Another new Brexit thread

[mcfc1632]

I'm not sure who you mean by EU leaders and whether you've forgotten that EU leaders will not be making decisions on behalf of key states. Every member state has to approve a trade deal.

I'm afraid that cakes and unicorns will still be UK policy as we head for No Deal. The only hope is that the new "professional" negotiators, unlike the previous amateurs, are realistic about what a crap hand we have.

Re the first part of your post - you answered your own question

Re the latter part - not surprised with your view - since 2016 IMO you have not displayed any even basic understanding of such matters - nor willingness to be informed

 

[Vicmeldrew666]

At this stage Bouncing Boris really should be letting them know that unless they agree to our terms, not a penny will be paid to the eu comission and nor will another penny be paid until a deal is agreed. What can they actually do about it to enforce anything?

 

[Vic]

Re the first part of your post - you answered your own question

Re the latter part - not surprised with your view - since 2016 IMO you have not displayed any even basic understanding of such matters - nor willingness to be informed

Try me.

US: We want to keep your fishing boats out of our waters.

EU: then we won't buy your fish.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Try

Try me.

US: We want to keep your fishing boats out of our waters.

EU: then we won't buy your fish.

I think the faulty assumption by yourself here is that the EU currently catch/buy our fish as a charitable act. It's actually because they need/want it. This will prevent the scenario above. Worst case scenario is our already decimated fishing industry stays decimated while stocks recover.

 

[mcfc1632]

Try

Try me.

US: We want to keep your fishing boats out of our waters.

EU: then we won't buy your fish.

Oh dear - there was no need to go out of your way to prove the veracity of my comments

But thanks anyway

 

[Vic]

Oh dear - there was no need to go out of your way to prove the veracity of my comments

But thanks anyway

Typical. I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or ignorance that makes you reluctant to engage in an argument you might lose.

 

[Vic]

I think the faulty assumption by yourself here is that the EU currently catch/buy our fish as a charitable act. It's actually because they need/want it. This will prevent the scenario above. Worst case scenario is our already decimated fishing industry stays decimated while stocks recover.

Will they want it when it costs 20% more? Tariffs, extra paperwork costs, loss of the £35m a year subsidy from the Common Fisheries Policy...

".....direct increased costs from tariffs; practicalities of handling paperwork in adverse conditions (in remote locations, bad weather); lack of infrastructure to cope with backed up freight traffic; uncertainty over the documents required; problems liaising with public organisations (who work to office hours). Ultimately this could undermine the quality of exported products (for example increased shellfish mortality in live trade and forcing premium products into lower paying markets) and mean UK exporters lose out to non-UK suppliers to the EU that can supply the same product faster and at lower cost"

Worst case scenario is that control of our waters means we abandon overfishing controls.

Most ironic scenario is that we want to land more fish in our own ports and the only way to revive our fishing ports is by using foreign-owned boats (see foreign ownership of UK quotas) or more immigrants to work on British boats.
.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Will they want it when it costs 20% more? Tariffs, extra paperwork costs, loss of the £35m a year subsidy from the Common Fisheries Policy...

".....direct increased costs from tariffs; practicalities of handling paperwork in adverse conditions (in remote locations, bad weather); lack of infrastructure to cope with backed up freight traffic; uncertainty over the documents required; problems liaising with public organisations (who work to office hours). Ultimately this could undermine the quality of exported products (for example increased shellfish mortality in live trade and forcing premium products into lower paying markets) and mean UK exporters lose out to non-UK suppliers to the EU that can supply the same product faster and at lower cost"

Worst case scenario is that control of our waters means we abandon overfishing controls.

Most ironic scenario is that we want to land more fish in our own ports and the only way to revive our fishing ports is by using foreign-owned boats (see foreign ownership of UK quotas) or more immigrants to work on British boats.
.

Not sure what your issue with immigrants is tbh. Our fish stocks are our fish stocks. If we don't have a fishing industry capable of catching them, then just let the stocks recover while we grow the domestic industry. That growth will happen if the economic demand for our fish exists either at home or abroad. You only seem capable of seeing problems, obstacles, and logs in the path Vic. Some of which you are probably correct about, but your inability to conceive any solutions clouds your judgement. I go to billingsgate market about three times a year where you can buy pretty much anything that lives in the sea from pretty much anywhere in the world - paperwork seems not to hinder this trade.

