Sligtly OT, but re; my earlier post on Kosovo, now I remember the name - Hashim Thaci, the President of Kosovo, which the EU and NATO lionised for a decade, but which a buried Council of Europe report found actually to have a very, very murky past indeed.
Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.
I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.
As I think both myself and RCS1000 have pointed out - we don't actually own most of our fishing rights as we've already sold them to foreigners.
So there is actually little point trying to get them back, it's best just to trade them away for something that is actually useful.
I didn't wish to disagree with what you were saying. I think the capitulation will involve acknowledging and accepting what you've both indicated.
My belief has been - and remains - that there is no complete Brexit (including deal) which pleases all Leavers. Brexit as an abstract concept was a fantastic way to keep Johnson's coalition together but as soon as it is defined in some final way, people are going to get pissed off.
I just cannot see a way that Johnson gets a deal that keeps everyone happy. People are going to get screwed, it's just playing the numbers at this point.
I mean you’re completely correct, objectively. Even if “Brexit” as a project turns out to be a success in the long run, at least a significant minority of “Leavers” are going to feel betrayed.
I’ve already extensively explained (with no counter argument I might add) how 98% British born, and White, Blyth Valley, is going to see no benefit to the “points based immigration system”. All their existing problems currently blamed on phantom immigration still remains, unless tackled in other ways.
To be honest in most projections doesn't Blyth Valley come back to Labour? I hardly think it's a long term Tory hold, although might be confusing that with another seat
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Fishing is going to be a massive issue with Canada in FTAs too, as their large fishing firms have bought up UK-EU licenses. (Because, guess what, the Canada-EU FTA prohibits the use of NTBs in this area.)
Any attempt to strip Canadian firms of licenses legally got (mostly by buying the from UK fishermen) is going to (a) go down really badly in Ottowa if we want a deal with the Canadians, and (b) open the UK up to legal challenges.
Ultimately, we have been massive proponents of getting rid of NTBs. We want British professional services firms to be able to get Canadian banking and law licenses. We will not be able to get people to lower their barriers to us, if we're putting up barriers to their favoured industries.
I don't think who owns the boats is the important bit.
Quotas are.
Some guy from the Fishing lobby claimed the French have a 60% quota for the British bit of the celtic sea, for example.
How much of that is the french government and how much of it is french fisherman buying rights from UK fishermen?
The problem with figures is that you can usually use them to prove whatever point you want to prove...
Look you have a good point, as I say a lot of the fishing issue is not particularly logical, but being seen not to sell out them fishermen out is very important for Johnson.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Fishing is going to be a massive issue with Canada in FTAs too, as their large fishing firms have bought up UK-EU licenses. (Because, guess what, the Canada-EU FTA prohibits the use of NTBs in this area.)
Any attempt to strip Canadian firms of licenses legally got (mostly by buying the from UK fishermen) is going to (a) go down really badly in Ottowa if we want a deal with the Canadians, and (b) open the UK up to legal challenges.
Ultimately, we have been massive proponents of getting rid of NTBs. We want British professional services firms to be able to get Canadian banking and law licenses. We will not be able to get people to lower their barriers to us, if we're putting up barriers to their favoured industries.
I don't think who owns the boats is the important bit.
Quotas are.
Some guy from the Fishing lobby claimed the French have a 60% quota for the British bit of the celtic sea, for example.
How much of that is the french government and how much of it is french fisherman buying rights from UK fishermen?
The problem with figures is that you can usually use them to prove whatever point you want to prove...
It's all French fishemen (and - by the way - also Korean and Canadian fishing companies that have also bought quotas), and not the French government.
@Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.
I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.
I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.
As I think both myself and RCS1000 have pointed out - we don't actually own most of our fishing rights as we've already sold them to foreigners.
So there is actually little point trying to get them back, it's best just to trade them away for something that is actually useful.
I didn't wish to disagree with what you were saying. I think the capitulation will involve acknowledging and accepting what you've both indicated.
My belief has been - and remains - that there is no complete Brexit (including deal) which pleases all Leavers. Brexit as an abstract concept was a fantastic way to keep Johnson's coalition together but as soon as it is defined in some final way, people are going to get pissed off.
I just cannot see a way that Johnson gets a deal that keeps everyone happy. People are going to get screwed, it's just playing the numbers at this point.
I mean you’re completely correct, objectively. Even if “Brexit” as a project turns out to be a success in the long run, at least a significant minority of “Leavers” are going to feel betrayed.
I’ve already extensively explained (with no counter argument I might add) how 98% British born, and White, Blyth Valley, is going to see no benefit to the “points based immigration system”. All their existing problems currently blamed on phantom immigration still remains, unless tackled in other ways.
To be honest in most projections doesn't Blyth Valley come back to Labour? I hardly think it's a long term Tory hold, although might be confusing that with another seat
I’m only using Blyth Valley as an example because I know it well, and used to work in Blyth.
The same applies elsewhere.
Bishop Auckland for example - also 98% British born.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
And you are the arbiter of who is a 'normal person'?
For many people, even those not involved with it in any way and unaffected by it, fishing is a touchstone issue because it represents a clear 'wrong' that deserves to be righted.
To use a recent example it is like the issue of British citizenship for Hong Kong residents. Or the issue of the right of return for the Chagos Islanders. There is no way in which these issues make any practical difference to the lives of most people in Britain but they are obvious injustices that needs to be put right. Fairness matters even when it does not directly impact us.
@Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.
I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
In theory, but like I said, no leaver I have spoken to has ever talked about fishing unprompted. Why would they?
Why? Because Leavers in my book are prone to that sort of unctuous sentimentality about such matters. Tony Parsons is the archetypal example. But I should defer to you as regards on-the-ground intel. The only Leavers I ever knowingly come across are on here.
Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.
I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.
As I think both myself and RCS1000 have pointed out - we don't actually own most of our fishing rights as we've already sold them to foreigners.
So there is actually little point trying to get them back, it's best just to trade them away for something that is actually useful.
I didn't wish to disagree with what you were saying. I think the capitulation will involve acknowledging and accepting what you've both indicated.
My belief has been - and remains - that there is no complete Brexit (including deal) which pleases all Leavers. Brexit as an abstract concept was a fantastic way to keep Johnson's coalition together but as soon as it is defined in some final way, people are going to get pissed off.
I just cannot see a way that Johnson gets a deal that keeps everyone happy. People are going to get screwed, it's just playing the numbers at this point.
I mean you’re completely correct, objectively. Even if “Brexit” as a project turns out to be a success in the long run, at least a significant minority of “Leavers” are going to feel betrayed.
I’ve already extensively explained (with no counter argument I might add) how 98% British born, and White, Blyth Valley, is going to see no benefit to the “points based immigration system”. All their existing problems currently blamed on phantom immigration still remains, unless tackled in other ways.
To be honest in most projections doesn't Blyth Valley come back to Labour? I hardly think it's a long term Tory hold, although might be confusing that with another seat
I’m only using Blyth Valley as an example because I know it well, and used to work in Blyth.
