Political relations between UK-EU

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
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?
 
Vic said:
Are you saying the UK is relying on an email we sent to which the EU didn't reply?
Click to expand...

What is being said is we sent an email but nothing else is being made public.

The content and context is important here however it’s all a bit flimsy relying on an email. I’m wondering if when the ban on shellfish happened we scrambled around trying to work out why this happened and someone said I sent an email. You know, the sort of shit that happens in offices every day of the week when someone is arse covering. It doesn’t look great either way.
 
west didsblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

I used to have a montego. It wasn’t a spot of bother ;)

I get the point you’re making though and it’s fair to say that it’s going to cost a lot. Neither side will ever agree anyway. Leave side will say it only cost the treasury this (hard money paid out) and the remain side will also include lost revenue to the treasury from sales and possibly other loses. I’d probably say the remain number would be a better reflection.

I just hope we can sort issues out quickly and people can get back to earning in those industries most affected.
 
metalblue said:
I used to have a montego. It wasn’t a spot of bother ;)

I get the point you’re making though and it’s fair to say that it’s going to cost a lot. Neither side will ever agree anyway. Leave side will say it only cost the treasury this (hard money paid out) and the remain side will also include lost revenue to the treasury from sales and possibly other loses. I’d probably say the remain number would be a better reflection.

I just hope we can sort issues out quickly and people can get back to earning in those industries most affected.
Click to expand...
I had Montegos in the 90s. The first one got nicked and written off after I'd only had it a few weeks. Worked out well though in that the insurance gave me the book value which was £600 more than I'd paid. Got another one, an estate this time, that did spend quite some time being repaired. It was a nice car though - had a rear facing seat in the boot that the kids loved sitting in.

Back to the analogy though, it's like we didn't want the Merc because the service plan was written in Germany whilst the Montego one was British.
 
west didsblue said:
I had Montegos in the 90s. The first one got nicked and written off after I'd only had it a few weeks. Worked out well though in that the insurance gave me the book value which was £600 more than I'd paid. Got another one, an estate this time, that did spend quite some time being repaired. It was a nice car though - had a rear facing seat in the boot that the kids loved sitting in.

Back to the analogy though, it's like we didn't want the Merc because the service plan was written in Germany whilst the Montego one was British.
Click to expand...
Aka the Montenogo....
 
west didsblue said:
I had Montegos in the 90s. The first one got nicked and written off after I'd only had it a few weeks. Worked out well though in that the insurance gave me the book value which was £600 more than I'd paid. Got another one, an estate this time, that did spend quite some time being repaired. It was a nice car though - had a rear facing seat in the boot that the kids loved sitting in.

Back to the analogy though, it's like we didn't want the Merc because the service plan was written in Germany whilst the Montego one was British.
Click to expand...

I had that same 7 seater model in a British racing green. Diesel was powerful enough. Because it was 7 seater it was reinforced at the back mine also had a tow bar . Someone hit Mrs MB up the back side whilst she was driving it. Completely stoved the front of their car (Fiat IIRC), nothing on the Montego. Sure the butt of jokes but they were good workhorse cars!

See it worked out for us in the end ;)

I think I see where you went wrong. You serviced the Montego. Like goldfish they thrive on abuse!!!

Back to the analogy. Maybe we got bored with the same old Merc and the big service costs and we longed for that plucky Montego again who would always get back up after being knocked down.
 
metalblue said:
I had that same 7 seater model in a British racing green. Diesel was powerful enough. Because it was 7 seater it was reinforced at the back mine also had a tow bar . Someone hit Mrs MB up the back side whilst she was driving it. Completely stoved the front of their car (Fiat IIRC), nothing on the Montego. Sure the butt of jokes but they were good workhorse cars!

See it worked out for us in the end ;)

I think I see where you went wrong. You serviced the Montego. Like goldfish they thrive on abuse!!!

Back to the analogy. Maybe we got bored with the same old Merc and the big service costs and we longed for that plucky Montego again who would always get back up after being knocked down.
Click to expand...
Had a similar story with a Rover SD1 that I had in the late 80s. Someone drove into the back of me on Cheetham Hill Road. Barely a scratch on mine but the front of his was caved in after impaling itself on the towbar.
My Montego costs were more repairs than servicing. Got £40 for it from a scrap dealer eventually. Bought the most boring car I ever had after that - a Toyota Carina. Didn't keep it long and sold it to a taxi driver.
 
metalblue said:
Very good. But whilst you jest honestly mate when people are investing in Bitcoin anything is possible!!!!
Click to expand...

Blagged myself a nice south facing one, well made up. It’s not perfect mind the neighbours smell of tuna and while people complain of knotweed(usually remainers) try dealing with seaweed when the tide comes in.

On a clear day though I can see France so spend many a day flicking V’s in their direction.
 
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