Jump to content

Wes Tender

Subscribed Users
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wes Tender

  1. 14 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

    Nah, don't think we did. We were poor for the majority of the game and we gave Utd the handle multiple times. I don't think we ever had any control over that game, mainly because we were so flaming loose in possession. Armstrong in particular had a shocker in that sense.

    There were large parts of the game where we had control with good passages of passing and movement. It was later in the match when we got tired and United brought on players of World class with fresh legs that the midfield became sloppy and the tables turned in their favour.

  2. 3 minutes ago, stknowle said:

    Let's face it we were lucky to be 2 nil up at half time. Very lucky.  

    Maybe we were a little lucky to have a clean sheet, but no way were we lucky to be two up. The first was an excellent header by Bednarek and the second from Ward-Prowse would have beaten any goalkeeper in the world. For all of United's quality in attack, their defence was pretty poor.

  3. Typical stream commentary whenever a glory team is playing us, particularly United; when they were on top the commentary was all them. Naturally our goal was against the run of play, fair enough, but then gradually it grew more to praise how we were playing and how we were gaining more possession and looking more dangerous. Then when Ward-Prowse struck his incredible free kick, and we were playing really well after our confidence boost, it became a case of saying that get a goal back and United could be back in it. Also out came the statistics about how many times we/them have gone on to win/come back to win/draw from a two goal deficit.

    If we manage to hold on to a win, or increase our goals, it will normally said that United played poorly, rather than we played well, but the way that we have played recently is changing the punditry towards what a difficult team we have become to defeat.

  4. 8 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

    UK quota allocation rules are not changing, so as long as a foreign owned vesssel qualifies by the following conditions for a licence, it will be able to continue;

    • landing over 50% by weight of their catch  into UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man ports.
    • demonstrating that at least 50% of the total crew man days at sea were accounted for by crew normally resident in UK coastal areas.
    • providing proof that routine expenditure in the UK on goods and services for the vessel was equal to either: i) 50% of the value of quota stocks landed net of crew wages, or ii) 50% of the vessel’s total operating expenditure for the year, net of crew wages.
    • donating quota to the English under-10m fleet equivalent to a value representing 10% of the value of catch landed overseas.
    • any combination of the above methods agreed by the MMO.

    Licences are valid for 2 years and renew automatically. Currently no new licences are being issued, as a measure to control the size of the UK inshore fleet, and the Government has not yet worked out how to manage the incorporation of what is currently the EU's catch in UK waters into the UK's catch, and how to allocate it. This is because negotiations regarding post-Brexit fisheries access are, technically, still ongoing.

    So those licences are time limited. Those arrangements above were formed under the CFP regime. Presumably now we are free from the CFP, we are at liberty to alter those rules applicable to foreign owned vessels because we have regained control our own coastal waters and its resources. Hopefully in the ongoing discussions with the EU over fisheries, we will only agree to an initial period of readjustment of a maximum 3 years where the EU catch declines marginally if we have to, and then an annual review thereafter. Their talk of ten years agreements tied in to trade talk reviews is idiotic.

  5. 2 hours ago, buctootim said:

    Thats the thing though. The permits currently issued by the Gov agency the Marine Management Organisation are not time limited. Brexit notwithstanding there are no grounds to terminate them if they continue to have some kind tie to Britain (normally some token measure like having the boat UK registered and visiting a UK port once a year. If the government tries to unilaterally end the permits they will potentially be in breach of contract. There will either be a flurry of court cases or the gov will end up paying out millions in compensation   

    I have my doubts about what you say about the Marine Management Organisation and the conditions attached to the permits they issue. You say that they are not time limited, but I would be very surprised if there were not caveats applied to their timescale. The MMO has powers to revoke permits under certain circumstances, so maybe under the current situation whereby the MMO was set up effectively to pay lip service to the CFP, now that we will be free of it, I expect that legally our obligations regarding the permits will also alter, and also our ability to alter those terms to our advantage in specifying crew composition, catch landing port, etc.  I wonder whether under those circumstances there will be any legal redress on grounds of breach of contract, as possibly the newly passed Fisheries Act covers the legal aspects of the new reality. Compensation is a different matter, which will need to be assessed by independent arbitration. Independent means not the ECJ, of course.