The same applies elsewhere.
Bishop Auckland for example - also 98% British born.
No you missed my point, this is what I meant by playing the numbers. If Blyth is lost anyway, there's not much lost by trying to keep it but maintaining a majority that is important.
Your broader point I agree with but I've pointed out before that in most cases a large Brexit vote corresponds with a low rate of immigration. It's fear of the unknown.
@Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.
I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
In theory, but like I said, no leaver I have spoken to has ever talked about fishing unprompted. Why would they?
Why? Because Leavers in my book are prone to that sort of unctuous sentimentality about such matters. Tony Parsons is the archetypal example. But I should defer to you as regards on-the-ground intel. The only Leavers I ever knowingly come across are on here.
I am afraid Gallowgate is wrong on this one. Rightly or wrongly fishing is very regularly mentioned by Leavers and was long prior to the referendum as well.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
And you are the arbiter of who is a 'normal person'?
For many people, even those not involved with it in any way and unaffected by it, fishing is a touchstone issue because it represents a clear 'wrong' that deserves to be righted.
To use a recent example it is like the issue of British citizenship for Hong Kong residents. Or the issue of the right of return for the Chagos Islanders. There is no way in which these issues make any practical difference to the lives of most people in Britain but they are obvious injustices that needs to be put right. Fairness matters even when it does not directly impact us.
Considering no normal person even understands what the current status of our fishing quotas are, yes.
Even on here @rcs1000 is having to educate people on the difference between national governments and foreign companies, and who owns quotas.
Nobody understands, and nobody cares. If you ask someone if “British fish should be British” of course they are going to say yes, but if you ask them what they care about, they are not going to start ranting about fishing.
If you suggest otherwise, then I simply submit that you are wrong.
Look you have a good point, as I say a lot of the fishing issue is not particularly logical, but being seen not to sell out them fishermen out is very important for Johnson.
It's all French fishemen (and - by the way - also Korean and Canadian fishing companies that have also bought quotas), and not the French government.
Which rather shows the point - Boris is fighting for something that doesn't at all matter and is either creating a massive court case for the Government (by removing legally purchased rights from their rightful owners) or in for a massive disappointment when nothing changes and the Korean, Canadian and French fishermen still take all the fish.
Once again he's picking pointless battles because he isn't doing the research...
@Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.
I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
In theory, but like I said, no leaver I have spoken to has ever talked about fishing unprompted. Why would they?
Why? Because Leavers in my book are prone to that sort of unctuous sentimentality about such matters. Tony Parsons is the archetypal example. But I should defer to you as regards on-the-ground intel. The only Leavers I ever knowingly come across are on here.
I am afraid Gallowgate is wrong on this one. Rightly or wrongly fishing is very regularly mentioned by Leavers and was long prior to the referendum as well.
Yes, its mentioned by the weirdos who talked about the EU well before anyone else was bothered.
It’s not mentioned by actual normal people, who happened to vote Leave.
@Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.
I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
In theory, but like I said, no leaver I have spoken to has ever talked about fishing unprompted. Why would they?
Why? Because Leavers in my book are prone to that sort of unctuous sentimentality about such matters. Tony Parsons is the archetypal example. But I should defer to you as regards on-the-ground intel. The only Leavers I ever knowingly come across are on here.
I am afraid Gallowgate is wrong on this one. Rightly or wrongly fishing is very regularly mentioned by Leavers and was long prior to the referendum as well.
Yes, its mentioned by the weirdos who talked about the EU well before anyone else was bothered.
It’s not mentioned by actual normal people, who happened to vote Leave.
Still wrong. You obviously mix in the wrong circles.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.
I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.
As I think both myself and RCS1000 have pointed out - we don't actually own most of our fishing rights as we've already sold them to foreigners.
So there is actually little point trying to get them back, it's best just to trade them away for something that is actually useful.
I didn't wish to disagree with what you were saying. I think the capitulation will involve acknowledging and accepting what you've both indicated.
My belief has been - and remains - that there is no complete Brexit (including deal) which pleases all Leavers. Brexit as an abstract concept was a fantastic way to keep Johnson's coalition together but as soon as it is defined in some final way, people are going to get pissed off.
I just cannot see a way that Johnson gets a deal that keeps everyone happy. People are going to get screwed, it's just playing the numbers at this point.
I mean you’re completely correct, objectively. Even if “Brexit” as a project turns out to be a success in the long run, at least a significant minority of “Leavers” are going to feel betrayed.
I’ve already extensively explained (with no counter argument I might add) how 98% British born, and White, Blyth Valley, is going to see no benefit to the “points based immigration system”. All their existing problems currently blamed on phantom immigration still remains, unless tackled in other ways.
To be honest in most projections doesn't Blyth Valley come back to Labour? I hardly think it's a long term Tory hold, although might be confusing that with another seat
I’m only using Blyth Valley as an example because I know it well, and used to work in Blyth.
The same applies elsewhere.
Bishop Auckland for example - also 98% British born.
No you missed my point, this is what I meant by playing the numbers. If Blyth is lost anyway, there's not much lost by trying to keep it but maintaining a majority that is important.
Your broader point I agree with but I've pointed out before that in most cases a large Brexit vote corresponds with a low rate of immigration. It's fear of the unknown.
This is my point though. Whatever problem they are blaming on immigration is not going to be fixed by the “points based immigration system” because the problem did not exist in the first place.
Therefore they are still going to feel hard-done by, unless the Government makes their position better in other ways.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Fishing in Britain really is that big if you are fishing for big fish, otherwise, if Boris betrays the Scottish and Cornish fishermen, Tory voters in Bolsover will give not a hoot .
Fishing is a ridiculously small part of the UK economy, it's mostly irrelevant but it's given vital importance so on that basis if Johnson sells them out - which I think he will - then he's going to have problems.
I only foresee the UK capitulating. It's what Johnson did last time.
As I think both myself and RCS1000 have pointed out - we don't actually own most of our fishing rights as we've already sold them to foreigners.
So there is actually little point trying to get them back, it's best just to trade them away for something that is actually useful.
I didn't wish to disagree with what you were saying. I think the capitulation will involve acknowledging and accepting what you've both indicated.
My belief has been - and remains - that there is no complete Brexit (including deal) which pleases all Leavers. Brexit as an abstract concept was a fantastic way to keep Johnson's coalition together but as soon as it is defined in some final way, people are going to get pissed off.
I just cannot see a way that Johnson gets a deal that keeps everyone happy. People are going to get screwed, it's just playing the numbers at this point.
I mean you’re completely correct, objectively. Even if “Brexit” as a project turns out to be a success in the long run, at least a significant minority of “Leavers” are going to feel betrayed.
I’ve already extensively explained (with no counter argument I might add) how 98% British born, and White, Blyth Valley, is going to see no benefit to the “points based immigration system”. All their existing problems currently blamed on phantom immigration still remains, unless tackled in other ways.
