BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I’m a grumpy f@cker but I am very good at moving forwards within a given situation.Stevo_666 said:
Morstar is clearly more of an optimist than I have given him credit forcoopster_the_1st said:
Did you really write that to Rick?morstar said:
It's the best laugh I've had all day thinking of Rick trying to look at something objectively 
I’ll make a case, moan like a bastard about things I don’t like but then you’ve just to work out how you move forwards and understand the context of the new situation.
I don’t like Brexit but we ain’t reversing it anytime soon.
0 -
Assuming worst case no deal Brexit is a food importing disaster, you don’t see a short term UK market for that fish?rick_chasey said:I mean, on the fish, given 75% odd of fish caught by uk fishermen ends up being exported, and the majority of that is the EU, that is a little tricker no?
0 -
Well by a process of looking at the proportions and how this govt has made it a red line, less than it is to the U.K.morstar said:You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.
The problem is ultimately “no deal” is always more costly to the U.K.
You can’t escape that logic.0 -
This govt and the previous made fishing “sovereignty” a red line didn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
That's exactly what I said above:morstar said:You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.
"Well yes, fishing may not be important to Rick but it is to the EU and fishing rights to UK waters is ours to give - or not."0 -
Rather tautological but a no deal Brexit makes that all rather complicated.morstar said:
Assuming worst case no deal Brexit is a food importing disaster, you don’t see a short term UK market for that fish?rick_chasey said:I mean, on the fish, given 75% odd of fish caught by uk fishermen ends up being exported, and the majority of that is the EU, that is a little tricker no?
0 -
I'm not sure why you expect anything else given that they are our waters?rick_chasey said:
This govt and the previous made fishing “sovereignty” a red line didn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
That's exactly what I said above:morstar said:You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.
"Well yes, fishing may not be important to Rick but it is to the EU and fishing rights to UK waters is ours to give - or not."
Imagine the comments on here if we were threatening the EU with collapsing the talks because French wouldn't allow us to fish in their waters."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Why do you think the UK has made it so important?rick_chasey said:
Well by a process of looking at the proportions and how this govt has made it a red line, less than it is to the U.K.morstar said:You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.
Because it matters to the EU. It’s leverage.
It will be traded at the drop of a hat for the alignment flexibility that is sought.
UK waters are 1/7th of EU fishing output.
We are catching just over half the fish caught in UK waters.
https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/0 -
Well quite - leverage. Let's use it to get something that benefits us in the UK. Unless any of you live on the continent, we're all in this together...morstar said:
Why do you think the UK has made it so important?rick_chasey said:
Well by a process of looking at the proportions and how this govt has made it a red line, less than it is to the U.K.morstar said:You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.
Because it matters to the EU. It’s leverage.
It will be traded at the drop of a hat for the alignment flexibility that is sought.
UK waters are 1/7th of EU fishing output.
We are catching just over half the fish caught in UK waters.
https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not sure I understand.rick_chasey said:
Rather tautological but a no deal Brexit makes that all rather complicated.morstar said:
Assuming worst case no deal Brexit is a food importing disaster, you don’t see a short term UK market for that fish?rick_chasey said:I mean, on the fish, given 75% odd of fish caught by uk fishermen ends up being exported, and the majority of that is the EU, that is a little tricker no?
If it all goes tits up and food supplies are struggling, do you not see a UK market for the 75% of the fish we can catch but can’t export.
I’m not aspiring to that by any stretch but it’s a simple concept. I don’t see how Brexit complicates it.
0 -
My Covid shopping sure as hell wasn’t based on what I would normally buy. It was based on what I could get.morstar said:
Not sure I understand.rick_chasey said:
Rather tautological but a no deal Brexit makes that all rather complicated.morstar said:
Assuming worst case no deal Brexit is a food importing disaster, you don’t see a short term UK market for that fish?rick_chasey said:I mean, on the fish, given 75% odd of fish caught by uk fishermen ends up being exported, and the majority of that is the EU, that is a little tricker no?
If it all goes tits up and food supplies are struggling, do you not see a UK market for the 75% of the fish we can catch but can’t export.
I’m not aspiring to that by any stretch but it’s a simple concept. I don’t see how Brexit complicates it.
0 -
Sure. I feel you’re really focusing on what is a very narrow issue.morstar said:
Why do you think the UK has made it so important?rick_chasey said:
Well by a process of looking at the proportions and how this govt has made it a red line, less than it is to the U.K.morstar said:You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.
Because it matters to the EU. It’s leverage.
It will be traded at the drop of a hat for the alignment flexibility that is sought.
