Life After Brexit

[Manoverboard]

That's the way to go or perhaps a pot of white only crab meat with one's salad, lubbley jubbley ...

[Kendhni]

Dont forget the issue of fishing in UK waters. A lot of fishermen voted for brexit in order to get the EU super trawlers out of our waters. They are going to be pretty disillusioned if we roll over and give them what they have now. Sorry I have not been on line for a while, I have hypothyroidism and a pititary maco denoma to worry about. So brexit is the least of my concerns now.

You will be pleased to hear there is some movement on fishing
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... 66329?il=0

I think the UK should show flexiblity on fishing (it is only worth between 0.1-0.7% of gdp) and bank a bit of goodwill for much more important areas such as agriculture and manufacturing. The proposed solution is unlikely to remove large trawlers like Cornelis Vrolijk (that controls 23%) of the UK quota for fish, but they may have to change how they operate (e.g. employ more brits on their crews, land a certain amount in the UK etc.). The big downside at the minute is that the rights to fish could very well end up in the hands of a number of large corporations rather than fishermen.

Onelife posted this article which I thought was a very interesting read in relation to fishing
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/0 ... fleetwood/

[oldbluefox]

Why don't we reciprocate and save all the best fish for ourselves and send them all the crap rubbish we don't want much as they seem to do with their fruit. I am always aghast at the wonderful fruit selection and the quality of the fruit whenever I visit a market on the other side of the channel compared with the stunted offerings we get.

[Kendhni]

Why don't we reciprocate and save all the best fish for ourselves and send them all the crap rubbish we don't want much as they seem to do with their fruit. I am always aghast at the wonderful fruit selection and the quality of the fruit whenever I visit a market on the other side of the channel compared with the stunted offerings we get.

We already do. We only consume a small proportion of the fish we catch and export the rest, which is why we have to import up to 80% of fish we actually want.

Agree with you about the fruit ... Tesco calls them melons, I call them grapes

[barney]

The Reuters headline is a bit deceptive.
The U.K. side has always agreed to discuss fishing rights from the beginning.
It has been the Eu side that have decided that it’s the status quo or no trade deal.
Macron told his fishermen that either nothing would change or there would be no deal on anything.
It’s now down to face saving on both sides.
Compromise is the way forward.

[oldbluefox]

I think the UK should show flexiblity on fishing (it is only worth between 0.1-0.7% of gdp) and bank a bit of goodwill for much more important areas such as agriculture and manufacturing. The proposed solution is unlikely to remove large trawlers like Cornelis Vrolijk (that controls 23%) of the UK quota for fish, but they may have to change how they operate (e.g. employ more brits on their crews, land a certain amount in the UK etc.). The big downside at the minute is that the rights to fish could very well end up in the hands of a number of large corporations rather than fishermen.

I think a compromise such as the one you describe may be a way forward, certainly in the short term although whether it would go any way towards banking goodwill when dealing with the EU is debatable. I feel they are determined as much as possible to hold firm otherwise they could find other countries also leaving their clutches.

[Kendhni]

I think the UK should show flexiblity on fishing (it is only worth between 0.1-0.7% of gdp) and bank a bit of goodwill for much more important areas such as agriculture and manufacturing. The proposed solution is unlikely to remove large trawlers like Cornelis Vrolijk (that controls 23%) of the UK quota for fish, but they may have to change how they operate (e.g. employ more brits on their crews, land a certain amount in the UK etc.). The big downside at the minute is that the rights to fish could very well end up in the hands of a number of large corporations rather than fishermen.

I think a compromise such as the one you describe may be a way forward, certainly in the short term although whether it would go any way towards banking goodwill when dealing with the EU is debatable. I feel they are determined as much as possible to hold firm otherwise they could find other countries also leaving their clutches.

That is part of the problem, the EU can't be seen to be soft and must look after the interests of their members, there is no way that the UK can be offered as good a deal as it had, or even better than other similar countries - that just pushes the headaches further down the line. But we are at a very important part of the negotiations when focus and short term memories are at their strongest - time to look at things holistically instead of compartmentalised.