  6. On 26/11/2020 at 11:29, spyinthesky said:

    I have been following this thread with interest as I try to understand both sides of the argument.
    With regard to Fisheries, I am sympathetic to the idea that we have control over our waters in line with international arrangements.
    In practical terms, however, how will this work if French, Dutch, Spanish etc fishermen decide to continue fishing?
    Are gunboats (if available and not focussing on illegal immigrants) sent out to deal with the matter, with the possibility of an international incident?
    How will those UK based fishermen who sell their catch into European markets deal with the expected blockade of European ports when they try to transport their produce into the European market?
    Further on, as and when the Scots get Independence and decide to remain in the EU, will this not 'muddy the water'(!!) in respect to fishing rights?
    Interested in views (from both sides)

    As our resident fisheries expert doesn't deign to respond, I might as well get the ball rolling again in light of the developments within the last few hours.

    For some sort of idea of how things might go in a situation whereby the EU have far more limited access to our coastal waters than they believe they ought to be entitled to, one can look back to how it was historically for us during the Cod Wars with Iceland when we felt that we were the wronged party. There were several skirmishes, ramming of boats, involvement of the RN pitted against their coastguard, cutting of nets, etc. If the French, Spanish, Dutch, Germans decide to continue fishing without our permission, then that will be an illegal act and we will be entitled to take appropriate action against them. I expect that it could get quite nasty, especially against the bolshie French. As for them trying to stop us exporting our fish into their markets, then that will be cutting off their nose to spite their face, as presumably they import our fish because they have a liking and need for it. If they don't want it from us, then where else will they get it from? Initially also, a blockade of ports will work against them exporting their produce to us too, and much more of it is coming in this direction than going in theirs, so it wouldn't be long before they came to their senses. If the Scots manage to rejoin the EU as an independent nation, then  apart from the difficulties that will provide with a border between them and their main market, us, they will have to accept their waters becoming an EU resource under the CFP, apart from the currency and freedom of movement issues.

    As to the recent developments, a couple of days ago, Barnier stated that he wouldn't bother to come for talks today unless we were prepared to move on our red lines. We called his bluff and now he looks stupid for coming anyway. It appears that as an excuse, the EU have offered to compromise their stance on fisheries away from expecting to maintain their status quo access under the CFP, to one whereby in a fit of extreme generosity, they will be prepared to return to us between 15 and 18% of the quotas held by EU fishermen in our own territorial waters. Apparently government sources here have told them already that that is a derisory offer and to go and get lost. In return the EU has said that this offer was one that was made some weeks ago, not the last day or so. The other idea the EU stupidly believes that we might accept, is that any fisheries deal should last for 10 years, should be tied together to the trade agreement, and both revisited at the end of that time. Again, it is completely ludicrous and the EU are just wasting their time and ours.

    Barnier should be reminded of his threat not to come unless we budged on our red lines, told that we are not budging and inch, and asked why he bothered to come if the EU aren't prepared to treat us as a sovereign independent nation able to have complete control of our own affairs, laws and territorial waters.

  7. 11 hours ago, buctootim said:

    Fish move around,blah,statistic,blah, bar chart, blah, patronising comment, blah, I'm really clever, blah blah blah.

    Why don't you engage with all of the issues instead of boring with only one side of it? As a typical dyed in the wool remoaner, you persist in this argument like a stuck record that fisheries is a tiny part of the economy, whilst refusing to acknowledge or argue the main reason why we don't roll over and surrender control of our coastal waters; the political dimension. Do you even recognise that although fisheries is a small part of both the economies of the UK and the EU coastal states, the political implications of the negotiations over fisheries for all of them are immense, and go beyond the votes in those coastal constituencies? As I already said, the fact that both we and the EU are prepared to accept the breakdown of a FTA deal just on this issue ought to give you a clue to the importance of this politically.

    As for your comments on industrialised fishing v small boats, and the price of fresh fish v frozen, nobody patronises on here quite as well as you do.

    Regarding the preferences for the types of fish that we like to eat, you seem to believe that people's tastes don't change at all. 25 years ago Thai food was largely unknown in the UK and is now in the top three cuisines. Most cities have restaurants serving cuisines from many countries, like Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Nepal, Eastern Europe, etc. People don't just holiday in the UK anymore; they travel to destinations all around the continent and the world, sampling the local cuisine. Television programming schedules are overloaded with cookery programmes featuring all varieties of fish and crustaceans. But there you go, we only like to eat what we have always eaten historically, so we're never going to develop a taste for other varieties of seafood, are we?

