Brexit - Post Match Reaction

As expected, the talks between Frost and Barnier this past week made hardly any progress at all, with Barnier completely unable to recognise that we wish to negotiate a trade deal based on us being an independent sovereign state and not a vassal colony of the EU. We are not asking for anything that hasn't already been granted by the EU in their trade deals with Canada, Japan and S. Korea. We have made our red lines completely transparent, that we will not accept their level playing field rules, the primacy of the ECJ and the continuance of the CFP.

Barnier bemoans the fact that we have been intractable over these issues and insists that we will have to compromise if trade talks are to continue. Equally of course, the trade talks cannot continue if the EU refuses to compromise. The time has now arrived to stop pussyfooting about with this sham. Talks are due to resume their final episode at the beginning of June and before they do, we should give the ultimatum to Barnier and copy in all the 27 member states governments, that unless the EU drops their demands on these three issues, there is no point at all in continuing the talks.

As expected, the talks between Frost and Barnier this past week made hardly any progress at all, with Barnier completely unable to recognise that we wish to negotiate a trade deal based on us being an independent sovereign state and not a vassal colony of the EU. We are not asking for anything that hasn't already been granted by the EU in their trade deals with Canada, Japan and S. Korea. We have made our red lines completely transparent, that we will not accept their level playing field rules, the primacy of the ECJ and the continuance of the CFP.

 

Barnier bemoans the fact that we have been intractable over these issues and insists that we will have to compromise if trade talks are to continue. Equally of course, the trade talks cannot continue if the EU refuses to compromise. The time has now arrived to stop pussyfooting about with this sham. Talks are due to resume their final episode at the beginning of June and before they do, we should give the ultimatum to Barnier and copy in all the 27 member states governments, that unless the EU drops their demands on these three issues, there is no point at all in continuing the talks.

Why call things off Les? I thought the UK had the EU over a barrel and the EU was going to cave at any moment. That’s all we’ve heard for the past few years. If the talks fall apart, the UK will still have a legal obligation to implement the Withdrawal Agreement in full which was the most important thing for the EU going into negotiations.

As expected, the talks between Frost and Barnier this past week made hardly any progress at all, with Barnier completely unable to recognise that we wish to negotiate a trade deal based on us being an independent sovereign state and not a vassal colony of the EU. We are not asking for anything that hasn't already been granted by the EU in their trade deals with Canada, Japan and S. Korea. We have made our red lines completely transparent, that we will not accept their level playing field rules, the primacy of the ECJ and the continuance of the CFP.

 

Barnier bemoans the fact that we have been intractable over these issues and insists that we will have to compromise if trade talks are to continue. Equally of course, the trade talks cannot continue if the EU refuses to compromise. The time has now arrived to stop pussyfooting about with this sham. Talks are due to resume their final episode at the beginning of June and before they do, we should give the ultimatum to Barnier and copy in all the 27 member states governments, that unless the EU drops their demands on these three issues, there is no point at all in continuing the talks.

How much do you think the British Government should pay to buy back the UK fishing quota sold to foreign boats Wes? Once any compensation has been agreed what aspect of the current England and Wales rules would stop foreign owners simply buying it again on the open market?

Why do you think the Government hasn't changed the rules on ownership and landings in England in the four years since the Brexit vote? Surely they aren't holding back because they want to include fishing in wider negotiations? Fisheries management is a devolved responsibility. Why is do you think Scotland and NI have retained local control of fisheries and quotas and yet England and Wales have sold them off and blame the EU for the consequence of their own policies?

How much do you think the British Government should pay to buy back the UK fishing quota sold to foreign boats Wes? Once any compensation has been agreed what aspect of the current England and Wales rules would stop foreign owners simply buying it again on the open market?

 

Why do you think the Government hasn't changed the rules on ownership and landings in England in the four years since the Brexit vote? Surely they aren't holding back because they want to include fishing in wider negotiations? Fisheries management is a devolved responsibility. Why is do you think Scotland and NI have retained local control of fisheries and quotas and yet England and Wales have sold them off and blame the EU for the consequence of their own policies?

70% of the fish consumed in the UK is imported, 80% of the fish landed in the UK is exported. A lot of the fish species landed in tbe UK are deemed commercially non-viable in the domestic market. "Taking back control" will make begger all difference.