 

[mcfc1632]

Typical. I'm not sure whether it's arrogance or ignorance that makes you reluctant to engage in an argument you might lose.

Ha ha - if you only understood even the utter basics of planning and managing negotiations - you would grasp why you are making yourself look ridiculous - proper funny

Once again - thank you for proving my point

 

[Vic]

Ha ha - if you only understood even the utter basics of planning and managing negotiations - you would grasp why you are making yourself look ridiculous - proper funny

Once again - thank you for proving my point

And you mine.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Will they want it when it costs 20% more? Tariffs, extra paperwork costs, loss of the £35m a year subsidy from the Common Fisheries Policy...

".....direct increased costs from tariffs; practicalities of handling paperwork in adverse conditions (in remote locations, bad weather); lack of infrastructure to cope with backed up freight traffic; uncertainty over the documents required; problems liaising with public organisations (who work to office hours). Ultimately this could undermine the quality of exported products (for example increased shellfish mortality in live trade and forcing premium products into lower paying markets) and mean UK exporters lose out to non-UK suppliers to the EU that can supply the same product faster and at lower cost"

Worst case scenario is that control of our waters means we abandon overfishing controls.

Most ironic scenario is that we want to land more fish in our own ports and the only way to revive our fishing ports is by using foreign-owned boats (see foreign ownership of UK quotas) or more immigrants to work on British boats.
.

The UK fishing fleet is little more than a 'cottage' industry these days concentrating on high quality seafood - crabs, langoustine, scallops and the like, the majority of which is exported to France and Spain. There will always be a market for this high quality produce and I would think its not as price sensitive as you would expect - prices are already very high. We actually land less than £1bn of fish with our own fleet per year albeit the UK market for fish is around £6bn with imports and the aquaculture industry (salmon farming) mostly making up the gap. Whilst it may be an emotive subject, fishing will be the last thing that proves Brexit is a good or bad thing. Climate change will surely mean that cold water fish like cod and haddock will never return to UK waters in the volume they were present in years long gone. If anything, we will need to rely more on imports from the likes of Iceland and Faroe Islands. The Salmon aquaculture industry is blighted by poor environmental management, is principally owned by Norwegians, and has a shelf life unless they move farming to 'on shore' tanks which is technically possible these days but cost prohibitive. Just thought some context to the fishing discussion would be helpful.

 

[Vic]

The UK fishing fleet is little more than a 'cottage' industry these days concentrating on high quality seafood - crabs, langoustine, scallops and the like, the majority of which is exported to France and Spain. There will always be a market for this high quality produce and I would think its not as price sensitive as you would expect - prices are already very high. We actually land less than £1bn of fish with our own fleet per year albeit the UK market for fish is around £6bn with imports and the aquaculture industry (salmon farming) mostly making up the gap. Whilst it may be an emotive subject, fishing will be the last thing that proves Brexit is a good or bad thing. Climate change will surely mean that cold water fish like cod and haddock will never return to UK waters in the volume they were present in years long gone. If anything, we will need to rely more on imports from the likes of Iceland and Faroe Islands. The Salmon aquaculture industry is blighted by poor environmental management, is principally owned by Norwegians, and has a shelf life unless they move farming to 'on shore' tanks which is technically possible these days but cost prohibitive. Just thought some context to the fishing discussion would be helpful.

It is. I only mentioned fishing as a starting gambit about how to negotiate.

But I'm really not sure what people who blame the EU for decline of UK fishing are expecting to happen. Catches in UK waters have declined by over 94% in the past 130 years, and the decline long predated Britain joining the CFP (which has helped maintain stocks).

If say Belgian coastal fleets can't fish in UK waters, who's going to catch the fish they caught? Maybe quotas sold to the big "UK" firms who then contract with redundant Belgian fishermen to catch "our" fish (then how does it get to the EU market?). If no-one catches it, prices go up and people will eat less fish so less incentive to expand the British fleet.

