Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Bentley Bullet on December 03, 2020, 05:26:38 pm
-
https://youtu.be/lW-14XOTKdM
-
https://youtu.be/lW-14XOTKdM
Sounds ok on the face of it. Got to be an improvement on the EU
Even though i voted Remain ( just ) I was very much 50/50 going to the polling station.
-
Where's the cavalry?
-
Where's the cavalry?
Do you mean....
https://youtu.be/eNzwss-yVpI
-
Local trade deal for local people...
-
Not looking promising:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/dec/08/commonwealth-bank-australia-move-european-hq-london-amsterdam-brexit
-
According the article wilts
''Financial services were legally obliged to be ready for a no-deal Brexit from the first date of that possibility, 29 March 2019, which meant if they offered services in an EU member state they must be licensed in a member state''
which is why hundreds of jobs have already moved offshore and will presumably only operate a branch office if required in the UK.
-
Quite bizarre that anyone thinks that doing more trade with 60-70million people, thousands of miles away, can somehow make up for us choosing to leave a fully integrated market of half a billion people on our doorstep.
If we were lucky, doing more trade with Canada, Australia and NZ might make up 5% of the income we are losing by leaving the EU. If we are VERY lucky. Our trade deal with Japan, a market twice the size and wealth as Can/Aus/NZ combined, will make up maybe 2% of what we are losing.
-
We’ll be fine.
-
bummer, Just when you thought the grass looked greener.....someone rips the carpet away....
-
Wait until the house of cards fall after we leave
-
If by "fine" you mean "5-10% poorer over the long run but with blue passports" then I couldn't agree more.
-
If by "fine" you mean "5-10% poorer over the long run but with blue passports" then I couldn't agree more.
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean.
I’m not too bothered about the passport though - like 52% of the country I’ve never left the village I was born in and I only hunt and gather locally.
My knuckles are a bit sore though.
-
Wait until the house of cards fall after we leave
Aye, they'll fall apart just like they did before we joined. :silly:
-
Whilst this may not be our ultimate future where would the harm be in forming relationships like this whilst we foment trading agreements with the rump EU/USA/Asia pacific, ect.
Now that we have left the EU our future policy is obviously going to different to what we had when an EU member, i would say these relationships will be developed alongside the interim arrangements we have already made with 50plus other nations.
It wont be the same but it will be where our future lies, we need to make a success of it.
Many influential and educated people need to except this rational, stop fighting yesterdays battles and put their efforts into making a success of our future.
-
DD.
In my own case, my company is working bloody hard to make a success of our future every single day. Just like it has been doing for 20 years. And I absolutely agree that all of us need to do whatever we can to make the future as successful as possible.
But there is a flip side to that. Those who voted for the situation we are now in, equally have a responsibility to reflect on that, and ask themselves whether they fully understood that they were voting to make Britain significantly poorer than it otherwise would have been.
Because if you don't reflect on what you have done, and take responsibility for it, you are likely to not learn and develop.
Instead, we still have Leave supporters insisting that we don't know what the economic outcome will be. Given the mass of detailed economic research, all pointing in the same direction towards a very big hit on our economic performance, that attitude is wilfull ignorance and washing hands of responsibility.
-
DD.
In my own case, my company is working bloody hard to make a success of our future every single day. Just like it has been doing for 20 years. And I absolutely agree that all of us need to do whatever we can to make the future as successful as possible.
But there is a flip side to that. Those who voted for the situation we are now in, equally have a responsibility to reflect on that, and ask themselves whether they fully understood that they were voting to make Britain significantly poorer than it otherwise would have been.
Because if you don't reflect on what you have done, and take responsibility for it, you are likely to not learn and develop.
Instead, we still have Leave supporters insisting that we don't know what the economic outcome will be. Given the mass of detailed economic research, all pointing in the same direction towards a very big hit on our economic performance, that attitude is wilfull ignorance and washing hands of responsibility.
would you also agree that the remainers trying to get a second referendum didn’t help? There could have been a deal with may but instead of accepting that or trying to get a better deal than that the only outcome the majority of the remainers wanted was to overturn the vote rather than find a deal?