UK waters are 1/7th of EU fishing output.
We are catching just over half the fish caught in UK waters.
https://marinedevelopments.blog.gov.uk/2018/09/27/mmo-fisheries-statistics-2017-eez/
Brexit is really really very big. And for almost anything you discuss the U.K has you see the EU is the biggest market for it.
For the comment above that I posted from the FT, surely the biggest incoming depression for 300 years would shake the U.K. into avoiding economic self harm? Alas not.1 -
Food imports becoming difficult from the EU is plain disinformation from remoaners.morstar said:
Not sure I understand.rick_chasey said:
Rather tautological but a no deal Brexit makes that all rather complicated.morstar said:
Assuming worst case no deal Brexit is a food importing disaster, you don’t see a short term UK market for that fish?rick_chasey said:I mean, on the fish, given 75% odd of fish caught by uk fishermen ends up being exported, and the majority of that is the EU, that is a little tricker no?
If it all goes tits up and food supplies are struggling, do you not see a UK market for the 75% of the fish we can catch but can’t export.
I’m not aspiring to that by any stretch but it’s a simple concept. I don’t see how Brexit complicates it.
The UK decides how the import of food works and can purchase from anywhere in the world if needed, unless agoraphobia boy thinks EU farmers will stop selling to the UK? Even an unobjective Europhile cannot be that stupid, surely? 0 -
Ah yes. That’s what we’re aiming for.morstar said:
My Covid shopping sure as hell wasn’t based on what I would normally buy. It was based on what I could get.morstar said:
Not sure I understand.rick_chasey said:
Rather tautological but a no deal Brexit makes that all rather complicated.morstar said:
Assuming worst case no deal Brexit is a food importing disaster, you don’t see a short term UK market for that fish?rick_chasey said:I mean, on the fish, given 75% odd of fish caught by uk fishermen ends up being exported, and the majority of that is the EU, that is a little tricker no?
If it all goes tits up and food supplies are struggling, do you not see a UK market for the 75% of the fish we can catch but can’t export.
I’m not aspiring to that by any stretch but it’s a simple concept. I don’t see how Brexit complicates it.0 -
Yes, that is exactly what I was suggesting. or not!rick_chasey said:
Ah yes. That’s what we’re aiming for.morstar said:
My Covid shopping sure as hell wasn’t based on what I would normally buy. It was based on what I could get.morstar said:
Not sure I understand.rick_chasey said:
Rather tautological but a no deal Brexit makes that all rather complicated.morstar said:
Assuming worst case no deal Brexit is a food importing disaster, you don’t see a short term UK market for that fish?rick_chasey said:I mean, on the fish, given 75% odd of fish caught by uk fishermen ends up being exported, and the majority of that is the EU, that is a little tricker no?
If it all goes tits up and food supplies are struggling, do you not see a UK market for the 75% of the fish we can catch but can’t export.
I’m not aspiring to that by any stretch but it’s a simple concept. I don’t see how Brexit complicates it.
0 -
I think controlling the quota is a redline, but not access. You should support that, it might mean that quotas are set in line with scientific advice.rick_chasey said:
This govt and the previous made fishing “sovereignty” a red line didn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
That's exactly what I said above:morstar said:You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.
"Well yes, fishing may not be important to Rick but it is to the EU and fishing rights to UK waters is ours to give - or not."
0 -
Sure.TheBigBean said:
I think controlling the quota is a redline, but not access. You should support that, it might mean that quotas are set in line with scientific advice.rick_chasey said:
This govt and the previous made fishing “sovereignty” a red line didn’t it?Stevo_666 said:
That's exactly what I said above:morstar said:You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.
"Well yes, fishing may not be important to Rick but it is to the EU and fishing rights to UK waters is ours to give - or not."
0 -
what barriers are we looking to put up for access to our market? it had completely passed me by that was part of the negotiationsStevo_666 said:
Lots of things including market access to their market and our market, access to UK fishing waters, access to the world's largest capital market etc.surrey_commuter said:
what do you think they are negotiating?Stevo_666 said:
Where did I mention SM access?surrey_commuter said:Stevo_666 said:
in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.surrey_commuter said:
Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not toStevo_666 said:
Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.morstar said:It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.
Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.
Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.
It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.
Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.
do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
The basic UK position is to do a trade deal similar to ones done by the EU with other countries and with no more EU control over the UK than the EU has over those other trade partners. What is unreasonable about that?
Barnier's letter spelled out what they considered to be unreasonable, we are cherry picking from several different FTAs.0 -
I do not share your faith that we have the brains to trade it.morstar said:You’re still thinking in terms of what fishing is worth to us.