How much do you think the British Government should pay to buy back the UK fishing quota sold to foreign boats Wes? Once any compensation has been agreed what aspect of the current England and Wales rules would stop foreign owners simply buying it again on the open market?

 

Why do you think the Government hasn't changed the rules on ownership and landings in England in the four years since the Brexit vote? Surely they aren't holding back because they want to include fishing in wider negotiations? Fisheries management is a devolved responsibility. Why is do you think Scotland and NI have retained local control of fisheries and quotas and yet England and Wales have sold them off and blame the EU for the consequence of their own policies?

Patently the whole scenario has changed dramatically since May was ousted from the Tory Party leadership and replaced by Boris with a stonking majority to get Brexit done. May might well have been persuaded that fisheries should be a part of a negotiating hand on trade, but that is not the current position, where Frost had made it clear that any agreement on fisheries will be on an annual basis, and not long term as the EU wants. Why on earth would we retain current rules which might allow foreign owners to buy quotas on the open market? It is pointless indulging in whataboutery based on previous precedent. We appear to be standing firm in the negotiations so far that we will regain control of our coastal waters, that we will be setting the quotas ourselves and determining who can fish those waters. We'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out, won't we?

Why call things off Les? I thought the UK had the EU over a barrel and the EU was going to cave at any moment. That’s all we’ve heard for the past few years. If the talks fall apart, the UK will still have a legal obligation to implement the Withdrawal Agreement in full which was the most important thing for the EU going into negotiations.

We will soon find out whether or not we have the EU over a barrel, rather than the other way around under the grossly incompetent vicars' daughter and Robbins. But apart from the settlement payment, what other legal obligations within the Withdrawal Agreement passed in January 2020 did you have in mind that we ought to be concerned about?

.......we will be setting the quotas ourselves and determining who can fish those waters.

Whilst we may be able to set the size of the quota, unless we can find a way to buy back the ownership/rights we won't have control of who catches and lands the fish in English waters. Luckily, over half of the total UK fishery is under devolved Scottish control, and they didn't follow England's example, instead they retained central control.

We will soon find out whether or not we have the EU over a barrel, rather than the other way around under the grossly incompetent vicars' daughter and Robbins. But apart from the settlement payment, what other legal obligations within the Withdrawal Agreement passed in January 2020 did you have in mind that we ought to be concerned about?

The Irish border pal -how the UK intends to apply post-Brexit checks to trade with Northern Ireland and honour its commitments in the NI Protocol.

Patently the whole scenario has changed dramatically since May was ousted from the Tory Party leadership and replaced by Boris with a stonking majority to get Brexit done. May might well have been persuaded that fisheries should be a part of a negotiating hand on trade, but that is not the current position, where Frost had made it clear that any agreement on fisheries will be on an annual basis, and not long term as the EU wants. Why on earth would we retain current rules which might allow foreign owners to buy quotas on the open market? It is pointless indulging in whataboutery based on previous precedent. We appear to be standing firm in the negotiations so far that we will regain control of our coastal waters, that we will be setting the quotas ourselves and determining who can fish those waters. We'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out, won't we?

Hm. Avoiding the question because you cant answer for the inconsistency in Government policy or because you haven't noticed it?

If it is really the Johnson governments policy to 'take back control' after December 2020 why aren't they setting out the compensation scheme for foreign owners who have legitimately bought quota. Instead of bemoaning that the EU arent listening to their redlines on fisheries, why don't they set out the plan so the EU and everybody else can see what the redlines actually mean and negotiate accordingly? surely that wouldn't be contentious? (arf)

Whilst we may be able to set the size of the quota, unless we can find a way to buy back the ownership/rights we won't have control of who catches and lands the fish in English waters. Luckily, over half of the total UK fishery is under devolved Scottish control, and they didn't follow England's example, instead they retained central control.

Also fish swim (who knew). Many species spend different parts of the year in the waters of different countries. Unless you negotiate on quotas with neighbours (lets call it for arguments sake something like a Common Fisheries Policy) then you can find all your migratory species suddenly disappear because neighbouring countries have caught them all whilst in their waters. Why? because they know the Brits aren't going to take part in any common stock management.