-
Id say regardless of if they understood or not (on both sides) the fact that the question put was binary would of created masses of confusion for many.
As regards reflecting upon said decision, id say a good number of people will in due course have a great deal of time for reflection as to the merits of what transpires.
I think we also have to temper our thoughts as to the validity of some of the longer term economic forecasting, were not talking about the opinion of experts but to the value of economic forecasting in a future that has yet to benefit from policy's that are designed to counter and develop on decisions that are yet to implemented.
-
DD.
In my own case, my company is working bloody hard to make a success of our future every single day. Just like it has been doing for 20 years. And I absolutely agree that all of us need to do whatever we can to make the future as successful as possible.
But there is a flip side to that. Those who voted for the situation we are now in, equally have a responsibility to reflect on that, and ask themselves whether they fully understood that they were voting to make Britain significantly poorer than it otherwise would have been.
Because if you don't reflect on what you have done, and take responsibility for it, you are likely to not learn and develop.
Instead, we still have Leave supporters insisting that we don't know what the economic outcome will be. Given the mass of detailed economic research, all pointing in the same direction towards a very big hit on our economic performance, that attitude is wilfull ignorance and washing hands of responsibility.
would you also agree that the remainers trying to get a second referendum didn’t help? There could have been a deal with may but instead of accepting that or trying to get a better deal than that the only outcome the majority of the remainers wanted was to overturn the vote rather than find a deal?
I believe a great many of the people that agitated at the time of May's deal would now snatch her hand off if given the chance again. It certainly didn't help the situation.
-
As I've pointed out times many, May's deal would have passed comfortably if the right wing if the Tory party had voted for it in Parliament.
Suggesting the other parties have a responsibility for it not passing just defies logical realities. May refused to engage other parties in any interpretation of what the Brexit vote meant. She chose to interpret it as meaning that we had to leave both the Single Market and the Customs Union, even though those things were never debated during the Referendum campaign.
Expecting Labour, the SNP or the Lads to support such an arrangement is fanciful. They couldn't do so as a matter of principle and they couldn't do so because their supporters would have been outraged.
There was only one way that we could have come together as a country after the Brexit vote. That would have been having a cross-party approach to defining what Brexit meant, and implementing a Norway-type deal. That was no-one's first choice, but several polls in 2017-18 said that an overwhelming majority of the population would accept it as a compromise.
May rejected that, and from that moment on, we had the option of accepting a deal that never had majority support, or resolving the matter through a second referendum on a better-defined question.
We chose the first. That's where we are.
-
Whilst this may not be our ultimate future where would the harm be in forming relationships like this whilst we foment trading agreements with the rump EU/USA/Asia pacific, ect.
Now that we have left the EU our future policy is obviously going to different to what we had when an EU member, i would say these relationships will be developed alongside the interim arrangements we have already made with 50plus other nations.
It wont be the same but it will be where our future lies, we need to make a success of it.
Many influential and educated people need to except this rational, stop fighting yesterdays battles and put their efforts into making a success of our future.
Certainly the UK will have to forge new relationships beyond Europe - but if you think they will make up for losing preferential access to a market of 400 million people 20 miles away and worth £300 billion I would be very interested to know how?
We have already seen from two of the main Brexiteer industrialsts, Dyson and Ratcliffe, that they do not regard the UK outside the EU as being a good base for manufacturing. So what can we offer the rest of the world that they can't get cheaper closer to home?
Brexit itself was a project devised by financiers and hedge fund managers to turn the country into a deregulated tax haven. Aided and abbetted by American and Russian billionaires who wished to break-up the EU to further their own businesses - and use our new status as a tax-haven for money laundering.
It's up to the people who devised, led and supported Brexit to come up with concrete proposals as to the future direction of the country - as they knew what they were voting for. But all we have had so far are unicorns and slogans.