[barney]

I think the UK should show flexiblity on fishing (it is only worth between 0.1-0.7% of gdp) and bank a bit of goodwill for much more important areas such as agriculture and manufacturing. The proposed solution is unlikely to remove large trawlers like Cornelis Vrolijk (that controls 23%) of the UK quota for fish, but they may have to change how they operate (e.g. employ more brits on their crews, land a certain amount in the UK etc.). The big downside at the minute is that the rights to fish could very well end up in the hands of a number of large corporations rather than fishermen.

I think a compromise such as the one you describe may be a way forward, certainly in the short term although whether it would go any way towards banking goodwill when dealing with the EU is debatable. I feel they are determined as much as possible to hold firm otherwise they could find other countries also leaving their clutches.

Then it will be to the detriment of their member states.
A £80 billion trade deficit for a start.
I’ve been in business for half of my working life and believe me, it’s a lot harder to find customers than suppliers.
Check out Spanish food exports to the U.K..
They supply nothing that we cannot buy elsewhere but currently, it’s convenient to buy from them. If it becomes too complicated, the wholesalers will just resource from somewhere else.

[Kendhni]

I think the UK should show flexiblity on fishing (it is only worth between 0.1-0.7% of gdp) and bank a bit of goodwill for much more important areas such as agriculture and manufacturing. The proposed solution is unlikely to remove large trawlers like Cornelis Vrolijk (that controls 23%) of the UK quota for fish, but they may have to change how they operate (e.g. employ more brits on their crews, land a certain amount in the UK etc.). The big downside at the minute is that the rights to fish could very well end up in the hands of a number of large corporations rather than fishermen.

I think a compromise such as the one you describe may be a way forward, certainly in the short term although whether it would go any way towards banking goodwill when dealing with the EU is debatable. I feel they are determined as much as possible to hold firm otherwise they could find other countries also leaving their clutches.

Then it will be to the detriment of their member states.
A £80 billion trade deficit for a start.
I’ve been in business for half of my working life and believe me, it’s a lot harder to find customers than suppliers.
Check out Spanish food exports to the U.K..
They supply nothing that we cannot buy elsewhere but currently, it’s convenient to buy from them. If it becomes too complicated, the wholesalers will just resource from somewhere else.

see post #267

[barney]

I checked and it was just as boring as first time round.

[Onelife]

Dont forget the issue of fishing in UK waters. A lot of fishermen voted for brexit in order to get the EU super trawlers out of our waters. They are going to be pretty disillusioned if we roll over and give them what they have now. Sorry I have not been on line for a while, I have hypothyroidism and a pititary maco denoma to worry about. So brexit is the least of my concerns now.

You will be pleased to hear there is some movement on fishing
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... 66329?il=0

I think the UK should show flexiblity on fishing (it is only worth between 0.1-0.7% of gdp) and bank a bit of goodwill for much more important areas such as agriculture and manufacturing. The proposed solution is unlikely to remove large trawlers like Cornelis Vrolijk (that controls 23%) of the UK quota for fish, but they may have to change how they operate (e.g. employ more brits on their crews, land a certain amount in the UK etc.). The big downside at the minute is that the rights to fish could very well end up in the hands of a number of large corporations rather than fishermen.

Onelife posted this article which I thought was a very interesting read in relation to fishing
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/0 ... fleetwood/

[Onelife]

Dont forget the issue of fishing in UK waters. A lot of fishermen voted for brexit in order to get the EU super trawlers out of our waters. They are going to be pretty disillusioned if we roll over and give them what they have now. Sorry I have not been on line for a while, I have hypothyroidism and a pititary maco denoma to worry about. So brexit is the least of my concerns now.

You will be pleased to hear there is some movement on fishing
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... 66329?il=0

I think the UK should show flexiblity on fishing (it is only worth between 0.1-0.7% of gdp) and bank a bit of goodwill for much more important areas such as agriculture and manufacturing. The proposed solution is unlikely to remove large trawlers like Cornelis Vrolijk (that controls 23%) of the UK quota for fish, but they may have to change how they operate (e.g. employ more brits on their crews, land a certain amount in the UK etc.). The big downside at the minute is that the rights to fish could very well end up in the hands of a number of large corporations rather than fishermen.