Also fish swim (who knew). Many species spend different parts of the year in the waters of different countries. Unless you negotiate on quotas with neighbours (lets call it for arguments sake something like a Common Fisheries Policy) then you can find all your migratory species suddenly disappear because neighbouring countries have caught them all whilst in their waters. Why? because they know the Brits aren't going to take part in any common stock management.

So what does the country that caught them all whilst in their waters do the following year when they have none either?

So what does the country that caught them all whilst in their waters do the following year when they have none either?

Classic Tragedy of the Commons. What fishing needs is a farming approach to fisheries - growing for the long term, not a hunting approach - take it now before someone else does.

The Irish border pal -how the UK intends to apply post-Brexit checks to trade with Northern Ireland and honour its commitments in the NI Protocol.

Well, we'll soon find out in the event of no deal.

Well, we'll soon find out in the event of no deal.

It is part of the Withdrawal Agreement, which is now fully binding under international law, so will apply regardless whether the UK and EU agree a trade deal. The Irish border was always a top priority for the EU given it’s potential to undermine the integrity of the single market.

Hm. Avoiding the question because you cant answer for the inconsistency in Government policy or because you haven't noticed it?

 

If it is really the Johnson governments policy to 'take back control' after December 2020 why aren't they setting out the compensation scheme for foreign owners who have legitimately bought quota. Instead of bemoaning that the EU arent listening to their redlines on fisheries, why don't they set out the plan so the EU and everybody else can see what the redlines actually mean and negotiate accordingly? surely that wouldn't be contentious? (arf)

Wow, there is inconsistency in government periodically, dependent on the make-up of the ruling party, the leadership or the size of majority. Who would have thought it? And Frost has set out the plan in writing, and sent it to Barnier and the heads of the 27 member states governments. The legal texts covered a “suite” of separate deals covering fisheries, aviation, energy, immigration, nuclear issues, asylum, and security.

Do keep up.

Also fish swim (who knew). Many species spend different parts of the year in the waters of different countries. Unless you negotiate on quotas with neighbours (lets call it for arguments sake something like a Common Fisheries Policy) then you can find all your migratory species suddenly disappear because neighbouring countries have caught them all whilst in their waters. Why? because they know the Brits aren't going to take part in any common stock management.

Easy. We are allowed to catch the fish with blue passports.

Also fish swim (who knew). Many species spend different parts of the year in the waters of different countries. Unless you negotiate on quotas with neighbours (lets call it for arguments sake something like a Common Fisheries Policy) then you can find all your migratory species suddenly disappear because neighbouring countries have caught them all whilst in their waters. Why? because they know the Brits aren't going to take part in any common stock management.

It seems quite simple. When the fish are in our territorial waters, then they are our commodity, when they are in another country's territorial waters, then they belong to that country. As Badger pointed out, at the moment we import 70% of our fish because the species we like to eat are not in our waters, but patently the neighbouring EU countries are very happy to have had access to plundering our resources from the imbalanced proportionate allocations they had via the CFP. As we will have control over our fishery resources, it will be up to us how we manage those resources, not the EU. Although naturally as a remoaner you would love to call that fisheries resource management a Common Fisheries Policy, I can't somehow see that happening. If we do have a mutual fisheries stock management policy of our resources, it will be on our terms, not theirs.

It seems quite simple. When the fish are in our territorial waters, then they are our commodity, when they are in another country's territorial waters, then they belong to that country. As Badger pointed out, at the moment we import 70% of our fish because the species we like to eat are not in our waters, but patently the neighbouring EU countries are very happy to have had access to plundering our resources from the imbalanced proportionate allocations they had via the CFP. As we will have control over our fishery resources, it will be up to us how we manage those resources, not the EU. Although naturally as a remoaner you would love to call that fisheries resource management a Common Fisheries Policy, I can't somehow see that happening. If we do have a mutual fisheries stock management policy of our resources, it will be on our terms, not theirs.

Whilst the quotas for species / areas are set under the CFP, each individual member is responsible for allocating and policing shares in their quota, and fisheries in their waters. The CFP does not dictate or proscribe who has access or how much an individual can catch. Therefore we already, nominally, have this control, but the English proportion has been 'privatised', and taken out of Government control. The fact that most of these 'rights' are granted to foreign vessels by the quota holders is something the UK Government cannot revoke without compensation, and probably involving long and costly legal action.

It seems quite simple. When the fish are in our territorial waters, then they are our commodity, when they are in another country's territorial waters, then they belong to that country.