To be honest in most projections doesn't Blyth Valley come back to Labour? I hardly think it's a long term Tory hold, although might be confusing that with another seat
I’m only using Blyth Valley as an example because I know it well, and used to work in Blyth.
The same applies elsewhere.
Bishop Auckland for example - also 98% British born.
No you missed my point, this is what I meant by playing the numbers. If Blyth is lost anyway, there's not much lost by trying to keep it but maintaining a majority that is important.
Your broader point I agree with but I've pointed out before that in most cases a large Brexit vote corresponds with a low rate of immigration. It's fear of the unknown.
This is my point though. Whatever problem they are blaming on immigration is not going to be fixed by the “points based immigration system” because the problem did not exist in the first place.
Therefore they are still going to feel hard-done by, unless the Government makes their position better in other ways.
And I agree with you mate. I don't think alone a failure on that alone will result in lots of losses, it's other capitulations and failures that will.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
And you are the arbiter of who is a 'normal person'?
For many people, even those not involved with it in any way and unaffected by it, fishing is a touchstone issue because it represents a clear 'wrong' that deserves to be righted.
To use a recent example it is like the issue of British citizenship for Hong Kong residents. Or the issue of the right of return for the Chagos Islanders. There is no way in which these issues make any practical difference to the lives of most people in Britain but they are obvious injustices that needs to be put right. Fairness matters even when it does not directly impact us.
Considering no normal person even understands what the current status of our fishing quotas are, yes.
Even on here @rcs1000 is having to educate people on the difference between national governments and foreign companies, and who owns quotas.
Nobody understands, and nobody cares. If you ask someone if “British fish should be British” of course they are going to say yes, but if you ask them what they care about, they are not going to start ranting about fishing.
If you suggest otherwise, then I simply submit that you are wrong.
Nor are they going to go ranting about Hong Kong or Chagos Islanders. That doesn't mean they don't care about these issues.
What is really funny is we have seen exactly this line before from OGH. It was he who used the monthly issues polling for many years before the referendum to support his now infamous claim that 'no one gives a Monkeys about the EU'.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Fishing in Britain really is that big if you are fishing for big fish, otherwise, if Boris betrays the Scottish and Cornish fishermen, Tory voters in Bolsover will give not a hoot .
No I reckon you are wrong. This is as totemic in Bolsover as it is in Penzance.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
And you are the arbiter of who is a 'normal person'?
For many people, even those not involved with it in any way and unaffected by it, fishing is a touchstone issue because it represents a clear 'wrong' that deserves to be righted.
To use a recent example it is like the issue of British citizenship for Hong Kong residents. Or the issue of the right of return for the Chagos Islanders. There is no way in which these issues make any practical difference to the lives of most people in Britain but they are obvious injustices that needs to be put right. Fairness matters even when it does not directly impact us.
Considering no normal person even understands what the current status of our fishing quotas are, yes.
Even on here @rcs1000 is having to educate people on the difference between national governments and foreign companies, and who owns quotas.
Nobody understands, and nobody cares. If you ask someone if “British fish should be British” of course they are going to say yes, but if you ask them what they care about, they are not going to start ranting about fishing.
If you suggest otherwise, then I simply submit that you are wrong.
Nor are they going to go ranting about Hong Kong or Chagos Islanders. That doesn't mean they don't care about these issues.
What is really funny is we have seen exactly this line before from OGH. It was he who used the monthly issues polling for many years before the referendum to support his now infamous claim that 'no one gives a Monkeys about the EU'.
That turned out well for him.
Of course people don’t care about Hong Kong or the Chagos Islanders, at least not really. Why would they? It does not effect them.
They may offer an opinion either way when asked but they don’t care, and they certainly are not going to base their vote on either of them, especially if the economy is in the doldrums.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Fishing in Britain really is that big if you are fishing for big fish, otherwise, if Boris betrays the Scottish and Cornish fishermen, Tory voters in Bolsover will give not a hoot .
No I reckon you are wrong. This is as totemic in Bolsover as it is in Penzance.
@Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.
I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
In theory, but like I said, no leaver I have spoken to has ever talked about fishing unprompted. Why would they?
Why? Because Leavers in my book are prone to that sort of unctuous sentimentality about such matters. Tony Parsons is the archetypal example. But I should defer to you as regards on-the-ground intel. The only Leavers I ever knowingly come across are on here.
I am afraid Gallowgate is wrong on this one. Rightly or wrongly fishing is very regularly mentioned by Leavers and was long prior to the referendum as well.
I think he is, yes. Or half wrong rather. I agree with him that fishing shouldn't be a massive issue but I disagree with his view that most Leavers duly do not care about it. Nevertheless he probably talks to more Leavers than I do and if he says that the ones he does talk to are not ardent Fisherman's Friends, I must accept the truth of that.
(I did, btw, reply to your late post on PT. I think we might have been slightly at cross purposes.)
Its a lot easier to be principled and upright when the party you are disapproving of has minimal power and nothing that we want.
With China we have an international superpower with huge cumulative surpluses to invest. Some of that investment will be poured into providing us with an extremely expensive nuclear power plant and other infrastructure projects that we have trouble funding ourselves.
Some of it is being used to buy education at our top Universities. This has allowed those Universities to have a couple of decades of growth now. The economics of Edinburgh University in particular is at risk.
In short, in contrast to the usual consequences of sanctions being imposed which is to hurt the recipients such sanctions will hurt us, deprive us of goodies and have rather less effect on China.
This loss of power, status and control is the price we pay for 20 odd years of deficits, modest growth, poor investment, excess consumption, offshoring, tolerating tax evasion by Internationals and many other faults and deficiencies. We in the UK and in the west generally are not top dog anymore.
The result is that the Uighurs will almost certainly be exterminated; HK will be assimilated in the same way that Tibet has been, Africa will be bought up and exploited (in perhaps even more ruthless ways than we used) and there is very little we can do about it. But hey, knock yourselves out, protest away, some things are just too painful not to be deluded about.
Keir Starmer on Sky re Boris visit to Scotland just said on both the virus and in particular the economy, we should not be pulling apart the United Kingdom
Post Corbyn we are now seeing the conservative and labour parties with the lib dems standing firm in favour of the union
Post Holyrood 21 it will be interesting if the UK parties, ex Greens and Plaid, refuse to support another referendum
@Gallowgate An important familial/political point, it was Gove's original reason for wanting to leave I think.
I know that, but yet no leaver I have spoken to talks about fishing unless prompted, and even then it’s met with a shrug and a “yeah, I guess that too”.
I think it carries a certain primordial clout that is over and above its objective importance. We are an Island surrounded by water and in that water - 'our waters' - reside our fish. This is a powerful vision. And then there is the practice of catching the fish. The rugged, romantic ideal of the seasoned fisherman going out in all weathers to do the necessary. He may not be contributing any more to GDP than a parking warden or an interior designer but it feels like he is. This is my sense of it anyway. I could be wrong.