Onelife posted this article which I thought was a very interesting read in relation to fishing
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/0 ... fleetwood/

Hi Ken,

I’ve just re-read the whole article which really does show where things started going wrong… a combination of Government mismanagement and the transfer of licences which were then sold on to the biggest bidder seems to be the main reason we have lost control our fishing rights.
….
“Greenpeace UK, which has campaigned for years for quota reform) argues that the need to write new fisheries law in the UK can be the opportunity to reassert the fact that fisheries are a public resource, and to give ministers the power and the duty to distribute quota in a way that secures the greatest social, environmental and economic benefits.
“In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised,” New Economics Foundation researcher Griffin Carpenter told MPs tasked with scrutinising the fisheries bill. “Every year, quota is allocated to the same holders, and there is a legitimate expectation that that continues in future.
“The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other organisations are too scared to break that hold on the quota and say, ‘This year we will allocate quota differently.’ It has not been done; it is basically privatised now the claim is so strong.
…
I think the above just about sums up where we are now but I'm not so sure using our fishing rights (what’s left of them) as a bargaining tool is something, we should be doing…. Let’s not give away something that we can take back control of… or at the very least come to an agreement where the Uk gets the deciding say on how our fishing quotas are dished out.

[Kendhni]

Hi Ken,

I’ve just re-read the whole article which really does show where things started going wrong… a combination of Government mismanagement and the transfer of licences which were then sold on to the biggest bidder seems to be the main reason we have lost control our fishing rights.

Yes, it was a very interesting article. The UK chose to make fishing a commodity. But did you notice it says that the major collapse of the fishing industry actually began long before the CFP.

“Greenpeace UK, which has campaigned for years for quota reform) argues that the need to write new fisheries law in the UK can be the opportunity to reassert the fact that fisheries are a public resource, and to give ministers the power and the duty to distribute quota in a way that secures the greatest social, environmental and economic benefits.

I read that and thought it was a bit strange because each country has always be in change of the distribution of its national quota. When the fisheries issue suddenly was forced into the limelight I looked back through the tiny percentage (2%) of EU directives that the UK voted against. In among the improvements to animal welfare and better labelling of food etc. there were 2 relating to better managing fish stocks ... amazingly the UK voted against these. Our MEP, Farage, has a lot to answer for with the total disrespect he showed the fishermen.

“In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised,” New Economics Foundation researcher Griffin Carpenter told MPs tasked with scrutinising the fisheries bill. “Every year, quota is allocated to the same holders, and there is a legitimate expectation that that continues in future.
“The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other organisations are too scared to break that hold on the quota and say, ‘This year we will allocate quota differently.’ It has not been done; it is basically privatised now the claim is so strong.

This was exactly my point in my original post. The UK has chosen to place its quota in the hands of large corporations (both UK and foreign) - and it could be very difficult to wrestle it back from them (not without very high costs).

I think the above just about sums up where we are now but I'm not so sure using our fishing rights (what’s left of them) as a bargaining tool is something, we should be doing…. Let’s not give away something that we can take back control of… or at the very least come to an agreement where the Uk gets the deciding say on how our fishing quotas are dished out.

Assuming you are talking of the national quota then we have always been responsible for how it is dished out. The question is how much money and effort are you willing to spend on something that is worth a fraction of a percentage point of GDP (and that is unlikely to change, possibly even in the long term), when we could benefit much more by focussing on more significant industries and employers. That is not to say we should let the fishing industry die, we just need to keep its relevance in perspective ... the inshore fleet could easily grow and expand, but it may work out to be more profitable for the UK to continue licensing out quota to foreign vessels (albeit with the tweaks being talked about in the fisheries bill). It is likely that we will always need to export the majority of fish caught by UK fishermen and we will always need to import the majority of fish that we eat.

[towny44]

Assuming you are talking of the national quota then we have always been responsible for how it is dished out. The question is how much money and effort are you willing to spend on something that is worth a fraction of a percentage point of GDP (and that is unlikely to change, possibly even in the long term), when we could benefit much more by focussing on more significant industries and employers. That is not to say we should let the fishing industry die, we just need to keep its relevance in perspective ... the inshore fleet could easily grow and expand, but it may work out to be more profitable for the UK to continue licensing out quota to foreign vessels (albeit with the tweaks being talked about in the fisheries bill). It is likely that we will always need to export the majority of fish caught by UK fishermen and we will always need to import the majority of fish that we eat.