-
If i remember rightly, when it got to the situation where Bercow had taken over parliament and was allowing certain factions in the commons to take over proceedings it got to the stage where May's hands were tired and she had to include the wider house in discussions about a compromise and a wider deal that the whole house could agree on. It go to to the stage where a well organised cabal of opposition MP's could of taken control and the agenda to proceed
The fact that certain elements in the Labour party decided to hijack it and demand that Corbyn had to be the de facto leader meant that the Libdems could nor agree to accept this, resulting in the whole plan collapsing. what followed was parliament deciding it could not agree to anything tabled representing some some sort of a compromise. This whole charade resulting in the general election won by Johnson.
What we now have is a situation created by the weasel words of vested interests in opposition parties.
Politicians don't you just luv em.
-
I’m looking forward to Trawler Wars. Getting bored of watching repeats of Deadliest Catch
-
I’m looking forward to Trawler Wars. Getting bored of watching repeats of Deadliest Catch
Just as long as we don't get dragged to the level of the frogs, throwing bottles of piss and buckets of fish guts. Can't imagine why they hate us so much !
-
Joking aside, about half of the UK’s catch quota is sold off to foreign boats already. It’s all well and good fighting for control of our waters, but we give up half of what we could catch already?
Unless of course there is to be a boom in the uk fishing industry again, but this would be reliant on the Europeans buying our stock from us, with tariffs imposed.
Other than the local chip shop fare or maybe tinned salmon and tuna, we are not big fish eaters are we?
-
We ate in our family
-
If i remember rightly, when it got to the situation where Bercow had taken over parliament and was allowing certain factions in the commons to take over proceedings it got to the stage where May's hands were tired and she had to include the wider house in discussions about a compromise and a wider deal that the whole house could agree on. It go to to the stage where a well organised cabal of opposition MP's could of taken control and the agenda to proceed
The fact that certain elements in the Labour party decided to hijack it and demand that Corbyn had to be the de facto leader meant that the Libdems could nor agree to accept this, resulting in the whole plan collapsing. what followed was parliament deciding it could not agree to anything tabled representing some some sort of a compromise. This whole charade resulting in the general election won by Johnson.
What we now have is a situation created by the weasel words of vested interests in opposition parties.
Politicians don't you just luv em.
This is a highly partial version of events and, if i may say so without being accused of being condescending, a bit of a mixed up one. You are confusing what happened in early 2019 under May, and what happened in late 2019, under Johnson.
Here's a broader take on what happened.
As I said, the key division occurred with the Lancaster House announcement by May in January 2017. Once she had decided to interpret the 2016 vote as meaning that we had to go for a much harder Brexit than had EVER been proposed by the Leave side in 2016 [1], she had effectively destroyed any chance of a unified approach to Brexit, carrying cross-party support (and remember, the leader of the Labour party had spent his life wanting us out of the EU and would have jumped at the chance of a Brexit that he could sell to his party). She made that decision to cement her own position in an increasingly right wing Tory party.
And she forgot the first law of the jungle. if you feed the tiger, it'll only keep coming back, and when it comes back and finds you without food...
So, she'd given the whip hand to the 100 or so most hardline Brexiters in the Tory party. And when she negotiated a Withdrawal Deal that was far more extreme than anything anyone had discussed in 2016, they said it wasn't hard enough and they voted her down.
That is all established fact, but you have skipped over it and gone straight to September/October 2019. By this time (with May long gone by the way) we were looking at crashing out of the EU without even having a Withdrawal Agreement. That was an appalling situation, which by a long, long way, a majority of the country and a majority of MPs did not want to happen. But Johnson raised the ante by effectively stopping MPs from being able to enact the actual will of the people, when he illegally prorogued Parliament sending Rees-Mogg to lie to the Queen about the reasons). Given that disgraceful abuse of process, MPs took over control of the order book in October 2019 to make damn sure that Johnson wasn't going to crash us out then without a Withdrawal Agreement.
Ignoring all of that and saying that Bercow and a faction took over is like saying America dropped an atom bomb on Japan in 1945, without discussing Pearl Harbour and the subsequent 3.5 years.