In theory, but like I said, no leaver I have spoken to has ever talked about fishing unprompted. Why would they?
Why? Because Leavers in my book are prone to that sort of unctuous sentimentality about such matters. Tony Parsons is the archetypal example. But I should defer to you as regards on-the-ground intel. The only Leavers I ever knowingly come across are on here.
I am afraid Gallowgate is wrong on this one. Rightly or wrongly fishing is very regularly mentioned by Leavers and was long prior to the referendum as well.
I think he is, yes. Or half wrong rather. I agree with him that fishing shouldn't be a massive issue but I disagree with his view that most Leavers duly do not care about it. Nevertheless he probably talks to more Leavers than I do and if he says that the ones he does talk to are not ardent Fisherman's Friends, I must accept the truth of that.
(I did, btw, reply to your late post on PT. I think we might have been slightly at cross purposes.)
I worked in a factory in County Durham with plenty of leavers prior, during, and after the referendum.
I’ve accepted that if people are asked for their opinion on whether “British fish should be British” of course they are going to say yes, but it’s certainly wasn’t the deciding factor in whether people voted Remain or Leave, primarily because it does not make a difference to their lives.
Keir is absolutely right to make the case for anti-Independence, it's the only way he'll win sufficient votes in England even if it makes sod all difference in Scotland.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
Actually that is a fair summary and I remember the fury of my father in law and his fellow 'skippers' when we joined the EU.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Fishing in Britain really is that big if you are fishing for big fish, otherwise, if Boris betrays the Scottish and Cornish fishermen, Tory voters in Bolsover will give not a hoot .
No I reckon you are wrong. This is as totemic in Bolsover as it is in Penzance.
Fishing is one of Boris' dog whistles. When he whistles it is an important issue to his audience. When he has sold the fishermen down the river (no pun intended) it is not a whistle he will be using, and no one will care.
Top header Ms Cyclefree. There has always, of course, been a trade off between money and ethics. But the rush to embrace China reminded me of one of those cartoons where the eyes turned to dollar signs... There also seemed to be an implicit supposition that we could "convert" them to democratic ideals. The PRC, indeed China, doesn't give a monkeys about that. For centuries it has been unity, conformity and nationalism. When the Central government is strong, peace and prosperity, when it is weak, chaos, invasion and civil war. This is deep in the folk memory. They had a dreadful record in Tibet before there were any riches for us to exploit. Instead of us converting them, they have corrupted us. We seem to have only just noticed what was staring us in the face.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
I'm going to swoop in and claim the middle ground here. Fishing, for the reasons I gave, is imo a bigger issue for Leavers than it ought to be. But it doesn't come close to immigration. That was the Daddy. But perhaps strongly related if you think about it. Fish. Immigration. Take Back Control. Borders. OUR borders. OUR waters. OUR fish.
Keir Starmer on Sky re Boris visit to Scotland just said on both the virus and in particular the economy, we should not be pulling apart the United Kingdom
Post Corbyn we are now seeing the conservative and labour parties with the lib dems standing firm in favour of the union
Post Holyrood 21 it will be interesting if the UK parties, ex Greens and Plaid, refuse to support another referendum
But then Starmer hasn't gone into Scotland today (quite literally) with his boots on and irritated non-Tory Scots more than they were irritated yesterday.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
I'm going to swoop in and claim the middle ground here. Fishing, for the reasons I gave, is imo a bigger issue for Leavers than it ought to be. But it doesn't come close to immigration. That was the Daddy. But perhaps strongly related if you think about it. Fish. Immigration. Take Back Control. Borders. OUR borders. OUR waters. OUR fish.
There is perhaps some sense in renationalising fishing licences.
Certainly more sense than in recreating British Rail.
Keir is absolutely right to make the case for anti-Independence, it's the only way he'll win sufficient votes in England even if it makes sod all difference in Scotland.
Strategically it's the best play there is
It could also be that he genuinely believes in the Union. I suspect that is true.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
I'm going to swoop in and claim the middle ground here. Fishing, for the reasons I gave, is imo a bigger issue for Leavers than it ought to be. But it doesn't come close to immigration. That was the Daddy. But perhaps strongly related if you think about it. Fish. Immigration. Take Back Control. Borders. OUR borders. OUR waters. OUR fish.
There is perhaps some sense in renationalising fishing licences.
Certainly more sense than in recreating British Rail.
The only reason the rail network has been nationalised is that all the operators would have been bankrupt within a month if it hadn't been.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
I'm going to swoop in and claim the middle ground here. Fishing, for the reasons I gave, is imo a bigger issue for Leavers than it ought to be. But it doesn't come close to immigration. That was the Daddy. But perhaps strongly related if you think about it. Fish. Immigration. Take Back Control. Borders. OUR borders. OUR waters. OUR fish.
There is perhaps some sense in renationalising fishing licences.
Certainly more sense than in recreating British Rail.
I don't think BR is even on the cards. It's basically going to be the Labour 2015 rail program, where the state in effect runs the franchises but they're still legally separate to Network Rail
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
The Beeb are usually really good at getting foreign pronunciations of words and names right. This morning I heard on R4 a representative of the Uighurs being interviewed. The BBC lady used the same pronunciation I’ve heard elsewhere and said “weegurs”, the other lady, who as their representative may know better, said “oi-hurs”.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
I'm going to swoop in and claim the middle ground here. Fishing, for the reasons I gave, is imo a bigger issue for Leavers than it ought to be. But it doesn't come close to immigration. That was the Daddy. But perhaps strongly related if you think about it. Fish. Immigration. Take Back Control. Borders. OUR borders. OUR waters. OUR fish.
There is perhaps some sense in renationalising fishing licences.
Certainly more sense than in recreating British Rail.
The only reason the rail network has been nationalised is that all the operators would have been bankrupt within a month if it hadn't been.
The rail network ALREADY was nationalised. It's just the running that's being brought slowly under state control.
Personally if we want to privatise the entire thing then fine, or publicly run the whole thing (as most of Europe does) but it's the half-way house that's crap.
Personally I will be interested to see the results of Government run rail in the 21st Century.
My understanding is that the Government will just pay private companies to run the routes, like how TfL does. Not sure what value this adds though?
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
I don't see why Barnier wouldn't have wanted fishing to become totemic for the UK. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought! It gives him the opportunity to trade off fishing rights of relatively little economic value for other prizes of much greater economic value. I'm no negotiator, but I'd have thought that leaving emotional baggage at the door was a prerequisite to achieving a good deal.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
I'm going to swoop in and claim the middle ground here. Fishing, for the reasons I gave, is imo a bigger issue for Leavers than it ought to be. But it doesn't come close to immigration. That was the Daddy. But perhaps strongly related if you think about it. Fish. Immigration. Take Back Control. Borders. OUR borders. OUR waters. OUR fish.
There is perhaps some sense in renationalising fishing licences.
Certainly more sense than in recreating British Rail.