 

[Vic]

Not sure what your issue with immigrants is tbh. Our fish stocks are our fish stocks. If we don't have a fishing industry capable of catching them, then just let the stocks recover while we grow the domestic industry. That growth will happen if the economic demand for our fish exists either at home or abroad. You only seem capable of seeing problems, obstacles, and logs in the path Vic. Some of which you are probably correct about, but your inability to conceive any solutions clouds your judgement. I go to billingsgate market about three times a year where you can buy pretty much anything that lives in the sea from pretty much anywhere in the world - paperwork seems not to hinder this trade.

How will the industry grow without immigrant labour if we can't get enough UK people to work on the boats we've got now?

Some of that "anywhere in the world" fish will be under EU agreements that no longer apply so there will be paperwork that isn't needed now.

These are the known problems. Don't expect me to know what the solutions are. I just know that getting rid of red tape is not what Brexit will do (and this is true of all import/export not just fish).

If you want to know what the UK solutions are, it's prepare for more paperwork while losing CFP subsidy.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-fisheries-sector-and-preparing-for-eu-exit#access-to-eu-ports

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

Although the immediate task in hand when Parliament returns is to pass the WAB into law that is just a foregone conclusion and from February 1st we will be a former member of the EU.

The interesting part then is the negotiations between the UK & the EU on any future relationship beyond the end of 2020. These negotiations will be split between London & Brussels and for the first time the UK will have a completely unified position that cannot be undermined by Parliamentary opposition. There will be no Remain delegations travelling to Brussels to discuss ways of cutting the ground beneath the feet of UK negotiators for example. Johnson will be in a position to deliver our side of any agreement if needed but equally he could choose to walk away with no deal.

At the end it will be a clear decision from both sides. If a deal is hammered out does it fit with your vital national / EU interests and if so is it better to accept it or go to a WTO relationship. I suspect Johnson & the main EU leadership (Merkel & Macron) have already agreed a very broad outline of a deal but clearly there will be tough negotiations ahead.

I'm actually confident of an agreement as I don't believe either side prefers the WTO option but for me not being part of the EU trumps everything else so I'm also very relaxed whatever the outcome.

 

[Saddleworth2]

It is. I only mentioned fishing as a starting gambit about how to negotiate.

But I'm really not sure what people who blame the EU for decline of UK fishing are expecting to happen. Catches in UK waters have declined by over 94% in the past 130 years, and the decline long predated Britain joining the CFP (which has helped maintain stocks).

If say Belgian coastal fleets can't fish in UK waters, who's going to catch the fish they caught? Maybe quotas sold to the big "UK" firms who then contract with redundant Belgian fishermen to catch "our" fish (then how does it get to the EU market?). If no-one catches it, prices go up and people will eat less fish so less incentive to expand the British fleet.

European friends have been fishing in our waters for centuries and as far as I can ascertain, little work has been done as to what ultimately might happen here and who will be allowed to do what. As a rule, we export what we catch and import what we eat, largely because of the average brits aversion to anything that doesn’t come wrapped in batter ;-). Whatever the solution, it will have to cover the spectrum of what fishing is. From small single man part time crabbers in Cornwall to Ocean going trawlers in Peterhead to all elements of the supply chain, fish processors, wholesale and retailers. One thing is for sure, adult negotiation is necessary and any big bollocks bravado from Liar Johnson will be met with a swift and sure import blockade by French fisherman that would certainly bring our inshore fishing industry to its knees faster than you can say ‘sacre bleu’

 

[mcfc1632]

And you mine.

Bless - I know that you are trying so score some point here Vic - but there will be a number of people on here that have experience in planning and managing major negotiations and I am content to let you continue to embarrass yourself for a while.

But to help a little bit...…...

With regard to preparing to undertake negotiations between the UK and EU on a wide-ranging FTA that will be the key contributing factor to the economic health of both parties for many years to come - your starter for 10 was:

Try me.

US: We want to keep your fishing boats out of our waters.

EU: then we won't buy your fish.

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses - where you toss a coin to see who goes first

Whilst the policy on fishing has importance as a 'card' - waaay before you have that interaction the UK team will be establishing their target Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions at the 'macro levels'. Just as important our team will be establishing those of the EU and how these can be accommodated alongside ours and where these clash.