Fishing is about what it is worth to the EU.1 -
So we're all going to live on fish? No. If our fishing industry can't export it dies because as a nation we don't like fish that much (for some reason).morstar said:
Not sure I understand.rick_chasey said:
Rather tautological but a no deal Brexit makes that all rather complicated.morstar said:
Assuming worst case no deal Brexit is a food importing disaster, you don’t see a short term UK market for that fish?rick_chasey said:I mean, on the fish, given 75% odd of fish caught by uk fishermen ends up being exported, and the majority of that is the EU, that is a little tricker no?
If it all goes tits up and food supplies are struggling, do you not see a UK market for the 75% of the fish we can catch but can’t export.
I’m not aspiring to that by any stretch but it’s a simple concept. I don’t see how Brexit complicates it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
Each FTA is different so this is a far cry from the 'cherry picking' that was used to describe wanting some combination of the '4 freedoms' that are apparently indivisible. In fact it makes sense to look at what has worked or we think will work well in other FTA's and apply them to our circumstances.surrey_commuter said:
what barriers are we looking to put up for access to our market? it had completely passed me by that was part of the negotiationsStevo_666 said:
Lots of things including market access to their market and our market, access to UK fishing waters, access to the world's largest capital market etc.surrey_commuter said:
what do you think they are negotiating?Stevo_666 said:
Where did I mention SM access?surrey_commuter said:Stevo_666 said:
in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.surrey_commuter said:
Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not toStevo_666 said:
Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.morstar said:It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.
Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.
Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.
It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.
Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.
do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
The basic UK position is to do a trade deal similar to ones done by the EU with other countries and with no more EU control over the UK than the EU has over those other trade partners. What is unreasonable about that?
Barnier's letter spelled out what they considered to be unreasonable, we are cherry picking from several different FTAs.
So Barnier's allegation of cherry picking is disingenuous."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We are not asking to replicate one FTA we are cherry picking bits from several. It is not a legal argument we are having, we need to persuade them why it is in their best interests.Stevo_666 said:
Each FTA is different so this is a far cry from the 'cherry picking' that was used to describe wanting some combination of the '4 freedoms' that are apparently indivisible. In fact it makes sense to look at what has worked or we think will work well in other FTA's and apply them to our circumstances.surrey_commuter said:
what barriers are we looking to put up for access to our market? it had completely passed me by that was part of the negotiationsStevo_666 said:
Lots of things including market access to their market and our market, access to UK fishing waters, access to the world's largest capital market etc.surrey_commuter said:
what do you think they are negotiating?Stevo_666 said:
Where did I mention SM access?surrey_commuter said:Stevo_666 said:
in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.surrey_commuter said:
Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not toStevo_666 said:
Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.morstar said:It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.
Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.
Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.
It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.
Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.
do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
The basic UK position is to do a trade deal similar to ones done by the EU with other countries and with no more EU control over the UK than the EU has over those other trade partners. What is unreasonable about that?
Barnier's letter spelled out what they considered to be unreasonable, we are cherry picking from several different FTAs.
So Barnier's allegation of cherry picking is disingenuous.
They have repeatedly said they regret the arrangement they have with Switzerland so we do appear (knowingly?) to be steering down a blind alley.
Do you think we will leave with a FTA?
FWIW it is worth I have pretty much switched off as I think both sides have accepted the possibility of no deal and are going through the motions.0 -
It has happened with a whimper but it’s worth reiterating that the government said specifically to its citizens both during an election campaign and since that there would be no checks at the border.
Now they have admitted there will be, but are now saying it always had been the case.
Is that not just gaslighting Northern Ireland?
Why should the people and leaders there trust anything the U.K. govt says? Surely in a place like NI that is more critical then usual?0 -
-
For all those that are wanting an extension ask yourselves this. What is the negotiation doing that needs mor time than the sixth months they have. It not like they are making something that follows a logical workflow with durations that cant be shortened. They are writing some stuff down on a bit of paper. No negotiation ever got better by changing the deadline. Particularly when one side would like the other to be stuck in and infinite transition period.1
-
Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whateverpblakeney said:Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.
0 -
Why do you think they want us in an infinite transition period?john80 said:For all those that are wanting an extension ask yourselves this. What is the negotiation doing that needs mor time than the sixth months they have. It not like they are making something that follows a logical workflow with durations that cant be shortened. They are writing some stuff down on a bit of paper. No negotiation ever got better by changing the deadline. Particularly when one side would like the other to be stuck in and infinite transition period.