You raise an interesting talking point their Ken, but if you widen this to states rather than just Industries, then exactly the same comments could be made of N Ireland and possibly Scotland too. The UK spends far too much money on them than their size and economic importance justifies.....just saying?

[Onelife]

Hi Ken,

I’ve just re-read the whole article which really does show where things started going wrong… a combination of Government mismanagement and the transfer of licences which were then sold on to the biggest bidder seems to be the main reason we have lost control our fishing rights.

Yes, it was a very interesting article. The UK chose to make fishing a commodity. But did you notice it says that the major collapse of the fishing industry actually began long before the CFP.

“Greenpeace UK, which has campaigned for years for quota reform) argues that the need to write new fisheries law in the UK can be the opportunity to reassert the fact that fisheries are a public resource, and to give ministers the power and the duty to distribute quota in a way that secures the greatest social, environmental and economic benefits.

I read that and thought it was a bit strange because each country has always be in change of the distribution of its national quota. When the fisheries issue suddenly was forced into the limelight I looked back through the tiny percentage (2%) of EU directives that the UK voted against. In among the improvements to animal welfare and better labelling of food etc. there were 2 relating to better managing fish stocks ... amazingly the UK voted against these. Our MEP, Farage, has a lot to answer for with the total disrespect he showed the fishermen.

“In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised,” New Economics Foundation researcher Griffin Carpenter told MPs tasked with scrutinising the fisheries bill. “Every year, quota is allocated to the same holders, and there is a legitimate expectation that that continues in future.
“The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other organisations are too scared to break that hold on the quota and say, ‘This year we will allocate quota differently.’ It has not been done; it is basically privatised now the claim is so strong.

This was exactly my point in my original post. The UK has chosen to place its quota in the hands of large corporations (both UK and foreign) - and it could be very difficult to wrestle it back from them (not without very high costs).

I think the above just about sums up where we are now but I'm not so sure using our fishing rights (what’s left of them) as a bargaining tool is something, we should be doing…. Let’s not give away something that we can take back control of… or at the very least come to an agreement where the Uk gets the deciding say on how our fishing quotas are dished out.

Assuming you are talking of the national quota then we have always been responsible for how it is dished out. The question is how much money and effort are you willing to spend on something that is worth a fraction of a percentage point of GDP (and that is unlikely to change, possibly even in the long term), when we could benefit much more by focussing on more significant industries and employers. That is not to say we should let the fishing industry die, we just need to keep its relevance in perspective ... the inshore fleet could easily grow and expand, but it may work out to be more profitable for the UK to continue licensing out quota to foreign vessels (albeit with the tweaks being talked about in the fisheries bill). It is likely that we will always need to export the majority of fish caught by UK fishermen and we will always need to import the majority of fish that we eat.

Hi Ken,

While the percentage of GDP may seem insignificant our once prosperous fishing industries can become prosperous again if we restructure them properly…. Is it beyond us to catch, process and export fish caught in our waters?

Yes! Other industries may be more viable and worthy of investment but we need to look at the whole package as we go forward into a new era of an independent trading nation. You probably had a little chuckle at that one but for far too long we have allowed ourselves to be stripped of everything that was once British… owned, manufactured and exported…even our fishing licences are 50% owned by overseas cartels. I’m not suggesting we can just cast a line and pull everything back to how we want it to be but this is something we must work towards if Brexit is to be a success....and yes it will mean more pain less gain for the foreseeable future but break ups are never easy especially when the other partner/s don’t want you to leave a abusive relationship.

[Kendhni]

Assuming you are talking of the national quota then we have always been responsible for how it is dished out. The question is how much money and effort are you willing to spend on something that is worth a fraction of a percentage point of GDP (and that is unlikely to change, possibly even in the long term), when we could benefit much more by focussing on more significant industries and employers. That is not to say we should let the fishing industry die, we just need to keep its relevance in perspective ... the inshore fleet could easily grow and expand, but it may work out to be more profitable for the UK to continue licensing out quota to foreign vessels (albeit with the tweaks being talked about in the fisheries bill). It is likely that we will always need to export the majority of fish caught by UK fishermen and we will always need to import the majority of fish that we eat.

You raise an interesting talking point their Ken, but if you widen this to states rather than just Industries, then exactly the same comments could be made of N Ireland and possibly Scotland too. The UK spends far too much money on them than their size and economic importance justifies.....just saying?

