Political relations between UK-EU

Vic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thats the Brexit way - announce your fixes in a fanfare of bright lights and fire works - avoid any questions - when it all fizzles out it means nowt and you get nowt £
 
bluethrunthru said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not when that letter is explicitly on the topic of shell fish being export from the Uk into the EU it isn’t.

You may say such assurances are amateurish but what you actually mean in legalese “ostensible authority” - and these do tend to be legally binding as inconvenient as that might be.

It may comes as a shock to you but everything in the withdrawal agreement was BEFORE we left, points agreed therein binding - I’m no doubt sure you would have been stating that when the UK government was trying to put legislation in place to protect the structure of the UK in the event of a no deal that the UK government were wrong....I could go look but happy for you to tell me I’m wrong.


Vic said:
Is there a letter? It's not been published yet, has it?
Click to expand...

Not that I am aware of, this is obviously key to the UK’s position. Without it we can have no complaints.
 
west didsblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

@blueparrot asked (reasonably) how we would fund support to our fishermen what with our COVID costs. It’s relevant in that context.

It’s a bit early to say how much this is all costing us but it ain’t going to be cheap.
 
metalblue said:
What an argument winning post!

The UK maintain this letter/assurance exists but has yet to publish it. I take such assurances at face value.

I’m very comfortable with my look. I’m not the one tied to a particular lamppost with blinkers on whatever the point - I am happy to assess each argument on merit and take a view based on available evidence. Maybe I’m not the one who should have a good hard look at themselves.
Click to expand...
I give you credit. Others have quit the field as the stupidity of Brexit sinks in. But you do seem tied to your own lamppost - you believe Tories. (A neat trick - tied to a lamppost in a rabbit hole...)

The available evidence on what the EU said about shellfish in 2019 is that there is no available evidence other than the claim that they gave "assurances" (and sources saying that the government knew - or should have known - what the rules were).

Exclusive: Shellfish Industry Leaders Claim DEFRA Privately Admitted The EU Was Right On The Shellfish Ban (politicshome.com)
 
Vic said:
I give you credit. Others have quit the field as the stupidity of Brexit sinks in. But you do seem tied to your own lamppost - you believe Tories. (A neat trick - tied to a lamppost in a rabbit hole...)

The available evidence on what the EU said about shellfish in 2019 is that there is no available evidence other than the claim that they gave "assurances" (and sources saying that the government knew - or should have known - what the rules were).

Exclusive: Shellfish Industry Leaders Claim DEFRA Privately Admitted The EU Was Right On The Shellfish Ban (politicshome.com)
Click to expand...
I respect his commitment but he's going to end up being a bit like those japanese lads they found in caves 20 years after the war still convinced it's all good.
 
Vic said:
I give you credit. Others have quit the field as the stupidity of Brexit sinks in. But you do seem tied to your own lamppost - you believe Tories. (A neat trick - tied to a lamppost in a rabbit hole...)

The available evidence on what the EU said about shellfish in 2019 is that there is no available evidence other than the claim that they gave "assurances" (and sources saying that the government knew - or should have known - what the rules were).

Exclusive: Shellfish Industry Leaders Claim DEFRA Privately Admitted The EU Was Right On The Shellfish Ban (politicshome.com)
Click to expand...

Is that politicshome.com pro remain? I only ask as it’s a fairly one sided article.

The UK are saying an email sent on 16th Sept 2019 by Christine Middlemiss (UK chief vet officer) that clarified the UK could continue to export if they confirm fitness/purity via a model animal health certificate what they are relying on.

Whilst the UK are clearly able to show some form of paper trail (contrary to the idea the tories are lying) however it does seem, on the surface, to be a fairly thin defence from the UK (as we issued the email). I’ll hold judgement as we’ve not seen the content (ie how explicit and if it was clearly an object or accept by default wording) nor any responses to it but I’d say if the EU never responded it would be hard for us to press the point and we would have to accept it was a bit of a fuck up here.

Most important thing now is to sort it.
 
metalblue said:
@blueparrot asked (reasonably) how we would fund support to our fishermen what with our COVID costs. It’s relevant in that context.

It’s a bit early to say how much this is all costing us but it ain’t going to be cheap.
Click to expand...
You're right that we don't know how much it's going to cost but I think it's safe to say it's going to be a lot more than £9bn based on what we know already.

It's like we've traded in a Mercedes that's running well and has a fixed price service and repair plan for a knackered old Montego that barely runs even after we've spent a fortune on repairing it and we don't know how much it will cost to fix it properly. Even after that happens it won't be anywhere near as good as the Merc we traded in.
 
metalblue said:
Is that politicshome.com pro remain? I only ask as it’s a fairly one sided article.

The UK are saying an email sent on 16th Sept 2019 by Christine Middlemiss (UK chief vet officer) that clarified the UK could continue to export if they confirm fitness/purity via a model animal health certificate what they are relying on.

Whilst the UK are clearly able to show some form of paper trail (contrary to the idea the tories are lying) however it does seem, on the surface, to be a fairly thin defence from the UK (as we issued the email). I’ll hold judgement as we’ve not seen the content (ie how explicit and if it was clearly an object or accept by default wording) nor any responses to it but I’d say if the EU never responded it would be hard for us to press the point and we would have to accept it was a bit of a fuck up here.

Most important thing now is to sort it.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the UK is relying on an email we sent to which the EU didn't reply?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.