[1] The Leave side called suggestions that Brexit would mean leaving the Single Market "Project Fear". A senior Tory Leave supporter in 2016 said only a madman would suggest leaving the Market. Farage repeatedly said sarcastically, "wouldn't it awful if we ended up like Norway?" Norway is in the Single Market. After the Lancaster House speech, Govt policy was to leave the Single Market. Brexit supporters frequently said after that that any hint that we would stay in the Single Market was a betrayal of the Will of the People. How they knew what the Will of the People was, when the people had never been asked that question is anyone's guess.
-
Joking aside, about half of the UK’s catch quota is sold off to foreign boats already. It’s all well and good fighting for control of our waters, but we give up half of what we could catch already?
Unless of course there is to be a boom in the uk fishing industry again, but this would be reliant on the Europeans buying our stock from us, with tariffs imposed.
Other than the local chip shop fare or maybe tinned salmon and tuna, we are not big fish eaters are we?
The whole fishing issue is about appearance. Fishing, which accounts for 0.1% of our GDP, has been set up as the great example of how we can take control of our own things.
In the real world, as you say, we haven't got the capacity to catch the fish that the EU trawlers currently take. And if we ban them from British waters, the EU will impose tariffs which will make our exports to the EU (which is where most of our British catch goes) uneconomic.
So everyone knows that f**k all is going to change on the issue of fishing. But the Govt has to be seen to be fighting because it is symbolic of what "taking back control" means.
It's like living in some bizarre parody world.
-
Also, didn't Ken Clarke's customs union indicative vote nearly get through if it wasn't for the ERG? Lost by 3 votes or something.
-
If i remember rightly, when it got to the situation where Bercow had taken over parliament and was allowing certain factions in the commons to take over proceedings it got to the stage where May's hands were tired and she had to include the wider house in discussions about a compromise and a wider deal that the whole house could agree on. It go to to the stage where a well organised cabal of opposition MP's could of taken control and the agenda to proceed
The fact that certain elements in the Labour party decided to hijack it and demand that Corbyn had to be the de facto leader meant that the Libdems could nor agree to accept this, resulting in the whole plan collapsing. what followed was parliament deciding it could not agree to anything tabled representing some some sort of a compromise. This whole charade resulting in the general election won by Johnson.
What we now have is a situation created by the weasel words of vested interests in opposition parties.
Politicians don't you just luv em.
This is a highly partial version of events and, if i may say so without being accused of being condescending, a bit of a mixed up one. You are confusing what happened in early 2019 under May, and what happened in late 2019, under Johnson.
Here's a broader take on what happened.
As I said, the key division occurred with the Lancaster House announcement by May in January 2017. Once she had decided to interpret the 2016 vote as meaning that we had to go for a much harder Brexit than had EVER been proposed by the Leave side in 2016 [1], she had effectively destroyed any chance of a unified approach to Brexit, carrying cross-party support (and remember, the leader of the Labour party had spent his life wanting us out of the EU and would have jumped at the chance of a Brexit that he could sell to his party). She made that decision to cement her own position in an increasingly right wing Tory party.
And she forgot the first law of the jungle. if you feed the tiger, it'll only keep coming back, and when it comes back and finds you without food...
So, she'd given the whip hand to the 100 or so most hardline Brexiters in the Tory party. And when she negotiated a Withdrawal Deal that was far more extreme than anything anyone had discussed in 2016, they said it wasn't hard enough and they voted her down.
That is all established fact, but you have skipped over it and gone straight to September/October 2019. By this time (with May long gone by the way) we were looking at crashing out of the EU without even having a Withdrawal Agreement. That was an appalling situation, which by a long, long way, a majority of the country and a majority of MPs did not want to happen. But Johnson raised the ante by effectively stopping MPs from being able to enact the actual will of the people, when he illegally prorogued Parliament sending Rees-Mogg to lie to the Queen about the reasons). Given that disgraceful abuse of process, MPs took over control of the order book in October 2019 to make damn sure that Johnson wasn't going to crash us out then without a Withdrawal Agreement.