  8. 2 hours ago, buctootim said:

    Politically important to Brexiteers that's all. Trouble for you is the problems were caused primarily by UK government policy. Leaving the EU wont fix them. NB complaining about graphs and texts just shows you up along with your desire to be unemcumbered (sic) by knowledge. 

    Well done for dismissing the concerns of such a large proportion of the electorate; the usual remoaner arrogance. I accept that the current situation on fisheries has been caused by successive UK governments, much in the same way that the current situation of our membership of the Federal United States of Europe evolved. It started with the betrayal of the industry by Grocer Heath when we joined the Common Market, and then via the CFP, in parallel with the morphing of the Common Market/EEC into the EU via the machinations of the successive governments, whether Conservative or Labour, without the electorate having any say in it via a referendum.

    The situation caused by those governments is now finally being redressed, isn't it, and fisheries is just a part of it. 

    Leaving the EU will enable us to take control of our own fisheries situation to our advantage in the same way that it will enable us to take control over our borders, laws and money. The Fisheries Act gives us that legal certainty. Yes, it will take time to make those changes, and it will initially perhaps be prudent to have some interim gradual transition in hand, but it will be up to us legally how we manage that transition, who we allow to fish in our waters, the quotas that can be fished, how we conserve our fisheries resources. If we cannot arrive at that accord as part of a FTA, then the EU will have no right to any sort of access at all, so we hold the cards there

    Your usual obsession with graphs and charts gives an outline of the current situation, but makes no forecasts of how the situation will change now that we are in control. The remoaner establishment have always been only too happy to make doom-laden forecasts about the economy and industry, but seem to be reluctant to predict the future of fisheries. It seems that as far as you are concerned, because the situation in one thing now, it cannot be another in the ensuing decades. And yet the French don't think that way. They are worried sick that the end of their rights to treat our waters as a common EU resource will devastate their fisheries industry, as it will also be detrimental to Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Their problems are exacerbated by an EU decision to land 15% less fish from the Mediterranean. Could it be perhaps that the decline in the fortunes of the those EU coastal states' fisheries will coincide with an increase in the fortunes of ours? Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that we as a nation might develop more of an appetite in years to come for those species of fish and crustaceans that we export to the EU? Tastes in foods broaden with travel and also because of health concerns, as well as on economic grounds, so it will happen.

  9. Both of you totally don't get the significance of what significant means, as you are only capable of comprehending it in an economic sense, but apparently because you do not balance your arguments to include them, you are both completely ignorant of the political implications. Produce as many graphs, bar charts and as much statistical analysis as you like, but that doesn't alter the political landscape one jot. Just to simplify it for you two, there are political implications affecting several coastal EU states. The French in particular are worried about Macron's chances of reelection if they have to surrender much of their rights that they had under the CFP and Boris is also worried politically at the implications for the Tories if he doesn't fulfill his manifesto promise to take back control of our coastal waters.

    As I have already pointed out, but you two have not argued to the contrary, the whole negotiation of a FTA with the EU could collapse because of just this one issue. This would be for political reasons, not because of economic ones. Does the penny drop yet?

  10. 12 hours ago, The Cat said:

    Maybe that's because there's only about 17 fishermen left in the country and no one cares?

    So you'll celebrate the revival of our fishing enterprises and the economic boost it brings to our coastal communities once we regain control of our territorial waters, won't you?

  11. 13 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

    Because legislation covering such a miniscule proportion of our economy pales so far into insignificance when compared to the disaster looming at midnight on December 31st if we cannot sort out our mutual intransigence with the EU.

    Naturally it's insignificant to you remoaners, but it is one of the three red lines that we are unwilling to concede to the EU, so one would have thought that on that basis alone it would warrant some interest from the mainstream media. 

    But as the mainstream media is so out of touch with the rest of the country outside of their own metropolitan bubble, it comes as no surprise. Thankfully there are plenty of other online news sources prepared to cover these topics, so all that the mainstream media is achieving, is the reduction of their credibility, their audience and influence.