I don't think BR is even on the cards. It's basically going to be the Labour 2015 rail program, where the state in effect runs the franchises but they're still legally separate to Network Rail
Red Ed's Marxist Nightmare, in other words, if we remember the coverage from the time.
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
Yes, to this.
Fish and its price is not a great economic concern, but it’s part of the symbolism and fabric of what was wrong.
Keir is absolutely right to make the case for anti-Independence, it's the only way he'll win sufficient votes in England even if it makes sod all difference in Scotland.
Strategically it's the best play there is
It could also be that he genuinely believes in the Union. I suspect that is true.
He talks strongly of it and I very much doubt he will support Scots Independence
Indeed it is likely Starmer and Brown would lead the union argument in Scotland
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
Indeed but what about if you had bought a fishing licence in good faith from someone and were suddenly told it was worthless and you couldn't fish. Its a bit like buying farming land from someone in, say, France, and being told you couldn;t farm, isn;t it?
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
What people voted for is taking back control.
Now you may argue we always had control, or that control in the terms the Brexiteers see it is impossible or undesirable anyway.
But that's what they voted for.
And that's why fishing is so important. We call the shots, not Brussels. We say who fishes, when and how much.
Now, RCS has shown clearly how the government may be walking into a legal minefield by 'taking back control' in that way.
But that is undoubtedly what people voted for, and what this government claims it can deliver.
And its also why fishing is so important. Because if we don't 'take back control' of that, then the whole Johnson project looks mighty vulnerable.
"Take back control" was one of Cummings' three word sound bites. It had no specific meaning, in terms of fishing or anything else. It was just a banal platitude that appealed to people who though they might have lost control, over what nobody can be sure. But they had lost control all the same.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
What people voted for is taking back control.
Now you may argue we always had control, or that control in the terms the Brexiteers see it is impossible or undesirable anyway.
But that's what they voted for.
And that's why fishing is so important. We call the shots, not Brussels. We say who fishes, when and how much.
Now, RCS has shown clearly how the government may be walking into a legal minefield by 'taking back control' in that way.
But that is undoubtedly what people voted for, and what this government claims it can deliver.
And its also why fishing is so important. Because if we don't 'take back control' of that, then the whole Johnson project looks mighty vulnerable.
"Take back control" was one of Cummings' three word sound bites. It had no specific meaning, in terms of fishing or anything else. It was just a banal platitude that appealed to people who though they might have lost control, over what nobody can be sure. But they had lost control all the same.
It's extremely clever and effective as politics, because a feeling of loss of social and political representation can be linked straight through to ethnic and even constitutional issues with it.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
I'm going to swoop in and claim the middle ground here. Fishing, for the reasons I gave, is imo a bigger issue for Leavers than it ought to be. But it doesn't come close to immigration. That was the Daddy. But perhaps strongly related if you think about it. Fish. Immigration. Take Back Control. Borders. OUR borders. OUR waters. OUR fish.
There is perhaps some sense in renationalising fishing licences.
Certainly more sense than in recreating British Rail.
The only reason the rail network has been nationalised is that all the operators would have been bankrupt within a month if it hadn't been.
The rail network ALREADY was nationalised. It's just the running that's being brought slowly under state control.
Personally if we want to privatise the entire thing then fine, or publicly run the whole thing (as most of Europe does) but it's the half-way house that's crap.
Personally I will be interested to see the results of Government run rail in the 21st Century.
My understanding is that the Government will just pay private companies to run the routes, like how TfL does. Not sure what value this adds though?
Um a lot of trains in europe are private. I've caught Arriva trains in the Netherlands and Trenitalia in Italy...
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
Indeed but what about if you had bought a fishing licence in good faith from someone and were suddenly told it was worthless and you couldn't fish. Its a bit like buying farming land from someone in, say, France, and being told you couldn;t farm, isn;t it?
Its not that unusual in the EU though. Various rights which transferred for large sums of money such as Milk quota and the right to various subsidies re livestock have either disappeared or been materially changed in their operation as policies changed. Fishing quota is a man made artificial construct and it is up to us to determine how it is allocated once we are free of CFP commitments.
ROFL the idea the vast majority of people voted for fishing is ridiculous. Take back control primarily of immigration and money being sent abroad were the key motivating factors + NHS money + wanting to tell David Cameron to F off I'm sure came in as well
Keir is absolutely right to make the case for anti-Independence, it's the only way he'll win sufficient votes in England even if it makes sod all difference in Scotland.
Strategically it's the best play there is
It could also be that he genuinely believes in the Union. I suspect that is true.
He talks strongly of it and I very much doubt he will support Scots Independence
Indeed it is likely Starmer and Brown would lead the union argument in Scotland
If Starmer is a complete nincompoop he might. Lose the Union having lead the campaign, lose all credibility.
David Cameron knew those were the rules of referenda, which is why he resigned.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
What people voted for is taking back control.
Now you may argue we always had control, or that control in the terms the Brexiteers see it is impossible or undesirable anyway.
But that's what they voted for.
And that's why fishing is so important. We call the shots, not Brussels. We say who fishes, when and how much.
Now, RCS has shown clearly how the government may be walking into a legal minefield by 'taking back control' in that way.
But that is undoubtedly what people voted for, and what this government claims it can deliver.
And its also why fishing is so important. Because if we don't 'take back control' of that, then the whole Johnson project looks mighty vulnerable.
"Take back control" was one of Cummings' three word sound bites. It had no specific meaning, in terms of fishing or anything else. It was just a banal platitude that appealed to people who though they might have lost control, over what nobody can be sure. But they had lost control all the same.
It's extremely clever and effective as politics, because a feeling of loss of social and political representation can be linked straight through to ethnic and even constitutional issues with it.
Oh it's clever - and he's a machine at winning elections. His Governing skills seem very poor though
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
I'm going to swoop in and claim the middle ground here. Fishing, for the reasons I gave, is imo a bigger issue for Leavers than it ought to be. But it doesn't come close to immigration. That was the Daddy. But perhaps strongly related if you think about it. Fish. Immigration. Take Back Control. Borders. OUR borders. OUR waters. OUR fish.
There is perhaps some sense in renationalising fishing licences.
Certainly more sense than in recreating British Rail.
I don't think BR is even on the cards. It's basically going to be the Labour 2015 rail program, where the state in effect runs the franchises but they're still legally separate to Network Rail
Red Ed's Marxist Nightmare, in other words, if we remember the coverage from the time.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
What people voted for is taking back control.
Now you may argue we always had control, or that control in the terms the Brexiteers see it is impossible or undesirable anyway.
But that's what they voted for.
And that's why fishing is so important. We call the shots, not Brussels. We say who fishes, when and how much.
Now, RCS has shown clearly how the government may be walking into a legal minefield by 'taking back control' in that way.
But that is undoubtedly what people voted for, and what this government claims it can deliver.
And its also why fishing is so important. Because if we don't 'take back control' of that, then the whole Johnson project looks mighty vulnerable.