Ignoring all of that and saying that Bercow and a faction took over is like saying America dropped an atom bomb on Japan in 1945, without discussing Pearl Harbour and the subsequent 3.5 years.
[1] The Leave side called suggestions that Brexit would mean leaving the Single Market "Project Fear". A senior Tory Leave supporter in 2016 said only a madman would suggest leaving the Market. Farage repeatedly said sarcastically, "wouldn't it awful if we ended up like Norway?" Norway is in the Single Market. After the Lancaster House speech, Govt policy was to leave the Single Market. Brexit supporters frequently said after that that any hint that we would stay in the Single Market was a betrayal of the Will of the People. How they knew what the Will of the People was, when the people had never been asked that question is anyone's guess.
BST, You can post you version of events as you see them and you don't have to fret about coming across as condescending, it is an opinions board.
If my highly partial version of events come's across as a mixed one I'll give you the abridged version.
The forces against this whole scenario had their golden opportunity to do something about it, they flunked it.
-
Joking aside, about half of the UK’s catch quota is sold off to foreign boats already. It’s all well and good fighting for control of our waters, but we give up half of what we could catch already?
Unless of course there is to be a boom in the uk fishing industry again, but this would be reliant on the Europeans buying our stock from us, with tariffs imposed.
Other than the local chip shop fare or maybe tinned salmon and tuna, we are not big fish eaters are we?
Why would they do that when they can buy from their own fishermen, tariff free, and thus boosting the EU fleet profitability? Who do the UK fishing industry really foresee selling their catch to?
-
Joking aside, about half of the UK’s catch quota is sold off to foreign boats already. It’s all well and good fighting for control of our waters, but we give up half of what we could catch already?
Unless of course there is to be a boom in the uk fishing industry again, but this would be reliant on the Europeans buying our stock from us, with tariffs imposed.
Other than the local chip shop fare or maybe tinned salmon and tuna, we are not big fish eaters are we?
The whole fishing issue is about appearance. Fishing, which accounts for 0.1% of our GDP, has been set up as the great example of how we can take control of our own things.
In the real world, as you say, we haven't got the capacity to catch the fish that the EU trawlers currently take. And if we ban them from British waters, the EU will impose tariffs which will make our exports to the EU (which is where most of our British catch goes) uneconomic.
So everyone knows that f**k all is going to change on the issue of fishing. But the Govt has to be seen to be fighting because it is symbolic of what "taking back control" means.
It's like living in some bizarre parody world.
Billy, imagine the scenario, me and you live next door to each other in our little pit village. Now you're the active type and keep a nice plot and even plant spuds in it, i'm a lazy bugger and just sit in my yard and watch the dog doing its business.
Its got to the stage where your lot luv the spuds that much that you decide to use my unused plot to plant some more spuds reckoning that i wont mind, well i don't but i tell you what, i want something back for my consent.
Is that too much to ask?
When it gets to the stage where you're desperate for even more I'm going to have to do something about it and get things on a legal footing.
is that too much to ask? lets call it asserting ones authority, i know you would.
-
DD
Nice story. No idea whatsoever what it has to do with the economics of fishing but I'm sure it made some sense to you.
-
Joking aside, about half of the UK’s catch quota is sold off to foreign boats already. It’s all well and good fighting for control of our waters, but we give up half of what we could catch already?
Unless of course there is to be a boom in the uk fishing industry again, but this would be reliant on the Europeans buying our stock from us, with tariffs imposed.
Other than the local chip shop fare or maybe tinned salmon and tuna, we are not big fish eaters are we?
Why would they do that when they can buy from their own fishermen, tariff free, and thus boosting the EU fleet profitability? Who do the UK fishing industry really foresee selling their catch to?
Uk fishing waters are very lucrative. You need to examine the geography of the waters they currently have access to compared to what they have left once they are not allowed to fish our waters .they can pretty much forget most of the North Sea, everything away of the Severn estuary and all of the Atlantic west of the uk. French and dutch will have to sail some distance to get to waters which would be any where as near as profitable. That’s costs money.
