with them. I've had a word with Boris, and he's happy too take over for a bit. Good luck Boris - go stick it to Johnny Foreigner.
C****.
I'm off to walk the Appalachian Trail for a few weeks. I'll be back in time to stock up on tinned beans."
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
The only winning move is not to play.
Thanks, WOPR.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
Morning ladies and gentlemen. Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances. Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.
Online betting is like having a pub or an offie on tap in your house. sounds like fun, but it's a terrible temption for addiction.
Exactly; like porn. When one had to go out to a newsagents where one wasn’t known and buy magazines that were subsequently placed in a brown envelope is was one thing. When one could have a computer in the house and access became private, the ‘industry” mushroomed.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Who called the 2017 election?
Someone who made a mistake! That doesn't absolve responsibility from the voters who perversely, and it seems mainly for trivial reasons, decided to deprive her of the mandate need to implement their previous decision.
Probably because they were asked to give her a mandate for a lot more than implementing that decision and understandably balked.
Had she gone into the election with a manifesto that stated: - This is how we're going to implement Brexit - Everything else is exactly as per our 2015 manifesto - We will pass legislation to bring the next election forward to 2020, when it was originally schedule, and back on the 5-year schedule thereafter...
It would indeed have been a Brexit election.
Blaming the voters for considering all of her offering and deciding not to give it their consent as a whole, and then characterising it only from the lens of Brexit does seem a bit harsh. We know that much of the backlash was on everything else in the manifestos. As the Conservatives would certainly have taken a majority as authorising them to carry out all of that, surely that's fair enough?
It's fair enough if voters don't think ensuring Brexit isn't a disaster is the priority right now. Presumably they didn't, and will have to live with the consequences unless opposition MPs come round to backing what does look like a pretty good deal by any standard.
Assigning responsibility for the current situation to voters is perverse given we have a FPTP system where about 70% of the votes are irrelevant anyway. I'd have more sympathy with this argument if we used a PR system.
I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.
What would you have preferred it to say?
"All EU fishing trawlers will keep out of our FREEDOM! waters, and any such vessels daring to enter within five miles of our territorial waters (even when they overlap with parts of EU land territory) will be sunk immediately by the sheer depression they'll feel from realising they're not BRITISH and not FREE?"
It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.
The ERG and the rest of the stupid tory MPs really are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on this aren't they.
Yes, almost certainly.
But I think there are some on the leavers side who actually quite like playing the victim of the evil EU empire and will be quite happy to go back to their political comfort zone whilst others sort out the unholy mess that they have created. If, or rather when, Brexit implodes UKIP is likely to have something of a revival and it wouldn't be a massive surprise if a certain Mr Farage reappears as leader of a grouping, including some Tories perhaps, who will spend the rest of their lives bemoaning the betrayal of their dream.
Oh great, just what I'm going to be looking forward over the next 10 odd years, wailing and crying of 'the betrayal' of the british people....
According to Betfair, there is a 40% chance of a referendum next year and a 20% chance that we will not have left the EU by 2022. Does that imply that there is a 50% chance that the result of the referendum will be Remain?
If Remain is a better than 50% chance, given a referendum next year, is there value in betting that we will not have left the EU by 2022?
Don't forget to account for the probability of a series of can-kicks. Notwithstanding Nick Palmer's post upthread, none of the member states want Brexit to happen, and nobody in Britain knows how to make it happen in a non-destructive way, but nobody in Britain really knows how to cancel it. 2022 is a while off, but once you do one extension, it'll be highly tempting to do another one...
I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.
What would you have preferred it to say?
"All EU fishing trawlers will keep out of our FREEDOM! waters, and any such vessels daring to enter within five miles of our territorial waters (even when they overlap with parts of EU land territory) will be sunk immediately by the sheer depression they'll feel from realising they're not BRITISH and not FREE?"
If/when US gambling laws are liberalised, Bet365 should become an absolute powerhouse there. Right now they're a bit of a nonsense, the Daily Fantasy market, which is definitely not gambling, is huge there.
Skill based Pulpstar, skil based. Wink.
Actually all gambling is skill based in the long run. The biggest skill is not participating in 99+% of markets - most of the big betting companies really know their stuff on football for instance; being able to beat them is difficult (And literally impossible in the long run on say roulette or a FOBT). Another is always going for top price.
The only winning move is not to play.
Thanks, WOPR.
No, that's not true in every case. Most people simply must VASTLY overestimate how good they are at gambling though, or Bet365 wouldn't make such gigantic profits.
Morning ladies and gentlemen. Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances. Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.
The problem is it's very easy to cross over from an occasional flutter to getting addicted. I'm not sure what the solution is though.