If both sides wanted a deal then based upon the fact that they normally take seven years an extension would make sense.
I have been involved in many deal negotiations that benefited from an extension and I don’t think any of them were even 0.01% as complicated as a FTA0 -
I have the opposite experience. Things that are really really rushed tend to contain mistakes, but things with clear, a little bit rushed, deadlines tend to get done well.surrey_commuter said:
Why do you think they want us in an infinite transition period?john80 said:For all those that are wanting an extension ask yourselves this. What is the negotiation doing that needs mor time than the sixth months they have. It not like they are making something that follows a logical workflow with durations that cant be shortened. They are writing some stuff down on a bit of paper. No negotiation ever got better by changing the deadline. Particularly when one side would like the other to be stuck in and infinite transition period.
If both sides wanted a deal then based upon the fact that they normally take seven years an extension would make sense.
I have been involved in many deal negotiations that benefited from an extension and I don’t think any of them were even 0.01% as complicated as a FTA
If you look at the time an M&A deal takes, it does show that many hands working every waking hour can get quite a bit done.
0 -
Given that whatever we come up with will largely already have been seen in previous agreements, its almost inevitable the someone will raise the 'cherry picking' allegation. This is just sensible application of previous experience rather than any attempt to pick from some 'indivisible' thing like the 4 freedoms.surrey_commuter said:
We are not asking to replicate one FTA we are cherry picking bits from several. It is not a legal argument we are having, we need to persuade them why it is in their best interests.Stevo_666 said:
Each FTA is different so this is a far cry from the 'cherry picking' that was used to describe wanting some combination of the '4 freedoms' that are apparently indivisible. In fact it makes sense to look at what has worked or we think will work well in other FTA's and apply them to our circumstances.surrey_commuter said:
what barriers are we looking to put up for access to our market? it had completely passed me by that was part of the negotiationsStevo_666 said:
Lots of things including market access to their market and our market, access to UK fishing waters, access to the world's largest capital market etc.surrey_commuter said:
what do you think they are negotiating?Stevo_666 said:
Where did I mention SM access?surrey_commuter said:Stevo_666 said:
in your humble opinion. Now stop being patronising, I've told you about that before.surrey_commuter said:
Could you give us a sign to let us know that you do get these two basic concepts but chose to pretend not toStevo_666 said:
Regardless of relative size, it is still likely a sizeable absolute impact on the EU.morstar said:It’s leverage. Leverage is commonly related to size but not solely linked to size.
You maximise the importance of what the other party desires.
Hence the disproportionate significance of fishing.
EU wants access to UK waters. We’re not holding out on fishing to benefit our fishing industry, we’re using it is as leverage as the EU really wants to retain access.
Only time will tell how effective that is but the UK plan will be to flex on fishing but not alignment.
Leverage is also linked to willingness to walk away. Which is now the case, although it wasn't in the past.
It is also linked to then possibility of having the UK unbound by EU rules which will allow us to compete better in certain respects. Hence the repeated calls for a 'level playing field' which really means EU influence over UK rules.
Let's see what happens. I expect there will be some last minute movement, that is usually the way.
do you really not get that the more access you want to the SM the more rules you have to accept.
The basic UK position is to do a trade deal similar to ones done by the EU with other countries and with no more EU control over the UK than the EU has over those other trade partners. What is unreasonable about that?
Barnier's letter spelled out what they considered to be unreasonable, we are cherry picking from several different FTAs.
So Barnier's allegation of cherry picking is disingenuous.
They have repeatedly said they regret the arrangement they have with Switzerland so we do appear (knowingly?) to be steering down a blind alley.
Do you think we will leave with a FTA?
FWIW it is worth I have pretty much switched off as I think both sides have accepted the possibility of no deal and are going through the motions.
The EU know fine well the benefits of a deal but they appear to be insisting that they effectively have a material a say in UK internal affairs using the 'level playing field' excuse. Which is pretty unique compared to other trade deals and looks like the main sticking point.
What we are asking for is no different fundamentally to other EU trade deals with Japan, S. Korea, Canada etc. And with the same degree of control over each other as in those deals.
No idea what will happen: I said last year that a deal was a 50/50 and it is maybe a bit less now IMO."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ah! Okay, so negotiations finish on 30th June? I thought it was 31st December.surrey_commuter said:
The deadline is June 30th, so yes there will be 6 months to prepare for whateverpblakeney said:Well, they could go for no deal today and give businesses 6 months to transition.
Or they could huff and puff for 6 months and come straight out with no deal.
Certainly looked that way from the progress...
No deal looking more certain in that case.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