A reasonable point, but then why not widen it to individual counties and cities as well - do you start offloading areas of England and Wales not pulling their weight? Should Greater London stop funding rest of England and Wales? Or (reductio ad absurdum) let's just do away with the welfare state altogether - earn or starve.

It is about keeping things in perspective. The bit I don't understand is why has this tiny little industry of fishing (employs about 24,000,
that contributes a tiny fraction to GDP) been chosen as the sledge hammer and blocking negotiations, while major industries like farming (employs nearly 0.5 million), manufacturing (employs over 2.5million), hospitality (employs over 3 million), financial services (employs over 1 million) etc. are not getting equivalent governmental time and consideration. This is social programming ... we are being told what to think and when to think it.

[towny44]

Assuming you are talking of the national quota then we have always been responsible for how it is dished out. The question is how much money and effort are you willing to spend on something that is worth a fraction of a percentage point of GDP (and that is unlikely to change, possibly even in the long term), when we could benefit much more by focussing on more significant industries and employers. That is not to say we should let the fishing industry die, we just need to keep its relevance in perspective ... the inshore fleet could easily grow and expand, but it may work out to be more profitable for the UK to continue licensing out quota to foreign vessels (albeit with the tweaks being talked about in the fisheries bill). It is likely that we will always need to export the majority of fish caught by UK fishermen and we will always need to import the majority of fish that we eat.

You raise an interesting talking point their Ken, but if you widen this to states rather than just Industries, then exactly the same comments could be made of N Ireland and possibly Scotland too. The UK spends far too much money on them than their size and economic importance justifies.....just saying?

A reasonable point, but then why not widen it to individual counties and cities as well - do you start offloading areas of England and Wales not pulling their weight? Should Greater London stop funding rest of England and Wales? Or (reductio ad absurdum) let's just do away with the welfare state altogether - earn or starve.

It is about keeping things in perspective. The bit I don't understand is why has this tiny little industry of fishing (employs about 24,000,
that contributes a tiny fraction to GDP) been chosen as the sledge hammer and blocking negotiations, while major industries like farming (employs nearly 0.5 million), manufacturing (employs over 2.5million), hospitality (employs over 3 million), financial services (employs over 1 million) etc. are not getting equivalent governmental time and consideration. This is social programming ... we are being told what to think and when to think it.

I did not say that the way the govt was using the fishing industry was sensible, I was simply pointing out the natural extension of what was your stated view. What concerns me more is whether the govt have dug too deep a hole for them to give any way on this policy without it being seen as a capitulation.

[Kendhni]

Hi Ken,

While the percentage of GDP may seem insignificant our once prosperous fishing industries can become prosperous again if we restructure them properly…. Is it beyond us to catch, process and export fish caught in our waters?
[/quote]
When I was 17/18 I spent one summer earning money on my uncles boat. it was very lucrative, despite fishermen often crying poverty. The technique was go out catch and land for cash, catch and land for cash, catch and land for invoice. I will add that I quickly learned I did not have the stomach for fishing - my uncle got sick of having to mop the contents of my stomach off his decks - it is not an easy life.

Anything can be made lucrative if it is structure properly. We would have to look back in time we would have to understand why it became more economical to decommission boats (at significant cost) and sell the quotas as a commodity. Do those economical drivers still exist? Can they be reversed, and how much subsidising will it cost?

Yes! Other industries may be more viable and worthy of investment but we need to look at the whole package as we go forward into a new era of an independent trading nation.

That appears to be what is happening so it is now even more important that we focus on core products that will maximise the revenue that drive UK PLC can produce - which may mean pushing nice-to-have and less lucrative products to the background for a while - despite what Johnson says you can never have your cake and eat it.

You probably had a little chuckle at that one but for far too long we have allowed ourselves to be stripped of everything that was once British… owned, manufactured and exported…even our fishing licences are 50% owned by overseas cartels. I’m not suggesting we can just cast a line and pull everything back to how we want it to be but this is something we must work towards if Brexit is to be a success....and yes it will mean more pain less gain for the foreseeable future

I agree, but that asset stripping was done by choice. The British government did have the powers to stop it, but it just so happened that foreign investors were willing to pay more. One thing I have been wondering is that much of our utility sector and infrastructure is owned by oversea countries - will they have the same incentive for investment post brexit? I guess that depends on just how much 'sovereignty' Johnson is willing to cede to them.

but break ups are never easy especially when the other partner/s don’t want you to leave a abusive relationship.