I think you stop all the gambling on artificial things like simulated horse races, or digital roulette wheels. Only allow bets to be placed on real events.
Then you can think about whether to restrict advertising.
Simply reversing the New Labour liberalisation would be a good start.
May caving in on fishing and getting nothing in return, aside from being a wonderful epilogue for May's utter failure at handling the negotiations, should be good to get a few more Tories to declare themselves against.
Can we hit a good round 100 Tories publicly opposed by the time the weekend rolls round?
One more push, Mrs May. I have complete faith in your lack of talent.
Is it possible, just maybe , that our government shares some of the responsibility for this mess. Radical thought I know. But given we, not they, created this unholy mess, the onus is on us to find a way out.
Our government, but more voters, who voted for the original bad choice and then - in a massively perverse twist - voted to make it impossible to implement.
Who called the 2017 election?
Someone who made a mistake! That doesn't absolve responsibility from the voters who perversely, and it seems mainly for trivial reasons, decided to deprive her of the mandate need to implement their previous decision.
Probably because they were asked to give her a mandate for a lot more than implementing that decision and understandably balked.
Had she gone into the election with a manifesto that stated: - This is how we're going to implement Brexit - Everything else is exactly as per our 2015 manifesto - We will pass legislation to bring the next election forward to 2020, when it was originally schedule, and back on the 5-year schedule thereafter...
It would indeed have been a Brexit election.
Blaming the voters for considering all of her offering and deciding not to give it their consent as a whole, and then characterising it only from the lens of Brexit does seem a bit harsh. We know that much of the backlash was on everything else in the manifestos. As the Conservatives would certainly have taken a majority as authorising them to carry out all of that, surely that's fair enough?
It's fair enough if voters don't think ensuring Brexit isn't a disaster is the priority right now. Presumably they didn't, and will have to live with the consequences unless opposition MPs come round to backing what does look like a pretty good deal by any standard.
The voters can also assume that the Conservatives didn't view Brexit as the be-all and end-all even at the time, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to use the issue to leverage through an entire bunch of other changes for which they'd then claim the vote gave them a mandate.
If May had wanted a Brexit-only election with a Brexit mandate, she could have had one. Instead, she put a whole load of other things and changes in to muddy the water, and there's quite a lot of evidence that it's on those other things that the voters choked.
Especially, of course, as they'd been told by May herself that No Deal wouldn't be worse than a bad deal; in fact, it would be better. This lowers the pressure even further to make a call solely on Brexit.
The EU wanted EQUAL access, so that British boats and French boats operated on the same basis.
We have agreed that when it comes to regulations like fish dumping, trawling, etc. You can see that through the phrase "non-discriminatory" in clause 74.
It is conspicuously absent from clause 75, meaning - within what we could conceivably agree with the EU - we have freedom to determine the basis on which access to waters is granted.
Or to put it another way, giving the French 1% of quotas and access on Tuesdays satisfies clause 75 (subject to the requirement to actually, you know, agree).
OT. I went to Liverpool yesterday and got a ferry accross the Mersey. I went to the large ticket office at the ferry terminal and was told by a man in uniform that they don't sell tickets. "You have to go down the road to a shop called 'Singhsbury' about a quarter of a mile down the road"
After a freezing walk a pleasant Asian woman in a very tiny shop said 'Yes this is the place where you buy ferry tickets. It's funny isn't it?' and then she chuckled.
Arriving back at the ticket office I was told I'd just missed the boat and the next one was in an hour. No I didn't need to show him my ticket I could show it when I get on the boat. "Ok" I said "But if you don't sell tickets and you don't take tickets do you mind if I ask what you do do in this ticket office?" "Don't ask me" He said "I'm not responsible for working out the system" and off he went to make a telephone call.
Could it be the Irish influence?
That’s very reminiscent of the process for entering the People’s Palace in Bucharest. You have to visit 3 separate ticket counters for no obvious reason.
That’s a hangover from Communist full employment. I once bought a postcard and a stamp from a small postcard shop in Communist Czechoslovakia. Three different shop-workers; one to get the postcard out of the rack*, one to take the money and another to sell the stamp.
*I had to point to the one I wanted and someone took it out of the rack for me.
I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.
eh?
It looks like we gave them almost nothing.
Says right there that, inter alia, we agree to give EU fishing fleets access to our waters.
In exchange for which the EU has left the backstop completely unchanged.
SUCH NEGOTIATING PROWESS. Breathtaking.
No, it doesn't. It says we will establish a new agreement which will contain, amongst other things, specifics on access to waters and fishing shares. That's literally all it says.