  12. Great news that we have agreed a trade deal with Canada, rolling over the EU deal. It is expected that next year an even better deal will be negotiated. Some remoaners on here made the ridiculous assertion that because it took the EU over 8 years to arrange the FTA with Canada, it would therefore follow that it would take the same amount of time for us to get one. Australia and New Zealand next and then a bloc deal between all of them with us to follow.

  13. 2 hours ago, buctootim said:

    Here's a little homily for you Wes. 

    In 1983 Thailand's main export, by a factor of three ahead of fruit, was rice.  Now rice and fruit don't even make the top 10. Why? because they've been displaced by computers, followed by electronics, machinery, vehicles, chemicals, plastics, gems, metals and medical supplies. Rinse and repeat for China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, India etc etc 

    The rest of the world has industrialised in the past 50 years. As a consequence Britain's share of world trade has declined, along with the share of every other developed nation. We haven't got poorer, its just we haven't got more wealthy at the same rate as those countries starting from a low base. Why? global capitalism which wants to find the lowest costs of production. As a nation we have been saved by the growth in service exports  - banking, insurance, accountancy, law which has offset losses from manufacturing.  

    The UK, US and Western Europe doesn't have the industrialised playground to itself anymore - that's the cause of the changes you've seen in your lifetime. Yes the EU is to some extent a protectionist bubble. It has created a way for wealthy countries to stay wealthy and sell to each other without having their industries totally ripped apart by Chinese and Indian cars produced for £5,000 instead of £30,000. The US has done the same. You can blame the EU for the effects of globalisation all you want -  but it was one of the things we had going for us in a competitive world. If you think we can compete on a level playing field with China or India you are wrong.

    NB. I know you won't get it, indeed won't even try to think about the issues - but them's the facts. The whole world economy has changed since you were a boy, no matter how facile the 'Global Britain' bluster you come back with.  



    The importance of international trade - Economics Help

         New China Figure 1

     Share of world trade 


    Trade and Globalization - Our World in Data

    Really typical of you, Timmy, produce reams of graphs and statistics to cloud the argument and then go into patronise overdrive, attempting to show how clever you are and how thick your opponent must be. And all because I had the gall to mention that our trade with the EU had declined over the past decade, whereas it had increased with the rest of the world; at least I assume that must have been what triggered your little diatribe. Having lived through the time since before we joined the EEC, I know perfectly well how and why our manufacturing industry declined, the part that the trade unions played in its decline and our inability to compete with cheap labour in the developing world, especially the Far East. I know of the rise of the tiger economies of the Far East, and am grateful to that because it really boosted my pension which partly speculated on that growth. I am also perfectly well aware of where our strengths are, in banking, finance, service industries, high tech industries, science and pharmaceuticals, etc, so I don't need to be patronised by you about that

    I don't recall saying that we should try and compete with China or India, but we can certainly benefit from arranging our own trade deals with those growing rival trading blocs, now that we are free from the declining EU and able to forge our own future.

  14. 19 minutes ago, aintforever said:

    To be fair, you are not doing much to dispel the stereotype with your thousands of crazy rants about fish.

    I've told you a thousand times not to exaggerate. Pardon me for mentioning in posts one of the three major subjects that are preventing the signing of a FTA with the EU. If you think that I'm indulging in "crazy rants" about fish, what must you think of Macron's outbursts? He's threatening all sorts of crazy measures in a vain attempt to browbeat us into submission over fisheries, so it must be important to him, even if you dismiss it so lightly.

  15. 8 hours ago, Verbal said:

    Read and be warned. This is what happens to you when you combine a gold-plated pension and Facebook.  

    What happens? Being of pensionable age means one has had life experience of the whole sorry episode of the Common Market/EEC and the creeping development of the federal EU? That one has experienced the decline of our manufacturing industries and the problems caused by the CAP and the CFP to our agriculture and fisheries until we have a trade deficit with the EU of some £100 billion, as the proportion of our trade with them reduces and our trade with the rest of the world increases?

    This current negotiations situation and our robust stance on not surrendering to your beloved EU's bullying  is obviously riling you remoaners who still over four years after the referendum result have never been able to accept the electorate's decision and are reduced to hurling the usual insults. You know the ones, that Brexiteers are old and thick. The usual arrogant tosh, the sort that lost you remoaners the referendum, but you still haven't learnt from it even now.


