Political relations between UK-EU

[bluethrunthru]

So against those two levers we have shellfish issue. Putting aside that the UK claim they were told it would be ok for a moment let us look at the mechanics. The EU have standards in place that quite probably favoured UK shell fishers for many years (ie prevented cheaper imports from elsewhere in the globe) that we now are to comply with. This will increase our costs which will be passed on to the EU purchaser making our shellfish as expensive as anyone else’s. The only benefit for UK shellfish would be geography. So the benefits to being a member when it comes to trading with other EU states are clear, they are on the inside of the protection ring as the UK was, in this example however it doesn’t inhibit our ability to export once we comply with the rules.

There you go again - just a few words problem solved. Have a look at the rules WE helped to write and research Class A and Class B waters then let us know how we fix the seawater.

 

[metalblue]

However this is another myth .... State Aid is allowed under Eu rules as long as it is for economic development and not to give an industry a competitive advantage. (See Italys bail out of its steel industry and the Netherlands development of rail infrastructure)

You were lied to

You literally haven’t understood a word I posted or have disingenuously decided to switch the debate to something else.

Let me try again:

The UK contributed more to being an EU member than it received in return grants. This is a well accepted fact. The only question I posed was if the amount we need to bail industry out who are struggling under Brexit would exceed that.

Rather than try and re-debate 2016 we could try and address that question.

 

[metalblue]

There you go again - just a few words problem solved. Have a look at the rules WE helped to write and research Class A and Class B waters then let us know how we fix the seawater.

The easiest solution would be for the EU to standby what they originally said failing that the next would be purify before export - thus increasing costs as stated in my response. That would overcome the barrier.

Why is it so hard for you to accept there are solutions here?

 

[bluethrunthru]

The easiest solution would be for the EU to standby what they originally said failing that the next would be purify before export - thus increasing costs as stated in my response. That would overcome the barrier.

Why is it so hard for you to accept there are solutions here?

we are back to "whats the point in being a member" then. They let unpurified shellfish from Class B waters in then why not unpurified shellfish from class B waters from any other non-member state?

You leave the club you leave behind the benefits - even those you rigged in your favour. I see Leave are still in denial and think that its unreasonable to be denied using the pool at the gym simply on the grounds that you have left and stopped paying subs.

why can't you accept that the solution you seek is to trade our shellfish with the rest of the world as Brexit promised we would?

 

[metalblue]

we are back to "whats the point in being a member" then. They let unpurified shellfish from Class B waters in then why not unpurified shellfish from class B waters from any other non-member state?

You leave the club you leave behind the benefits - even those you rigged in your favour. I see Leave are still in denial and think that its unreasonable to be denied using the pool at the gym simply on the grounds that you have left and stopped paying subs.

why can't you accept that the solution you seek is to trade our shellfish with the rest of the world as Brexit promised we would?

There are two issues at play here. The first is on being outside the EU, we have to follow rules that weren’t explicitly negotiated in the trade deal. That’s a given. Now people on both sides of the debate argued how much we would be able to negotiate (leave) or how little (remain). Some of the most vocal commentators on both sides have been proven very wrong.

The second issue and the only reason I question the stance on UK exports of shellfish is we were told it would be ok. But nonetheless there are at least solutions to this particular problem.

To your last point. If I stood here and said the answer would simply be to export the 70% we used to export to EU to other countries I’d be rightly laughed at. Of course longer term we should be looking to broaden our trading partners for a variety of our product but that takes time (years) to run up.

 

[bluethrunthru]

There are two issues at play here. The first is on being outside the EU, we have to follow rules that weren’t explicitly negotiated in the trade deal. That’s a given. Now people on both sides of the debate argued how much we would be able to negotiate (leave) or how little (remain). Some of the most vocal commentators on both sides have been proven very wrong.

The second issue and the only reason I question the stance on UK exports of shellfish is we were told it would be ok. But nonetheless there are at least solutions to this particular problem.

To your last point. If I stood here and said the answer would simply be to export the 70% we used to export to EU to other countries I’d be rightly laughed at. Of course longer term we should be looking to broaden our trading partners for a variety of our product but that takes time (years) to run up.

The one thing in play here over the export of shellfish is the amateur approach of Frosty the Showman and his so called team of professional negotiators. To just assume a letter passed to you in 2019 BEFORE the UK left and entered the transition period where you then negotiate a trade deal forgetting to include in said deal what you thought was a binding commitment in the agreement is beyond amateur - we will be assuming trade rules with China were implicitly implied in a take-away delivery menu stuck onto the fridge door next.

The fact that it was never raised in the negotiations indicates they probably didn't bring it up as a refusal would have been awkward.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Can't stop thinking about this scene whenever that letter is discussed.

 

[Vic]

Of what? Fish? No idea never bothered to check if it existed before or anywhere else in the world.

But discards aren’t really the point here nor why I picked up on your post ...so to back up; you asserted that you thought it was a barrier to fisherman claiming the compensation when you wrote “So if your boat is not going out because it's likely the catch will have to be thrown away”

Whilst I understand the foley you are highlighting I was merely saying it wasn’t a new concept for fishermen and that making them prove losses wasn’t unreasonable. Perhaps the government could have used last 3 years average catch profit for each boat (we have evidence) and forced boats to remain docked? That’s probably not a good solution either. Anyway if you have other ways for this to happen I’m all ears but let’s not go down rabbit holes here.

You made an irrelevant link to the CFP. It's your rabbit hole. No-one ever went fishing to fill the boat with unsellable fish yet that's the implication of the new fund criteria.

 

[Vic]

There are two issues at play here. The first is on being outside the EU, we have to follow rules that weren’t explicitly negotiated in the trade deal. That’s a given. Now people on both sides of the debate argued how much we would be able to negotiate (leave) or how little (remain). Some of the most vocal commentators on both sides have been proven very wrong.

The second issue and the only reason I question the stance on UK exports of shellfish is we were told it would be ok. But nonetheless there are at least solutions to this particular problem.

To your last point. If I stood here and said the answer would simply be to export the 70% we used to export to EU to other countries I’d be rightly laughed at. Of course longer term we should be looking to broaden our trading partners for a variety of our product but that takes time (years) to run up.

Is there a letter? It's not been published yet, has it?

 

[west didsblue]

You literally haven’t understood a word I posted or have disingenuously decided to switch the debate to something else.

Let me try again:

The UK contributed more to being an EU member than it received in return grants. This is a well accepted fact. The only question I posed was if the amount we need to bail industry out who are struggling under Brexit would exceed that.

Rather than try and re-debate 2016 we could try and address that question.

Why is that relevant?
The roughly £9 billion saved by not being a member is spoken for about five times over to fully fund the regulatory agencies needed to replace the shared EU ones, the additional customs infrastructure and running costs, the IT systems and manning for all the new bureaucracy and not forgetting the additional £300m per week for the NHS.