May caving in on fishing and getting nothing in return, aside from being a wonderful epilogue for May's utter failure at handling the negotiations, should be good to get a few more Tories to declare themselves against.
Can we hit a good round 100 Tories publicly opposed by the time the weekend rolls round?
One more push, Mrs May. I have complete faith in your lack of talent.
May caving in on fishing and getting nothing in return, aside from being a wonderful epilogue for May's utter failure at handling the negotiations, should be good to get a few more Tories to declare themselves against.
Can we hit a good round 100 Tories publicly opposed by the time the weekend rolls round?
One more push, Mrs May. I have complete faith in your lack of talent.
I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.
What would you have preferred it to say?
"All EU fishing trawlers will keep out of our FREEDOM! waters, and any such vessels daring to enter within five miles of our territorial waters (even when they overlap with parts of EU land territory) will be sunk immediately by the sheer depression they'll feel from realising they're not BRITISH and not FREE?"
"Any EU fishing vessel found within 200 miles of the UK will be fired upon without warning."
I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.
Ball in your court, Ruthie....
Honestly, who cares about fishing? It's given far more prominence in political debate than its contribution to our GDP deserves. It's a rounding error.
May caving in on fishing and getting nothing in return, aside from being a wonderful epilogue for May's utter failure at handling the negotiations, should be good to get a few more Tories to declare themselves against.
Can we hit a good round 100 Tories publicly opposed by the time the weekend rolls round?
One more push, Mrs May. I have complete faith in your lack of talent.
"You have paid the price for your lack of vision" :
Also, the fisheries deal is tied to the overall economic partnership.
Not only has May betrayed UK fisheries by agreeing preferential access to EU fleets, the trading deal has been made contingent on it!
Nice work, France. You stitched May up, like an overfished kipper.
The current outline massively reduces the ability of the EU to insist on non-discriminatory access as a quid pro quo for general market access. Instead it will be a discussion around UK fleet access to EU waters and tariffs on fish.
That is pretty much the position the fishermen want. They don't expect the UK to retain sole access to UK waters.
May caving in on fishing and getting nothing in return, aside from being a wonderful epilogue for May's utter failure at handling the negotiations, should be good to get a few more Tories to declare themselves against.
Can we hit a good round 100 Tories publicly opposed by the time the weekend rolls round?
One more push, Mrs May. I have complete faith in your lack of talent.
I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.
Ball in your court, Ruthie....
Honestly, who cares about fishing? It's given far more prominence in political debate than its contribution to our GDP deserves. It's a rounding error.
It's an emotive issue for us, the French, the Danes, the Dutch.
I see some on here are convincing themselves the deal is dead.
They may well be right but as far as I am concerned I await to see how this plays out under the full media circus both here and across Europe.
The sensible response is anything could happen rather than running the risk of getting egg on your face
The pound is rising considerably so the markets are onside
While waiting is usually the best course sometimes things really are clear cut and saying anything could happen is how one gets egg on face. I'm unavailable rest of day so cannot judge if things are now deader than they already were but odds are good that's true because hundreds are looking for an excuse not to vote for the deal.
On the fishing, the quota licenses should be completely overhauled whatever is in the political declaration.
Just five families on the Sunday Times Rich List hold or control 29% of the UK’s fishing quota.
The finding comes from a new Unearthed investigation that traced the owners of more than 95% of UK quota holdings – including, for the first time, those of Scotland, the UK’s biggest fishing nation.
It reveals that more than two-thirds of the UK’s fishing quota is controlled by just 25 businesses – and more than half of those are linked to one of the biggest criminal overfishing scams ever to reach the British courts.
Meanwhile, in England nearly 80% of fishing quota is held by foreign owners or domestic Rich List families, and more than half of Northern Ireland’s quota is hoarded onto a single trawler.
The news comes as the government is preparing to publish a new fisheries bill, which will set the legal foundations for the UK’s fishing industry after Brexit. But while the government is hoping it can net access to more fishing rights in the Brexit negotiations, it has said the new bill will not see any redistribution of the UK’s existing quota rights.
I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.
Ball in your court, Ruthie....
Honestly, who cares about fishing? It's given far more prominence in political debate than its contribution to our GDP deserves. It's a rounding error.
Only because Heath destroyed it in the 70's.
The hope was that with Brexit a new era of fishing might be unleashed that would help to revive some of our coastal towns that have fallen into ruins.
That looks dead in the water now as well...
Still I suppose it makes a nice bookend. British fishermen were betrayed on the way in and now they're betrayed on the way out...
No, it doesn't. It says we will establish a new agreement which will contain, amongst other things, specifics on access to waters and fishing shares. That's literally all it says.