"Take back control" was one of Cummings' three word sound bites. It had no specific meaning, in terms of fishing or anything else. It was just a banal platitude that appealed to people who though they might have lost control, over what nobody can be sure. But they had lost control all the same.
It's extremely clever and effective as politics, because a feeling of loss of social and political representation can be linked straight through to ethnic and even constitutional issues with it.
Keir is absolutely right to make the case for anti-Independence, it's the only way he'll win sufficient votes in England even if it makes sod all difference in Scotland.
Strategically it's the best play there is
It could also be that he genuinely believes in the Union. I suspect that is true.
He talks strongly of it and I very much doubt he will support Scots Independence
Indeed it is likely Starmer and Brown would lead the union argument in Scotland
If Starmer is a complete nincompoop he might. Lose the Union having lead the campaign, lose all credibility.
David Cameron knew those were the rules of referenda, which is why he resigned.
Starmer leading for labour but others leaders would join the campaign
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
Keir is absolutely right to make the case for anti-Independence, it's the only way he'll win sufficient votes in England even if it makes sod all difference in Scotland.
Strategically it's the best play there is
It could also be that he genuinely believes in the Union. I suspect that is true.
He talks strongly of it and I very much doubt he will support Scots Independence
Indeed it is likely Starmer and Brown would lead the union argument in Scotland
If Starmer is a complete nincompoop he might. Lose the Union having lead the campaign, lose all credibility.
David Cameron knew those were the rules of referenda, which is why he resigned.
Starmer leading for labour but others leaders would join the campaign
Darling was the face of the Union last time, but he was yesterdays man at the time. Starmer would be out of his box, if he were to firmly nail himself directly to any campaign.
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.
Perhaps but then it depends doesn't it on what those rights are for and what they are worth?
Hypothetically speaking if we currently get quotas of 700,000 tonnes of fish a year but our waters are worth 2 million tonnes of fish a year if we enforce our sovereignty to the 200 mile limit then we can do that, respect the existing quotas and gain 1.3 million tonnes of fish that we can then licence off however we want.
Or we could choose to do a new system, Compulsory Purchase the existing quotas (since they won't be valid in the new system) and sell of perhaps annual or however we want to determine it rights for the new system going forwards.
Either way if we are gaining control back over a lot of a valuable natural resource then we should be financially better off surely?
Keir is absolutely right to make the case for anti-Independence, it's the only way he'll win sufficient votes in England even if it makes sod all difference in Scotland.
Strategically it's the best play there is
It could also be that he genuinely believes in the Union. I suspect that is true.
He talks strongly of it and I very much doubt he will support Scots Independence
Indeed it is likely Starmer and Brown would lead the union argument in Scotland
If Starmer is a complete nincompoop he might. Lose the Union having lead the campaign, lose all credibility.
David Cameron knew those were the rules of referenda, which is why he resigned.
Starmer leading for labour but others leaders would join the campaign
Darling was the face of the Union last time, but he was yesterdays man at the time. Starmer would be out of his box, if he were to firmly nail himself directly to any campaign.
Judging by his words today he has already committed to the union
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
That fountain of truth the Express reports Frost told Barnier the UK was aiming at a near total ban of EU fishing vessels in British
I don;t see how the UK achieves that without getting sued or paying compo.
ROFL the idea the vast majority of people voted for fishing is ridiculous. Take back control primarily of immigration and money being sent abroad were the key motivating factors + NHS money + wanting to tell David Cameron to F off I'm sure came in as well
We voted to take back control of our country. However that is. Our water are part of our country it quite clearly and self evidently falls under taking back control.
And it was a massive issue discussed at the time not an afterthought.
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
I think you are confusing Johnson with someone who gives a **** (hoot?) about fishermen, fishing quotas and exclusion zones.
And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from: (a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy; (b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US; (c) a combination of (a) and (b) or (d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
That fountain of truth the Express reports Frost told Barnier the UK was aiming at a near total ban of EU fishing vessels in British
I don;t see how the UK achieves that without getting sued or paying compo.
What's wrong with paying compensation? If the gain in resources is more than the compensation cost that's a win for the country.
I wouldn't want to shaft a foreign business, if we need to pay compensation we should do so fairly just as we would for a compulsory purchase order if building new infrastructure.
And whilst I am at it did the collapse of the Soviet Empire come from: (a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy; (b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US; (c) a combination of (a) and (b) or (d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
Usually we are told in thread headers that the public don’t vote for parties that are split. Bearing that in mind, will the new leader having to discipline his predecessor who now resides on the back benches be seen as a split? I’m more inclined to think the Starmer fan club will spin it as “uncompromising, competent authority” - will it arrest his parties polling slump though?
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
That fountain of truth the Express reports Frost told Barnier the UK was aiming at a near total ban of EU fishing vessels in British
I don;t see how the UK achieves that without getting sued or paying compo.
This is just wrong. In the late 1990s my firm of solicitors bought a series of farms in Angus. Our client paid more for the milk quota than they did for land and buildings. In 2015 milk quota was abolished. No one got compensation although other schemes came into play. The price of the quota reflected the risk that the money would not come indefinitely.
Whether we can cancel quota rights essentially turns on the deal we do with the EU. If we agree to respect rights acquired during the CFP then our hands will be tied. If we don't they are not and there is no right to compensation. Of course the quid pro quo may well be the loss of rights that we have at the moment in other areas.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
I'm going to swoop in and claim the middle ground here. Fishing, for the reasons I gave, is imo a bigger issue for Leavers than it ought to be. But it doesn't come close to immigration. That was the Daddy. But perhaps strongly related if you think about it. Fish. Immigration. Take Back Control. Borders. OUR borders. OUR waters. OUR fish.
There is perhaps some sense in renationalising fishing licences.
Certainly more sense than in recreating British Rail.
Seductive notion - British Fish plc - but would it not lead to complacency and inefficiencies? One imagines dirty boats and voyage timetables that are more observed in the breach.
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.
You do need to include wet leases, where the quota is owned by a British firm (or other entity) but the actual boat is neither owned nor operated by Brits.
Boris is obsessed with fishing. Nobody outside of a tiny minority gives a shit about fishing, let’s be real here.
My Scottish family do and with a passion.
Their communities were founded on fishing
And they will be in the tiny minority. North Shields on Tyneside was “founded on fishing” and yet the Fish Quay, whilst still being a working fishing port, is full of edgy bars and flats these days.
It does not mean that fishing is not a big issue in the North East Scottish fishing communities
Fishing is a massive issue Mr G, crazy but true.
If Boris 'betrays' those fishermen (persons?) he can forget leading the tories into the next election and I would doubt the tories would form the next government.
We want those waters. We want to tell Frenchman and Spaniards they cannot fish there even if we don;t want to fish there ourselves. Are we right to want that at the expense of much else? I don;t know, but I know its true.
Fishing really is that big.