The EU have indicated what they seek - Van Leyden's recent emphasis on the 'absolute' requirements of equality of a level playing field and UK adherence to regulations amply suggest what they want and what they fear. Her comments on the need for more and more extensions - during which the UK will have to comply/adhere to EU regulations - also indicate their preferred approach to the management of the next stages - to give nothing of substance away and to agree longer and longer extensions.

It is from this strategic planning - which should have been commenced in the weeks after June 2016 - that the shape of Johnson's Brexit and any 'genuine red-lines' will emerge.

Frankly, we are already > 3 years behind the EU and such planning will hardly have started yet as Johnson could not be in a position to implement a genuine negotiation strategy until a Westminster majority was secured - he and his team have had all their focus and energy diverted on dealing with the EU proxies such as Grieve, Soubry and Benn.

So we start from a weaker position anyway and that is made worse by > 3 years of delay in properly planning negotiations and even worse still by the presence of a WA that has been largely drafted by a docile UK team at the EU's direction. Only the ruinous unfettered backstop has been removed - and thank the fuck for that as that utterly poisonous arrangement totally destroyed any future negotiating position of the UKs.

I have mentioned that there are some signs that the UK is starting to involve professionals in the design and management of its negotiations - the hard-stop on the timetable was a clear example of that and we see from the EU reaction how that is thoroughly irritating to them. They want control, full control and anything that impacts their having control is anathema to them. This is why May's deal was so perfect for the EU and so ruinous for the UK - unfortunately there is still a lot of May's surrender clauses within the WA.

But the hard-stop is only of benefit if there is other planning in-hand to ensure that we have our Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions properly defined at both the macro level - e.g. a clearly defined future economic model that determines our position on regulations and at the individual workstream level - e.g. our stance on fishing.

The EU have started to refer again to the risk of a No-Deal outcome - and this is important because it is something, one of the only things, that they are genuinely concerned about. Their concerns are not just because of the initial disruption - but also what it may lead to as a major economy, newly independent of their regulations and taking an economic hit as a result, needs to take dramatic/forceful actions to support recovery.

Without any 'need' to shift their position(s) the EU would happily just sit and let the clock click on for years to come - therefore it follows that we need to assess what are the few factors that would 'make them shift' - and something that has been an utterly obvious truism for > 3 years is:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they face the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it."

The key aspects are viable and political will. The EU did not face these under the May premiership and would not have expected to face them at all - the recent GE outcomes changes this and without such a 'fallback' at the macro level - then the rest is just unfounded hubris

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses like you seem to think - nor a situation of bartering at a market stall. We start from a position of the weaker partner - made much weaker by the incompetence of May/Robbins and the passage of so much time without effective preparations for a (even a partial) No-deal outcone.

You do not start these negotiations by chatting shit about fish.

 

[mcfc1632]

I think the faulty assumption by yourself here is that the EU currently catch/buy our fish as a charitable act. It's actually because they need/want it. This will prevent the scenario above. Worst case scenario is our already decimated fishing industry stays decimated while stocks recover.

Not a bad fallback position for the UK that on the project level fisheries issue

Easy to implement, little cost to us and genuinely unwelcome to the EU

 

[Len Rum]

Bless - I know that you are trying so score some point here Vic - but there will be a number of people on here that have experience in planning and managing major negotiations and I am content to let you continue to embarrass yourself for a while.

But to help a little bit...…...

With regard to preparing to undertake negotiations between the UK and EU on a wide-ranging FTA that will be the key contributing factor to the economic health of both parties for many years to come - your starter for 10 was:

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses - where you toss a coin to see who goes first

Whilst the policy on fishing as importance as a 'card' - waaay before you have that interaction the UK team will be establishing their target Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions at the 'macro levels'. Just as important our team will be establishing those of the EU and how these can be accommodated alongside ours and where these clash.

The EU have indicated what they seek - Van Leyden's recent emphasis on the 'absolute' requirements of equality of a level playing field and UK adherence to regulations amply suggest what they want and what they fear. Her comments on the need for more and more extensions - during which the UK will have to comply/adhere to EU regulations - also indicate their preferred approach to the management of the next stages - to give nothing of substance away and to agree longer and longer extensions.