Yes, it's just an agreement to try and reach an agreement over fishing. I'm both a leaver and a Scot, and I don't see anything objectionable in that paragraph at all. People are getting worked up over nothing.
The agreement could well be that EU boats get access to UK waters on the morning of the second Tuesday in any month ending in 'e'.
Comments
Games companies argue this is like buying a pack of trading cards; if there are seven cards in the pack you might get one valuable one or you might not. You might get seven you already have or you might need to buy seven packs to get the one to complete your collection - and few people would describe this as 'gambling'.
There is a bit of a backlash going over lootboxes, but the micro-transaction (where at least you know what you are getting) is here to stay.
Some problem gamblers end up borrowing lots of money, either to cover living expenses when they've lost their pay gambling, or in a desperate attempt to win back their losses. Isn't a lot of this borrowed money from abroad, with interest on it leaving the country?
We have seen a threefold increase in youth gambling, and it's all thanks to videogames getting our kids addicted to gambling via lootboxes.
https://electionsetc.com/2018/11/21/in-which-theresa-may-calls-a-referendum-despite-expecting-to-lose-her-job/
Microtransactions become really addictive when they involve pay-to-win: instead of playing well, you can buy your way into a good position. And the companies compound this by making it really, really hard to progress without the microtransactions.
(*) Not that I get time to at the moment ...
Had she gone into the election with a manifesto that stated:
- This is how we're going to implement Brexit
- Everything else is exactly as per our 2015 manifesto
- We will pass legislation to bring the next election forward to 2020, when it was originally schedule, and back on the 5-year schedule thereafter...
It would indeed have been a Brexit election.
Blaming the voters for considering all of her offering and deciding not to give it their consent as a whole, and then characterising it only from the lens of Brexit does seem a bit harsh. We know that much of the backlash was on everything else in the manifestos. As the Conservatives would certainly have taken a majority as authorising them to carry out all of that, surely that's fair enough?
It's all been piss and wind to pull the wool over the eyes of the cabinet, as expected.
It also means, to quote a certain catastrophically incompetent PM, that nothing has changed.
Thanks, WOPR.
Are they humouring May whilst they run down the clock? Does drafting shitty doomed deals make them hard?
Fortunately they're too thick and/or weak to stand up to May.
Well, I am immediately to the left of Emmanuel Macron.
Make of that what you will.
https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status/1065554593994743808?s=21
I assume, like Johnson, his constant "the EU is terrible and the Euro will fail tomorrow" articles hit the sweet spot for the owners.
I'm massively in favour of cosmetic boxes, subsidise the game for people who like content (I accept this is an oxymoron wrt Fortnite as an example)
It’s a good point. May’s oft-repeated line that “the people have already had a vote” looks a bit silly if her response to MPs voting against her is... to have another vote.
Mr. Rabbit, maybe. I've actually written something related to this for my blog (up in a few days) about the shift to digital-only and why it's Satanism. Some games really shouldn't have microtransactions. I refer to Shadow of War as a 'greedy little grease princess'.
If Remain is a better than 50% chance, given a referendum next year, is there value in betting that we will not have left the EU by 2022?
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1065557037990518784
My guardian profile match speaks..
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1065548253331107841
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/jury-begin-deliberating-verdict-in-peterborough-labour-mp-fiona-onasanya-perverting-the-course-of-justice-case-at-old-bailey-1-8714674
The jurors have been sent out to deliberate.
But her policy implies that MPs are prone to change their mind in 3 days.
Surely for many people an occasional, or even daily small flutter on horses, dogs, football or even politics is harmless fun, equivalent to stopping on the way home for a pint or having a glass of wine. If they win, that is a bonus; if they lose, well they have spent a cheerful half hour or so with others of a same mind discussing chances.
Like other activities, it is only when it becomes solitary, or otherwise obsessive that trouble arises.
After a freezing walk a pleasant Asian woman in a very tiny shop said 'Yes this is the place where you buy ferry tickets. It's funny isn't it?' and then she chuckled.
Arriving back at the ticket office I was told I'd just missed the boat and the next one was in an hour. No I didn't need to show him my ticket I could show it when I get on the boat. "Ok" I said "But if you don't sell tickets and you don't take tickets do you mind if I ask what you do do in this ticket office?" "Don't ask me" He said "I'm not responsible for working out the system" and off he went to make a telephone call.
Could it be the Irish influence?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsmhP1fW0AEyVM2.jpg
I am shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED, that our glorious negotiator in chief conceded even more ground in exchange for nothing.
It looks like we gave them almost nothing.
In exchange for which the EU has left the backstop completely unchanged.