How do you deal with fish than spawn in one territory, have nursery grounds in another and feed as adults in three others depending on the season. If they leave British waters to spawn should we catch them before they leave and have a chance to reproduce? Should the country that only has the juvenile immature fish catch them as they dont have any adults?

Wow, how did we ever manage to have a fishing industry before we joined the EU.

The little EU’rs really are headbangers.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wow, how did we ever manage to have a fishing industry before we joined the EU.

Glad you brought it up. The British fishing industry used to focus on cod and haddock off Iceland and Norway and largely ignored fishing in the North sea near Britain - that was left to the continentals who liked stuff like herring, gurnard and wrasse. So it didnt matter to the Tory Heath government when we joined the EEC if national quotas for the North sea and channel were based on previous years fishing effort because we didnt want to fish there anyway.

Then oil was discovered in the North Sea and the Tory government thought it would be a jolly whizzo idea to instead of having a 12 mile territorial waters limit to declare a 200 mile limit instead, so we could grab a big slice of the oil and gas. But guess what! Johnny foreigner did the same and also declared 200 mile EEZs. Which meant Iceland and Norway kicked us out of fishing in their waters for cod and haddock - with 250,000 population Iceland defeating 'the finest navy in world' (copyright by jingo). So the British fishing fleet thought hm, we can fish for stuff no-one wants or sell our quota to johnny foreigner and not have to go to the troublesome business of actually fishing. Huzzah! Then we spent 30 years blaming the EU for the decline of the British fishing industry.

Wow, how did we ever manage to have a fishing industry before we joined the EU.

 

The little EU’rs really are headbangers.

 

Not so much as the brainwashed Brexiteers who think that there is going to be a massive revival in an industry that represents just over 0.1% of our economy.

Glad you brought it up. The British fishing industry used to focus on cod and haddock off Iceland and Norway and largely ignored fishing in the North sea near Britain - that was left to the continentals who liked stuff like herring, gurnard and wrasse. So it didnt matter to the Tory Heath government when we joined the EEC if national quotas for the North sea and channel were based on previous years fishing effort because we didnt want to fish there anyway.

 

Then oil was discovered in the North Sea and the Tory government thought it would be a jolly whizzo idea to instead of having a 12 mile territorial waters limit to declare a 200 mile limit instead, so we could grab a big slice of the oil and gas. But guess what! Johnny foreigner did the same and also declared 200 mile EEZs. Which meant Iceland and Norway kicked us out of fishing in their waters for cod and haddock - with 250,000 population Iceland defeating 'the finest navy in world' (copyright by jingo). So the British fishing fleet thought hm, we can fish for stuff no-one wants or sell our quota to johnny foreigner and not have to go to the troublesome business of actually fishing. Huzzah! Then we spent 30 years blaming the EU for the decline of the British fishing industry.

Also, a lot of the Langoustines and prawns caught of the Scottish islands is sold on the continent. This is already causing massive problems at the moment due to restaurant closures. Without tarrif free access to the EU they will close down.

Also, a lot of the Langoustines and prawns caught of the Scottish islands is sold on the continent. This is already causing massive problems at the moment due to restaurant closures. Without tarrif free access to the EU they will close down.

The Community has three fisheries agreements with Norway, namely the bilateral, the trilateral and the neighbouring agreements. The bilateral arrangement covers the North Sea and the Atlantic, the trilateral agreement covers Skagerrak and Kattegat (Denmark, Sweden and Norway) and the neighbourhood arrangement covers the Swedish fishery in Norwegian waters of the North Sea.

The minutes of a recent meeting that is held on an annual basis with Norway are interesting:

AGREED RECORD OF FISHERIES CONSULTATIONS (PANDALUS BOREALIS )BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND NORWAY FOR 2020

24 APRIL 2020

1 A European Union Delegation, headed by Mr. Fabrizio DONATELLA, and a Norwegian Delegation, headed by Ms. Ann Kristin WESTBERG met 4 April 2020 by means of a videoconference to consult on mutual fisheries relations for 2020. The consultations then continued by correspondence.

2 The Delegations referred to the Agreed Record of Fisheries Consultations between Norway and the European Union on the Regulation of Fisheries in Skagerrak and Kattegat for 2020, signed in Brussels 13 December 2019, and, in particular, to paragraph 7.2.1 and paragraphs 10.1 – 10.5, as well as Annex I and Annex II of that Agreed Record.