To the west of the uk our waters would stretch 200 miles into the Atlantic, all of which the french or Spanish would not be able to go anywhere near.
On the subject of shellfish, I live near Boston in Lincs where all of the shellfish caught in the wash gets put straight on a lorry in tonne bags and goes straight to Spain.
-
NR.
But it is irrelevant how much fish you catch, if you don't have a market to sell it to.
Plus, even if our fishing industry doubled in size and still was able to sell to the EU, it would only make up 1% of what we expect to lose if we leave with No Deal.
-
NR.
But it is irrelevant how much fish you catch, if you don't have a market to sell it to.
Plus, even if our fishing industry doubled in size and still was able to sell to the EU, it would only make up 1% of what we expect to lose if we leave with No Deal.
Totally agree. We are on the same song sheet. My op eluded to this re quotas.
And I believe your point about this being all posturing and principle is correct.
All a bit bizarre.
I wonder if the meal Boris and Ursula are enjoying tonight is a nice lump of North Sea Cod ?
-
Joking aside, about half of the UK’s catch quota is sold off to foreign boats already. It’s all well and good fighting for control of our waters, but we give up half of what we could catch already?
Unless of course there is to be a boom in the uk fishing industry again, but this would be reliant on the Europeans buying our stock from us, with tariffs imposed.
Other than the local chip shop fare or maybe tinned salmon and tuna, we are not big fish eaters are we?
Why would they do that when they can buy from their own fishermen, tariff free, and thus boosting the EU fleet profitability? Who do the UK fishing industry really foresee selling their catch to?
Uk fishing waters are very lucrative. You need to examine the geography of the waters they currently have access to compared to what they have left once they are not allowed to fish our waters .they can pretty much forget most of the North Sea, everything away of the Severn estuary and all of the Atlantic west of the uk. French and dutch will have to sail some distance to get to waters which would be any where as near as profitable. That’s costs money.
To the west of the uk our waters would stretch 200 miles into the Atlantic, all of which the french or Spanish would not be able to go anywhere near.
On the subject of shellfish, I live near Boston in Lincs where all of the shellfish caught in the wash gets put straight on a lorry in tonne bags and goes straight to Spain.
They might be lucrative now but not when they get tariffs and countervailing duties slapped on them when attempting to sell them to the EU, which is basically what I said in the first place. And EU countries not being able to fish in our waters doesn't change that one bit.
Whereabouts are you? I did two years at Boston College back in the day.
-
Fishtoft , about 3 miles out of town. I’m very familiar with the a17 and a1 for trips to the KM. although that seems a while ago.
From donny originally. Dad still lives there.
-
I don't know the south side of Boston very well, I commuted to college from the north side from Mablethorpe.
-
Joking aside, about half of the UK’s catch quota is sold off to foreign boats already. It’s all well and good fighting for control of our waters, but we give up half of what we could catch already?
Unless of course there is to be a boom in the uk fishing industry again, but this would be reliant on the Europeans buying our stock from us, with tariffs imposed.
Other than the local chip shop fare or maybe tinned salmon and tuna, we are not big fish eaters are we?
Why would they do that when they can buy from their own fishermen, tariff free, and thus boosting the EU fleet profitability? Who do the UK fishing industry really foresee selling their catch to?
Uk fishing waters are very lucrative. You need to examine the geography of the waters they currently have access to compared to what they have left once they are not allowed to fish our waters .they can pretty much forget most of the North Sea, everything away of the Severn estuary and all of the Atlantic west of the uk. French and dutch will have to sail some distance to get to waters which would be any where as near as profitable. That’s costs money.
To the west of the uk our waters would stretch 200 miles into the Atlantic, all of which the french or Spanish would not be able to go anywhere near.
On the subject of shellfish, I live near Boston in Lincs where all of the shellfish caught in the wash gets put straight on a lorry in tonne bags and goes straight to Spain.