It is from this strategic planning - which should have been commenced in the weeks after June 2016 - that the shape of Johnson's Brexit and any 'genuine red-lines' will emerge.

Frankly, we are already > 3 years behind the EU and such planning will hardly have started yet as Johnson could not be in a position to implement a genuine negotiation strategy until a Westminster majority was secured - he and his team have had all their focus and energy diverted on dealing with the EU proxies such as Grieve, Soubry and Benn.

So we start from a weaker position anyway and that is made worse by > 3 years of delay in properly planning negotiations and even worse still by the presence of a WA that has been largely drafted by a docile UK team at the EU's direction. Only the ruinous unfettered backstop has been removed - and thank the fuck for that as that utterly poisonous arrangement totally destroyed any future negotiating position of the UKs.

I have mentioned that there are some signs that the UK is starting to involve professionals in the design and management of its negotiations - the hard-stop on the timetable was a clear example of that and we see from the EU reaction how that is thoroughly irritating to them. They want control, full control and anything that impacts their having control is anathema to them. This is why May's deal was so perfect for the EU and so ruinous for the UK - unfortunately there is still a lot of May's surrender clauses within the WA.

But the hard-stop is only of benefit if there is other planning in-hand to ensure that we have our Ideal, Realistic and Fallback positions properly defined at both the macro level - e.g. a clearly defined future economic model that determines our position on regulations and at the individual workstream level - e.g. our stance on fishing.

The EU have started to refer again to the risk of a No-Deal outcome - and this is important because it is something, one of the only things, that they are genuinely concerned about. Their concerns are not just because of the initial disruption - but also what it may lead to as a major economy, newly independent of their regulations and taking an economic hit as a result, needs to take dramatic/forceful actions to support recovery.

Without any 'need' to shift their position(s) the EU would happily just sit and let the clock click on for years to come - therefore it follows that we need to assess what are the few factors that would 'make them shift' - and something that has been an utterly obvious truism for > 3 years is:

"We will not see movement from the EU unless and until they face the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it."

The key aspects are viable and political will. The EU did not face these under the May premiership and would not have expected to face them at all - the recent GE outcomes changes this and without such a 'fallback' at the macro level - then the rest is just unfounded hubris

No Vic - it is not a game of noughts and crosses like you seem to think - nor a situation of bartering at a market stall. We start from a position of the weaker partner - made much weaker by the incompetence of May/Robbins and the passage of so much time without effective preparations for a (even a partial) No-deal outcone.

You do not start these negotiations by chatting shit about fish.

Possible no deal outcomes or economic hits were never mentioned in the referendum campaign. It was all sunlit uplands,easiest deal in history or no worse off than at present.
That could return to further divide the country along the remain/leave fault line.
But it is what it is now.
The CON worked.

 

[Len Rum]

The EU have started to refer again to the risk of a No-Deal outcome - but also what it may lead to as a major economy, newly independent of their regulations and taking an economic hit as a result, needs to take dramatic/forceful actions to support recovery.
.

And there you have it.
The real reason for brexit.
A deregulated low wage, low benefit,low skill, low public spending economy justified on the basis of the EU wouldn't give us a good deal.

 

[Len Rum]

.
It is from this strategic planning - which should have been commenced in the weeks after June 2016 - that the shape of Johnson's Brexit and any 'genuine red-lines' will emerge.
Frankly, we are already > 3 years behind the EU and such planning will hardly have started yet as Johnson could not be in a position to implement a genuine negotiation strategy until a Westminster majority was secured - he and his team have had all their focus and energy diverted on dealing with the EU proxies such as Grieve, Soubry and Benn.
So we start from a weaker position anyway and that is made worse by > 3 years of delay in properly planning negotiations and even worse still by the presence of a WA that has been largely drafted by a docile UK team at the EU's direction. Only the ruinous unfettered backstop has been removed - and thank the fuck for that as that utterly poisonous arrangement totally destroyed any future negotiating position of the UKs.
- unfortunately there is still a lot of May's surrender clauses within the WA.

.

Getting the excuses in early - the enemy within!