SUCH NEGOTIATING PROWESS. Breathtaking.
But I think there are some on the leavers side who actually quite like playing the victim of the evil EU empire and will be quite happy to go back to their political comfort zone whilst others sort out the unholy mess that they have created. If, or rather when, Brexit implodes UKIP is likely to have something of a revival and it wouldn't be a massive surprise if a certain Mr Farage reappears as leader of a grouping, including some Tories perhaps, who will spend the rest of their lives bemoaning the betrayal of their dream.
"Look, I've tried to reason with these f*ckers. I've given what they wanted. Then they wanted more. They couldn't agree amongst themselves what more - just they wanted more.
Well' I've f*cking had it with them. I've had a word with Boris, and he's happy too take over for a bit. Good luck Boris - go stick it to Johnny Foreigner.
C****.
I'm off to walk the Appalachian Trail for a few weeks. I'll be back in time to stock up on tinned beans."
Note: according to a published material
It is a world away from equal access, which is what it could say and France and the Netherlands wanted it to say.
Everyone expects European fishermen to have some access to UK waters.
If you say it enough, you might start to believe it, dear heart.
"All EU fishing trawlers will keep out of our FREEDOM! waters, and any such vessels daring to enter within five miles of our territorial waters (even when they overlap with parts of EU land territory) will be sunk immediately by the sheer depression they'll feel from realising they're not BRITISH and not FREE?"
Transport Secretary announces new flights between Cornwall and Heathrow
Then you can think about whether to restrict advertising.
Simply reversing the New Labour liberalisation would be a good start.
Can we hit a good round 100 Tories publicly opposed by the time the weekend rolls round?
One more push, Mrs May. I have complete faith in your lack of talent.
If May had wanted a Brexit-only election with a Brexit mandate, she could have had one. Instead, she put a whole load of other things and changes in to muddy the water, and there's quite a lot of evidence that it's on those other things that the voters choked.
Especially, of course, as they'd been told by May herself that No Deal wouldn't be worse than a bad deal; in fact, it would be better. This lowers the pressure even further to make a call solely on Brexit.
We have agreed that when it comes to regulations like fish dumping, trawling, etc. You can see that through the phrase "non-discriminatory" in clause 74.
It is conspicuously absent from clause 75, meaning - within what we could conceivably agree with the EU - we have freedom to determine the basis on which access to waters is granted.
Or to put it another way, giving the French 1% of quotas and access on Tuesdays satisfies clause 75 (subject to the requirement to actually, you know, agree).
*I had to point to the one I wanted and someone took it out of the rack for me.
It says we will establish a new agreement which will contain, amongst other things, specifics on access to waters and fishing shares.
That's literally all it says.
They may well be right but as far as I am concerned I await to see how this plays out under the full media circus both here and across Europe.
The sensible response is anything could happen rather than running the risk of getting egg on your face
The pound is rising considerably so the markets are onside
Not only has May betrayed UK fisheries by agreeing preferential access to EU fleets, the trading deal has been made contingent on it!
Nice work, France. You stitched May up, like an overfished kipper.
"So long, and thanks for all the fish...."
That is pretty much the position the fishermen want. They don't expect the UK to retain sole access to UK waters.
You're not suggesting May knowlingly lied to her cabinet, and betrayed another red line to the EU, are you?
Just five families on the Sunday Times Rich List hold or control 29% of the UK’s fishing quota.
The finding comes from a new Unearthed investigation that traced the owners of more than 95% of UK quota holdings – including, for the first time, those of Scotland, the UK’s biggest fishing nation.
It reveals that more than two-thirds of the UK’s fishing quota is controlled by just 25 businesses – and more than half of those are linked to one of the biggest criminal overfishing scams ever to reach the British courts.
Meanwhile, in England nearly 80% of fishing quota is held by foreign owners or domestic Rich List families, and more than half of Northern Ireland’s quota is hoarded onto a single trawler.
The news comes as the government is preparing to publish a new fisheries bill, which will set the legal foundations for the UK’s fishing industry after Brexit. But while the government is hoping it can net access to more fishing rights in the Brexit negotiations, it has said the new bill will not see any redistribution of the UK’s existing quota rights.
source: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsmjxANW0AAt75N.jpg:large
The hope was that with Brexit a new era of fishing might be unleashed that would help to revive some of our coastal towns that have fallen into ruins.
That looks dead in the water now as well...
Still I suppose it makes a nice bookend. British fishermen were betrayed on the way in and now they're betrayed on the way out...
The agreement could well be that EU boats get access to UK waters on the morning of the second Tuesday in any month ending in 'e'.