They might be lucrative now but not when they get tariffs and countervailing duties slapped on them when attempting to sell them to the EU, which is basically what I said in the first place. And EU countries not being able to fish in our waters doesn't change that one bit.
Whereabouts are you? I did two years at Boston College back in the day.
Unless we all of a sudden become a nation of fish eaters. Which I can’t see anytime soon.
Mind you, with the expected price hike of foreign cheeses, it could be a viable alternative
-
That’s a fair commute from Mabo just for college.
Mablethorpe? Who did you upset?
-
That’s a fair commute from Mabo just for college.
Mablethorpe? Who did you upset?
I was the furthest north daily commuting student at Boston - I had to bike a mile to catch the bus because it didn't go as far north as me! Then an hour and three-quarters bus ride each way...
-
NR.
But it is irrelevant how much fish you catch, if you don't have a market to sell it to.
Plus, even if our fishing industry doubled in size and still was able to sell to the EU, it would only make up 1% of what we expect to lose if we leave with No Deal.
Totally agree. We are on the same song sheet. My op eluded to this re quotas.
And I believe your point about this being all posturing and principle is correct.
All a bit bizarre.
I wonder if the meal Boris and Ursula are enjoying tonight is a nice lump of North Sea Cod ?
Close. Scallops for starters then halibut as main.
-
NR.
But it is irrelevant how much fish you catch, if you don't have a market to sell it to.
Plus, even if our fishing industry doubled in size and still was able to sell to the EU, it would only make up 1% of what we expect to lose if we leave with No Deal.
Totally agree. We are on the same song sheet. My op eluded to this re quotas.
And I believe your point about this being all posturing and principle is correct.
All a bit bizarre.
I wonder if the meal Boris and Ursula are enjoying tonight is a nice lump of North Sea Cod ?
Close. Scallops for starters then halibut as main.
And then back to his plaice.
-
Joking aside, about half of the UK’s catch quota is sold off to foreign boats already. It’s all well and good fighting for control of our waters, but we give up half of what we could catch already?
Unless of course there is to be a boom in the uk fishing industry again, but this would be reliant on the Europeans buying our stock from us, with tariffs imposed.
Other than the local chip shop fare or maybe tinned salmon and tuna, we are not big fish eaters are we?
Why would they do that when they can buy from their own fishermen, tariff free, and thus boosting the EU fleet profitability? Who do the UK fishing industry really foresee selling their catch to?
Interesting that.
I heard a news article this evening which said that we need to eat less meat over the coming years as we try to reduce our carbon footprint.
Maybe we are the ones who will eat all the fish we catch.
-
Joking aside, about half of the UK’s catch quota is sold off to foreign boats already. It’s all well and good fighting for control of our waters, but we give up half of what we could catch already?
Unless of course there is to be a boom in the uk fishing industry again, but this would be reliant on the Europeans buying our stock from us, with tariffs imposed.
Other than the local chip shop fare or maybe tinned salmon and tuna, we are not big fish eaters are we?
Why would they do that when they can buy from their own fishermen, tariff free, and thus boosting the EU fleet profitability? Who do the UK fishing industry really foresee selling their catch to?
Interesting that.
I heard a news article this evening which said that we need to eat less meat over the coming years as we try to reduce our carbon footprint.
Maybe we are the ones who will eat all the fish we catch.
Especially with no food on the shelves.
-
NR.
But it is irrelevant how much fish you catch, if you don't have a market to sell it to.
Plus, even if our fishing industry doubled in size and still was able to sell to the EU, it would only make up 1% of what we expect to lose if we leave with No Deal.
Totally agree. We are on the same song sheet. My op eluded to this re quotas.
And I believe your point about this being all posturing and principle is correct.
All a bit bizarre.
I wonder if the meal Boris and Ursula are enjoying tonight is a nice lump of North Sea Cod ?
Close. Scallops for starters then halibut as main.
And then back to his plaice.
I joked with my Mrs that he went in person for one last jump
-
It’ll all come out in the wash.......