Well we shouldn’t have sold them the quotas
Maybe the EEC shouldn’t have dreamt up the Common Fisheries Policy back in the early 70’s just so it could make a grab for fishing rights ( or natural resources as they are) of the then four prospective joiners, the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Norway who just so happened to bring with them vast oceans which the EEC did not possess, but which could force them to hand over as a joining fee of acquis communautaire. Norway voted not to join of course, partly because of this issue I’m sure.
Just imagine if Spain Italy Greece and Portugal joined, and the northerners dreamt up a Common Citrus Fruit Policy and said hand over your lemon groves because we’ve not got any.
It was a total injustice 50 years ago, that may be close to being at least partially righted, and despite its minuscule economic value the whole issue has become far more totemic than Barnier wanted I’m sure. Maybe they should’ve been a bit more circumspect about screwing us over on this in the 70’s in the first place? What goes around and all that.
You must realise how out of touch you are, right?
This 'out of touch' argument seems quite well founded and decently argued to me. Could Gallowgate tell us what's wrong with it?
I already have. @welshowl is treating “fishing” like an issue of significant national importance, when actually no normal person gives a hoot.
It’s not if any great import economically ( a few costal places aside), but it’s symbolic of what was wrong from day one in 1973.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
Sorry Robert but this is wrong. Or at least misleading. Prior to the UK/Denmark/Ireland accession there was no CFP for the existing EEC countries fishing in the North Sea, the Baltic or the Med. They were perfectly happy for fishing to be a national competence before then. It was only when those countries with very large fishing areas - the UK, Ireland and Norway - were looking to join that the CFP was devised. That gave quotas for fishing in British and Irish waters (the Norwegians had more sense than to join in the end) to other EEC countries from the very start.
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.
You do need to include wet leases, where the quota is owned by a British firm (or other entity) but the actual boat is neither owned nor operated by Brits.
And a lot of the British registered companies holding the quota are foreign owned because our fishermen sold them.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
Indeed but what about if you had bought a fishing licence in good faith from someone and were suddenly told it was worthless and you couldn't fish. Its a bit like buying farming land from someone in, say, France, and being told you couldn;t farm, isn;t it?
Its not that unusual in the EU though. Various rights which transferred for large sums of money such as Milk quota and the right to various subsidies re livestock have either disappeared or been materially changed in their operation as policies changed. Fishing quota is a man made artificial construct and it is up to us to determine how it is allocated once we are free of CFP commitments.
How fishing quotas are allocated is up to national governments under the CFP and different member states have very different policies.
I would opine that fishing was irrelevant to most people voting for leave. It was immigration
You're a one tracked individual then. The vote wasn't so narrow minded as that. I couldn't care less about immigration but care about sovereignty and the fish are our sovereign natural resource.
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
If I were to say that sometimes you appear to fetishize the Nation State it might be deeply unfair - and I apologize if it would be - but it would be no less than the truth as I sometimes sense it.
I would hope he does fetishize it. The Nation State with an accountable government is one of the fundamental building blocks of a democratic system.
On fishing it's not an area I especially care about but to think that the fish are our natural resource so we should determine what we do with it. I have 3 questions or thoughts from what I've read here and elsewhere.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
On 1 - see my comment below, removing rights purchased from UK fishermen and you've created a whole world of court cases which I suspect the Government would lose.
I think RCS is very much overstating the degree of foreign control of British licences for a start.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.
You do need to include wet leases, where the quota is owned by a British firm (or other entity) but the actual boat is neither owned nor operated by Brits.
And a lot of the British registered companies holding the quota are foreign owned because our fishermen sold them.
That is already included in the NEF numbers I quoted.
Starmer making the case for the Union is to win seats in England, not Scotland. That's the play.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Hatred is not Sturgeon’s modus operandi. She fought Glasgow Labour for many long years before first winning. They taught her that hatred, in which they specialised (eg. George Galloway), was a one-way route to failure.
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades
Starmer making the case for the Union is to win seats in England, not Scotland. That's the play.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Hatred is not Sturgeon’s modus operandi. She fought Glasgow Labour for many long years before first winning. They taught her that hatred, in which they specialised (eg. George Galloway), was a one-way route to failure.
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades
Starmer making the case for the Union is to win seats in England, not Scotland. That's the play.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Hatred is not Sturgeon’s modus operandi. She fought Glasgow Labour for many long years before first winning. They taught her that hatred, in which they specialised (eg. George Galloway), was a one-way route to failure.
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades
Comments
The same applies elsewhere.
Bishop Auckland for example - also 98% British born.
For many people, even those not involved with it in any way and unaffected by it, fishing is a touchstone issue because it represents a clear 'wrong' that deserves to be righted.
To use a recent example it is like the issue of British citizenship for Hong Kong residents. Or the issue of the right of return for the Chagos Islanders. There is no way in which these issues make any practical difference to the lives of most people in Britain but they are obvious injustices that needs to be put right. Fairness matters even when it does not directly impact us.
Your broader point I agree with but I've pointed out before that in most cases a large Brexit vote corresponds with a low rate of immigration. It's fear of the unknown.
Even on here @rcs1000 is having to educate people on the difference between national governments and foreign companies, and who owns quotas.
Nobody understands, and nobody cares. If you ask someone if “British fish should be British” of course they are going to say yes, but if you ask them what they care about, they are not going to start ranting about fishing.
If you suggest otherwise, then I simply submit that you are wrong.
Once again he's picking pointless battles because he isn't doing the research...
It’s not mentioned by actual normal people, who happened to vote Leave.
They literally created the CFP as a reaction to the four wanting to join. It was a grab for booty pure and simple. All the fine talk of esprit communautaire was just that- talk. It would’ve been far better for the EEC to have left this well alone, but no, they felt they had the whip hand and they used it. The result was it went on to the list of things we weren’t entirely comfortable with, with the rebate, FOM, the ECJ etc. Niggling like a stone in a shoe. It even played a role in 2016 when Geldof decided to sail down the Thames to have an “easy” go at Farage and ended up being confronted by some fisher folk.
It was all so unnecessary by the EEC/EU, precisely because it is such a small industry. But here we are 50 years on and it’s a major issue now way out of all proportion to its monetary worth.
The EU overplaying it’s strong hand (again!!!) in microcosm.
Therefore they are still going to feel hard-done by, unless the Government makes their position better in other ways.
What is really funny is we have seen exactly this line before from OGH. It was he who used the monthly issues polling for many years before the referendum to support his now infamous claim that 'no one gives a Monkeys about the EU'.
That turned out well for him.
They may offer an opinion either way when asked but they don’t care, and they certainly are not going to base their vote on either of them, especially if the economy is in the doldrums.
(I did, btw, reply to your late post on PT. I think we might have been slightly at cross purposes.)
With China we have an international superpower with huge cumulative surpluses to invest. Some of that investment will be poured into providing us with an extremely expensive nuclear power plant and other infrastructure projects that we have trouble funding ourselves.
Some of it is being used to buy education at our top Universities. This has allowed those Universities to have a couple of decades of growth now. The economics of Edinburgh University in particular is at risk.