"Abusive relationship" - sorry mate, that is just brexiteer garbage trying to create an emotional argument totally devoid of logic. Our MEP's (apart from Farage and his chimps) were very highly thought of in the EU and highly effective at getting amendments and directives that were sympathetic to UK interests. That is why the UK had one of the highest vote rates in favour of such directives (some 95%), and only voted against 2% (and some of those votes against go beyond logic ... although maybe some of the votes 'for' also do that).

There was one of those stupid Facebook lists going around listing all sorts of stupidity about the future of the EU, it was an obvious fabrication but many people actually believed it (and kept it circulating). One of the big problems was that the EU did not sell itself within the UK, it left that to each national government to do, but the british MPs were too busy using the EU as a scape goat for their own incompetence and political goals. I wonder who they are going to blame come next year?

[Manoverboard]

Leaving the EU and seeking a trade deal is mainly a cold and calculating affair, each side doing their best for their own. Fishing is, perhaps, the raw emotion of what it represents. For the average Joe it can be difficult to comprehend the finer points of negotiation in most sectors but fishing conjures up an image of a feller from a small fishing Port in Cornwall who is fighting the odds, plus the French and Spanish of course, in an attempt to make a decent living. Recent TV programs of the region have re-enforced that image. So are we, as a nation, wanting to win a small victory rather than witness the cocky militant French fishermen getting one over us yet again. Not factual but it is, or could be, highly emotional and against that background we do not wish to be seen to lose the battle it represents.

ps ... standing by for a correction

[Kendhni]

You raise an interesting talking point their Ken, but if you widen this to states rather than just Industries, then exactly the same comments could be made of N Ireland and possibly Scotland too. The UK spends far too much money on them than their size and economic importance justifies.....just saying?

A reasonable point, but then why not widen it to individual counties and cities as well - do you start offloading areas of England and Wales not pulling their weight? Should Greater London stop funding rest of England and Wales? Or (reductio ad absurdum) let's just do away with the welfare state altogether - earn or starve.

It is about keeping things in perspective. The bit I don't understand is why has this tiny little industry of fishing (employs about 24,000,
that contributes a tiny fraction to GDP) been chosen as the sledge hammer and blocking negotiations, while major industries like farming (employs nearly 0.5 million), manufacturing (employs over 2.5million), hospitality (employs over 3 million), financial services (employs over 1 million) etc. are not getting equivalent governmental time and consideration. This is social programming ... we are being told what to think and when to think it.

I did not say that the way the govt was using the fishing industry was sensible, I was simply pointing out the natural extension of what was your stated view. What concerns me more is whether the govt have dug too deep a hole for them to give any way on this policy without it being seen as a capitulation.

And all I pointed out was the natural extension to your extension

I agree with you that the UK government have dug a hole for themselves. It is obvious that fishing is of importance to the EU but is of limited significance to the UK (no insult meant to any fishermen). Instead of Johnson becoming entrenched in this he should have used it as a whipping stick to get concessions elsewhere (on topics of much more importance to the UK). Our inshore fleet could still be greatly expanded while the deepwater fishing could be licensed - the fisheries bill does go somewhat in this direction.

The problem is our media loves a headline about a PM doing a u-turn or giving concessions without looking at what concessions were given in return - a prime example of this was when Cameron came back from the EU. He had actually wangled quite a few concessions, but the media focused on those that he failed on.

I have always said in negotiations that everyone can come out a winner if they use the items of low value to us but high value to the other party to gain concessions on those items of high value to us but low value to them. Sounds a bit Donald Rumsfeld like.

[Kendhni]

Leaving the EU and seeking a trade deal is mainly a cold and calculating affair, each side doing their best for their own. Fishing is, perhaps, the raw emotion of what it represents. For the average Joe it can be difficult to comprehend the finer points of negotiation in most sectors but fishing conjures up an image of a feller from a small fishing Port in Cornwall who is fighting the odds, plus the French and Spanish of course, in an attempt to make a decent living. Recent TV programs of the region have re-enforced that image. So are we, as a nation, wanting to win a small victory rather than witness the cocky militant French fishermen getting one over us yet again. Not factual but it is, or could be, highly emotional and against that background we do not wish to be seen to lose the battle it represents.

ps ... standing by for a correction

I would mostly agree. Using fishing is purely an emotional thing - there is no logic in this stance.