  16. 5 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

    "......you have to accept that there is probably a majority of the electorate currently who do not wish for us to cave in to EU demands (particularly from the French) that they have undiminished access to our coastal waters. Neither do those "people" want us to continue to be subservient to EU rules on how we should govern ourselves, or subject to the jurisdiction of their law courts. "

    That reads as if you are claiming a 'majority of the electorate' want to leave the EU, under WTO if necessary. I contend that you are wrong.


    That might be how you read it to mean, but that's you. I meant it to convey the current situation whereby we left the EU at the start of the year, have since then been involved in talks with the EU over a FTA, and have met a brick wall in those negotiations over several months because they will not treat us as an independent sovereign equal. We only require a similar deal to that signed by the EU with Canada, Japan, S. Korea. We have told them time and time again that we will not budge on our entirely reasonable insistence on retaining our fundamental right to govern ourselves and our coastal waters as we see fit, without interference from them and their rules and laws.

    It is against this background of the total intransigence of the EU and the belligerent attitude of the French in particular over fisheries, that I express the opinion that probably a majority of the electorate (who care either way) are heartily fed up with the EU's shenanigans and don't wish us to surrender to these bullying tactics, preferring instead to just walk away from the talks rather than waste time going round in circles.

    I expect that most, like me, would prefer a FTA, but not one that scraps those red lines of ours. If we allowed that to occur, it would cross the threshold of becoming a bad deal, the sort that a no deal WTO would be preferable to.

  17. 9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

    Who asked you ? Wes mentioned 'a majority of the electorate', and I responded. I didn't lose, I wasn't in the contest. Do you think a no-deal Brexit is 'winning' ?

    Do be a bit more careful about reading what I said before commenting on it. I invite you to read it again and then reconsider your response. 

  18. 1 hour ago, buctootim said:

    F'sure. I suspect the deal has been known for some time but its been in both sides interest to appear big and tough. The EU's fishery demands have been deliberately overstated so that when the deal comes it will look like the EU have caved giving a victory for Sir Boris the Brave on the sideshow whilst caving on the real meat of the deal, level playing field  . 

    I give you the same advice that I gave saint1977; be patient, wait and see, it won't be long now.

    As we all know, you aren't exactly much cop at making Brexit predictions.

  19. 6 minutes ago, saint1977 said:

    Probably best he doesn’t read the DT saying today that the French have shifted on this issue and according to Coveney there is a ‘landing space for a deal’.  With the US election outcome killing the Anglosphere idea and the chaos from WTO on top of COVID, although there will be further twists and turns it looks more likely some kind of deal will happen with more detail over time. If that does happen - big if - the fanatics eg Farage won’t be happy. Cummings and Cain may have known what was coming on that dent although looked totally stage managed. 

    There is a lot of speculative guff printed in the media at the moment, pontificating on how we will have to cave in to the EU demands because of Biden/Cummings/the Chinese virus etc. I suggest that you wait and see what transpires. Be patient; you won't have to wait long.

  20. 52 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

    Perhaps people don't share your almost gloating desire for WTO, seeing it as bad for the UK's economic future, and therefore digging our heels in over a comparitively insignificant issue is picking the wrong fight.

    When you take it upon yourself to talk in generalised terms of "people" and their hopes and desires for a particular outcome to these talks, you have to accept that there is probably a majority of the electorate currently who do not wish for us to cave in to EU demands (particularly from the French) that they have undiminished access to our coastal waters. Neither do those "people" want us to continue to be subservient to EU rules on how we should govern ourselves, or subject to the jurisdiction of their law courts.

    Put me among that majority. Apart from that, I have expressed my views often, that I would prefer a FTA based on the Canada one, but obviously with the none of our three red lines negotiated away in any  form. If that is too much to ask of our so-called friends in the EU, then I'm perfectly happy with WTO.

  21. 15 hours ago, View From The Top said:

    Love the stuff, especially with raisins. 

    My pre-ride food of choice as it is packed full of slow release carbs.

    Me too. I have my porridge made with milk, and I add sultanas. As you say, fills you up until lunch time, great for cholestral reduction. 

  22. 16 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

     Nah. Not for me. Boring.

    Down the arm or legs, thighs,  arse, shapely ones , nice. Mrs Duck has a couple.

    You can’t tell me this isn’t hot (unfortunately, it’s not the radiant Mrs Duck) 




  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})