3 The Delegations recalled the decision made in December 2019 establishing a preliminary TAC of northern prawn (Pandalus borealis) for 2020 of 6,329 tonnes and agreed to apply this on a pro rata basis to cover the first 4 months of the year in case of Norway and the first six months of the year in the case of EU. They also recalled the decision to establish a final TAC for 2020 as soon as the ICES advice for Pandalus is available.

So, an annual agreement like Norway to arrange quotas is what the UK is proposing. Forget the B0ll0x about Scottish fisheries closing down without tariff free access to the EU.

Anyway, the Norwegian Customs Tariff is based on The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, done at Brussels on 14 June 1983, and its subsequent amending protocols. The Convention (The HS Nomenclature) is approved by The World Customs Organization (WCO) in Brussels. Due to e.g. technological development and changes in international trade, the HS Nomenclature is revised approximately every 5th year. The latest amendment was adopted by the WCO in June 2014 and implemented 1 January 2017. The next revision will be incorporated in the Customs Tariff entering into force 1 January 2022.

The current tariffs on Norwegian FISH, CRUSTACEANS, MOLLUSCS AND OTHER AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES in chapter 3 according to this publication is zero.

Not so much as the brainwashed Brexiteers who think that there is going to be a massive revival in an industry that represents just over 0.1% of our economy.

Where did I say there was going to be a massive revival, all I was pointing out was it is possible for an independent country to have a fishing industry.

The UK Government in charge of UK fishing, it’s not really that unusual you know.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How do you deal with fish than spawn in one territory, have nursery grounds in another and feed as adults in three others depending on the season. If they leave British waters to spawn should we catch them before they leave and have a chance to reproduce? Should the country that only has the juvenile immature fish catch them as they dont have any adults?

Read the sentence of mine that you highlighted again.

Where did I say there was going to be a massive revival, all I was pointing out was it is possible for an independent country to have a fishing industry.

 

The UK Government in charge of UK fishing, it’s not really that unusual you know.

You jumped in to an 'exchange of views' on the effect of Brexit on the UK fishing industry, and included a collective dig at "little EUers". So whilst you may not have added a personal contribution to the debate, your interjection left you open to inclusion in the 'brainwashed Brexiteers' group.

The point that was being made is that despite what the jihadists might preach, the UK Government has less control over UK, and particularly English, fishing than might be expected.

You jumped in to an 'exchange of views' on the effect of Brexit on the UK fishing industry, and included a collective dig at "little EUers". So whilst you may not have added a personal contribution to the debate, your interjection left you open to inclusion in the 'brainwashed Brexiteers' group.

If anyone is brainwashed, it’s the people who somehow seem to believe that the EU is an open, tolerant, benevolent organisation.

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter now, it’s a settled issue. “ The British people decided, we’re out”.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The Community has three fisheries agreements with Norway, namely the bilateral, the trilateral and the neighbouring agreements. The bilateral arrangement covers the North Sea and the Atlantic, the trilateral agreement covers Skagerrak and Kattegat (Denmark, Sweden and Norway) and the neighbourhood arrangement covers the Swedish fishery in Norwegian waters of the North Sea.

The minutes of a recent meeting that is held on an annual basis with Norway are interesting:

 

So, an annual agreement like Norway to arrange quotas is what the UK is proposing. Forget the B0ll0x about Scottish fisheries closing down without tariff free access to the EU.

Anyway, the Norwegian Customs Tariff is based on The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, done at Brussels on 14 June 1983, and its subsequent amending protocols. The Convention (The HS Nomenclature) is approved by The World Customs Organization (WCO) in Brussels. Due to e.g. technological development and changes in international trade, the HS Nomenclature is revised approximately every 5th year. The latest amendment was adopted by the WCO in June 2014 and implemented 1 January 2017. The next revision will be incorporated in the Customs Tariff entering into force 1 January 2022.

The current tariffs on Norwegian FISH, CRUSTACEANS, MOLLUSCS AND OTHER AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES in chapter 3 according to this publication is zero.

#is that the Norway that is the EEA and Customs Union ?

#is that the Norway that is the EEA and Customs Union ?