[Onelife]

You raise an interesting talking point their Ken, but if you widen this to states rather than just Industries, then exactly the same comments could be made of N Ireland and possibly Scotland too. The UK spends far too much money on them than their size and economic importance justifies.....just saying?

A reasonable point, but then why not widen it to individual counties and cities as well - do you start offloading areas of England and Wales not pulling their weight? Should Greater London stop funding rest of England and Wales? Or (reductio ad absurdum) let's just do away with the welfare state altogether - earn or starve.

It is about keeping things in perspective. The bit I don't understand is why has this tiny little industry of fishing (employs about 24,000,
that contributes a tiny fraction to GDP) been chosen as the sledge hammer and blocking negotiations, while major industries like farming (employs nearly 0.5 million), manufacturing (employs over 2.5million), hospitality (employs over 3 million), financial services (employs over 1 million) etc. are not getting equivalent governmental time and consideration. This is social programming ... we are being told what to think and when to think it.

I did not say that the way the govt was using the fishing industry was sensible, I was simply pointing out the natural extension of what was your stated view. What concerns me more is whether the govt have dug too deep a hole for them to give any way on this policy without it being seen as a capitulation.

Its because they have more hammers in their tool box than wot we have and if we allow them to take away the ones we do have we’ll be left with no clout to drive home any nails future deals

[barney]

Leaving the EU and seeking a trade deal is mainly a cold and calculating affair, each side doing their best for their own. Fishing is, perhaps, the raw emotion of what it represents. For the average Joe it can be difficult to comprehend the finer points of negotiation in most sectors but fishing conjures up an image of a feller from a small fishing Port in Cornwall who is fighting the odds, plus the French and Spanish of course, in an attempt to make a decent living. Recent TV programs of the region have re-enforced that image. So are we, as a nation, wanting to win a small victory rather than witness the cocky militant French fishermen getting one over us yet again. Not factual but it is, or could be, highly emotional and against that background we do not wish to be seen to lose the battle it represents.

ps ... standing by for a correction

I would mostly agree. Using fishing is purely an emotional thing - there is no logic in this stance.

My Sister in Law is a senior civil servant (and Remainer) and was seconded into DexEu when it was formed.
I assume what she tells me is fact, not Facebook tittle tattle.
She told me that when she worked on it, the UK government were always happy to discuss fishing rights for Eu boats.
It was the Eu side that point blank refused to even discuss it, saying that full access, as is at the moment, must continue or there would be agreement on nothing else.
It is the Eu that is intransigent on fishing, not the U.K..
We know that a deal can be done.
It’s about what we get in return.
Some call that a negotiation.

[Manoverboard]

Leaving the EU and seeking a trade deal is mainly a cold and calculating affair, each side doing their best for their own. Fishing is, perhaps, the raw emotion of what it represents. For the average Joe it can be difficult to comprehend the finer points of negotiation in most sectors but fishing conjures up an image of a feller from a small fishing Port in Cornwall who is fighting the odds, plus the French and Spanish of course, in an attempt to make a decent living. Recent TV programs of the region have re-enforced that image. So are we, as a nation, wanting to win a small victory rather than witness the cocky militant French fishermen getting one over us yet again. Not factual but it is, or could be, highly emotional and against that background we do not wish to be seen to lose the battle it represents.

ps ... standing by for a correction

I would mostly agree. Using fishing is purely an emotional thing - there is no logic in this stance.

It is emotion that drives the entire departure for the vast majority of Brits of course but surely the EU stand off is about demonstrating to the French fishermen that they tried but couldn't quite pull it off ... if that proves to be the case ?

[Kendhni]

Its because they have more hammers in their tool box than wot we have and if we allow them to take away the ones we do have we’ll be left with no clout to drive home any nails future deals

And they always will have more hammers than us, the UK needs to learn a little humility and figure out what it wants its USP to be. What will it bring to the table that will entice investment ... that may include english speaking, good education/universities, multi-cultural, motivated workforce, beneficial taxation, strategic location or whatever.