In short, in contrast to the usual consequences of sanctions being imposed which is to hurt the recipients such sanctions will hurt us, deprive us of goodies and have rather less effect on China.
This loss of power, status and control is the price we pay for 20 odd years of deficits, modest growth, poor investment, excess consumption, offshoring, tolerating tax evasion by Internationals and many other faults and deficiencies. We in the UK and in the west generally are not top dog anymore.
The result is that the Uighurs will almost certainly be exterminated; HK will be assimilated in the same way that Tibet has been, Africa will be bought up and exploited (in perhaps even more ruthless ways than we used) and there is very little we can do about it. But hey, knock yourselves out, protest away, some things are just too painful not to be deluded about.
Post Corbyn we are now seeing the conservative and labour parties with the lib dems standing firm in favour of the union
Post Holyrood 21 it will be interesting if the UK parties, ex Greens and Plaid, refuse to support another referendum
I’ve accepted that if people are asked for their opinion on whether “British fish should be British” of course they are going to say yes, but it’s certainly wasn’t the deciding factor in whether people voted Remain or Leave, primarily because it does not make a difference to their lives.
Strategically it's the best play there is
That fury has not gone away
But the rush to embrace China reminded me of one of those cartoons where the eyes turned to dollar signs...
There also seemed to be an implicit supposition that we could "convert" them to democratic ideals. The PRC, indeed China, doesn't give a monkeys about that. For centuries it has been unity, conformity and nationalism. When the Central government is strong, peace and prosperity, when it is weak, chaos, invasion and civil war. This is deep in the folk memory.
They had a dreadful record in Tibet before there were any riches for us to exploit.
Instead of us converting them, they have corrupted us.
We seem to have only just noticed what was staring us in the face.
Now you may argue we always had control, or that control in the terms the Brexiteers see it is impossible or undesirable anyway.
But that's what they voted for.
And that's why fishing is so important. We call the shots, not Brussels. We say who fishes, when and how much.
Now, RCS has shown clearly how the government may be walking into a legal minefield by 'taking back control' in that way.
But that is undoubtedly what people voted for, and what this government claims it can deliver.
And its also why fishing is so important. Because if we don't 'take back control' of that, then the whole Johnson project looks mighty vulnerable.
New YouGov poll of Tory members
Certainly more sense than in recreating British Rail.
1. People speak about rights and quotas having been bought and sold as if it is inalienable and unchangeable. But surely they only exist within the framework of the CFP. If we completely leave the CFP and control our own waters we can determine whatever policies we want going forwards surely?
2. I believe we get a greatly reduced share of the fish in the CFP than we should as it was determined by proportion of fish being taken in community waters in the early 70s not the proportion of waters or fish that should be each nations own resource. Since UK fishermen were at the time fishing in Iceland's waters (until Iceland expelled them) we got a lower than appropriate share which I believe continues to this day.
3. If we were to want to we could claim and legally enforce 200 miles of exclusive waters for ourselves. As Norway and Iceland do. Why shouldn't we?
I don't particularly care about the fish but it's our own natural resource under international maritime laws. Why shouldn't we get the most from our own natural resources? Everyone else seeks to.
Does anyone here know which is correct?
If there was a common oil policy and the EU was taking away our North Sea oil without us getting the revenues from it that would bother me too. The fact it's fish isn't here nor there the subject isn't that important what is important is the EU taking away a valuable resource that should be ours.
Personally if we want to privatise the entire thing then fine, or publicly run the whole thing (as most of Europe does) but it's the half-way house that's crap.
Personally I will be interested to see the results of Government run rail in the 21st Century.
My understanding is that the Government will just pay private companies to run the routes, like how TfL does. Not sure what value this adds though?
Fish and its price is not a great economic concern, but it’s part of the symbolism and fabric of what was wrong.
Indeed it is likely Starmer and Brown would lead the union argument in Scotland
"Take back control" was one of Cummings' three word sound bites. It had no specific meaning, in terms of fishing or anything else. It was just a banal platitude that appealed to people who though they might have lost control, over what nobody can be sure. But they had lost control all the same.
David Cameron knew those were the rules of referenda, which is why he resigned.
That's a little simplistic.
The founding principle of the EU is the free movement of goods, services and people. That means that the British box system, which allowed only UK and Irish fishermen to own rights to fish in the jointly administered territorial waters of the UK and Ireland.
Not allowing those to be owned by non-British/Irish entities would have breached the "free movement" clause of the treaties, and so the CFP was created. And for a decade or so, only UK and Irish fishermen owned these quotas.
With the accession of two more countries with Atlantic fishing (Spain and Portugal), we started to see industrial fishing vessels and fleets that displaced 10x what a smaller British trawler did. With just twice the number of people, they could catch 10x the fish. And so, the Spanish fishing concerns bought up quotas from British fishermen, as they could pay the equivalent of 10 years or so of fishing revenues for them - and the fisherman wouldn't have to get up early to do back breaking work.
If he can become hated by Sturgeon, even better
Hypothetically speaking if we currently get quotas of 700,000 tonnes of fish a year but our waters are worth 2 million tonnes of fish a year if we enforce our sovereignty to the 200 mile limit then we can do that, respect the existing quotas and gain 1.3 million tonnes of fish that we can then licence off however we want.
Or we could choose to do a new system, Compulsory Purchase the existing quotas (since they won't be valid in the new system) and sell of perhaps annual or however we want to determine it rights for the new system going forwards.
Either way if we are gaining control back over a lot of a valuable natural resource then we should be financially better off surely?
I don;t see how the UK achieves that without getting sued or paying compo.
And it was a massive issue discussed at the time not an afterthought.
The SNP seem to be about to embark on an internal civil war
(a) The inability of a command economy to compete with an innovative free market economy;
(b) the pressure applied by Reagan's increase in the conventional capability of the US;
(c) a combination of (a) and (b) or
(d) Amnesty International's campaigns about prisoners of conscience?
The idea that the Chinese will be influenced by similar protests is almost funny, in a sad kind of way.
I wouldn't want to shaft a foreign business, if we need to pay compensation we should do so fairly just as we would for a compulsory purchase order if building new infrastructure.
Fantastic.
According to the New Economics Foundation, in 2019 the total value of UK fishing quotas was £891 million. Of that only £186 million was foreign owned - around 20%. In addition any quotas held by other EU countries will have very little if any non EU ownership because they deal with their quotas in a different way with quotas belonging to the Government not the individual fishermen or vessels.
Whether we can cancel quota rights essentially turns on the deal we do with the EU. If we agree to respect rights acquired during the CFP then our hands will be tied. If we don't they are not and there is no right to compensation. Of course the quid pro quo may well be the loss of rights that we have at the moment in other areas.
GE24 less formidable for Tories if they ditch 59 MPs.
Starmer is welcome to make a case for the Union. I wish a Unionist occasionally would. Not seen one even try for several decades
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1286335783197118472