No. Must be another one. The Norway he was taking about isn’t in the customs union

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter now, it’s a settled issue. “ The British people decided, we’re out”.

And Heaven help us all.

No. Must be another one. The Norway he was taking about isn’t in the customs union

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Got me there, they are not in "The Customs Union" but they do have agreement on Standards/Workers rights and free movement of goods and people as part of the EAA, unlike the UK which won't join a scheme to but PPE, just because it has Europe in the title. The point is that Norway is a lot closer to the EU than Cummings wants to be and so is much more likely to reach agreements.

The point is that Norway is a lot closer to the EU than Cummings wants to be and so is much more likely to reach agreements.

Explain to all us thick racist Brexiteers why the hell the EU are not prepared to offer what Norway already have?

I'll answer it, as you are not likely to be able to. Google punishment beatings....

Explain to all us thick racist Brexiteers why the hell the EU are not prepared to offer what Norway already have?

I'll answer it, as you are not likely to be able to. Google punishment beatings....

You really can’t be that stupid. The EEE/EFTA option (that’s the Norway option to you) has been available to us right from the start and could have saved us all a load of grief. It was the ERG and other extreme Brexiteers that refused to countenance it.

You really can’t be that stupid. The EEE/EFTA option (that’s the Norway option to you) has been available to us right from the start and could have saved us all a load of grief. It was the ERG and other extreme Brexiteers that refused to countenance it.

Rubbish. The British people would never accept leaving, but retaining FOM. Therefore unless The EU dropped one of the founding principles, it was never a goer. We saw what happened when labour went into an election contemplating keeping it.

The ERG accounted for about 25% of the votes in the HoC max. we could have had a May BRINO, but the Remainers thought they could stop it altogether. If I was you, it would be them I’m angry with, not the ERG.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rubbish. The British people would never accept leaving, but retaining FOM. Therefore unless The EU dropped one of the founding principles, it was never a goer. We saw what happened when labour went into an election contemplating keeping it.

 

The ERG accounted for about 25% of the votes in the HoC max. we could have had a May BRINO, but the Remainers thought they could stop it altogether. If I was you, it would be them I’m angry with, not the ERG.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You really can’t be that stupid.

That's a big claim, not backed up by the years of evidence.

Rubbish. The British people would never accept leaving, but retaining FOM.

Yeah they would. The 52% vote for leave was never homogenous, split three main ways. Maybe a third of leave and the large majority of the 48% remain would have accepted BRINO.

I hear that the SNP leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford, together with the acting Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey have sent a letter to the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, supporting a two year TP extension. The letter to Michel Barnier has also been signed by Liz Savile Roberts of Plaid, the Green MP Caroline Lucas, Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party and Colum Eastwood of the Social Democratic and Labour Party.

In the letter the MPs say that there is a significant opposition to Boris Johnson's refusal to consider extending the Brexit implementation period. They also said that both the Welsh and Scottish Administration is backing an extension to the negotiations together with "the majority of political parties in the Northern Ireland executive".

I would imagine that Barnier has enough sense to recognise that this pathetic little group don't hold much sway in the current scheme of things. Things have changed in the House since May's gutless minority Government couldn't prevent its business being run by remoaner backbenchers, those who formed themselves into self-appointed delegations prepared to go to Brussels begging them to screw us over, or to pass legislation like the Benn Surrender Act aimed at achieving the same result.

If Barnier naively believes that there is a chance that this band of losers could seriously change the government's decision not to extend beyond 31st December, and accordingly Barnier doesn't change his stance in the negotiations by compromising the EU position, then the idiots who wrote this letter will have ensured that we leave with no deal on WTO terms. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

Yeah they would. The 52% vote for leave was never homogenous, split three main ways. Maybe a third of leave and the large majority of the 48% remain would have accepted BRINO.

Whilst your playing guess the percentages, what percentage would have accepted the Norway option?

I hear that the SNP leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford, together with the acting Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey have sent a letter to the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, supporting a two year TP extension. The letter to Michel Barnier has also been signed by Liz Savile Roberts of Plaid, the Green MP Caroline Lucas, Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party and Colum Eastwood of the Social Democratic and Labour Party.

 

In the letter the MPs say that there is a significant opposition to Boris Johnson's refusal to consider extending the Brexit implementation period. They also said that both the Welsh and Scottish Administration is backing an extension to the negotiations together with "the majority of political parties in the Northern Ireland executive".

 

I would imagine that Barnier has enough sense to recognise that this pathetic little group don't hold much sway in the current scheme of things. Things have changed in the House since May's gutless minority Government couldn't prevent its business being run by remoaner backbenchers, those who formed themselves into self-appointed delegations prepared to go to Brussels begging them to screw us over, or to pass legislation like the Benn Surrender Act aimed at achieving the same result.

 

If Barnier naively believes that there is a chance that this band of losers could seriously change the government's decision not to extend beyond 31st December, and accordingly Barnier doesn't change his stance in the negotiations by compromising the EU position, then the idiots who wrote this letter will have ensured that we leave with no deal on WTO terms. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

No rational well person would write that. I’m coming round to Hockey’s view that you are a troll. That or early stage dementia

Not so much as the brainwashed Brexiteers who think that there is going to be a massive revival in an industry that represents just over 0.1% of our economy.

I am not expecting any great revival but I hope that gaining control of our waters will give us the opportunity to develop pioneering policies that will allow fish stocks to be managed ethically and responsibly. It should be an opportunity to make our waters the greenest and most sustainable in the world. I believe that the internal politics of the Commons Fisheries Policy make this impossible to pursue these strategies effectively.

I am not expecting any great revival but I hope that gaining control of our waters will give us the opportunity to develop pioneering policies that will allow fish stocks to be managed ethically and responsibly. It should be an opportunity to make our waters the greenest and most sustainable in the world. I believe that the internal politics of the Commons Fisheries Policy make this impossible to pursue these strategies effectively.

I hope for a Ferrari for christmas too.....

Yeah they would. The 52% vote for leave was never homogenous, split three main ways. Maybe a third of leave and the large majority of the 48% remain would have accepted BRINO.

Not true though. The chumps that wanted to stop it, split the 48%

They had one chance, & they blew it. Should have voted Mays turd through, they’ve handed us a proper Brexit & I for one am extremely grateful, for ultimately, it was the Benn’s, Grievence & Soubry’s of the world that ensured we got there in the end.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true though. The chumps that wanted to stop it, split the 48%

 

They had one chance, & they blew it. Should have voted Mays turd through, they’ve handed us a proper Brexit & I for one am extremely grateful, for ultimately, it was the Benn’s, Grievence & Soubry’s of the world that ensured we got there in the end.

You said the British people, not Parliament. There was always a majority amongst the people for some kind of middle of the road deal. It was only a dysfunctional Parliament where the extremes held sway and the moderates were in a minority.

You really can’t be that stupid. The EEE/EFTA option (that’s the Norway option to you) has been available to us right from the start and could have saved us all a load of grief. It was the ERG and other extreme Brexiteers that refused to countenance it.

Yeah, right...

From today's Telegraph:

David Frost, Britain’s top Brexit official, after the conclusion of the third round of video negotiations, said: “The EU continues to insist on fisheries arrangements and access to UK fishing waters in a way that is incompatible with our future status as an independent coastal state.” This week, Britain will publish its legal negotiating texts, including a separate Norway-style fishing agreement with annual catch limits.

Keen to maintain the status quo, Brussels has repeatedly rejected this proposal, with Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, warning that the bloc would never concede to a deal without a “balanced” fisheries agreement. However, Boris Johnson has ruled out any deal that gives EU fishermen long-term access to UK waters, which the fishing industry paints as the Common Fisheries Policy by another name.

Whitey, you're as clueless as the day we voted out...

Yeah, right...

From today's Telegraph:

 

Whitey, you're as clueless as the day we voted out...

You’ve completely missed the point, as usual.

With people such as you around it’s no wonder that the country’s fooked.

With people such as you around it’s no wonder that the country’s fooked.

If I was a covid 19 carrier, I might agree with you. This country isn't fooked, it's on the verge of a rebirth, mainly because there are more people like me running the country than people like you.

If I was a covid 19 carrier, I might agree with you. This country isn't fooked, it's on the verge of a rebirth, mainly because there are more people like me running the country than people like you.

Where’s my passport and the nearest lifeboat...

If I was a covid 19 carrier, I might agree with you. This country isn't fooked, it's on the verge of a rebirth, mainly because there are more people like me running the country than people like you.

There are more like you ? Oh sh!t.