Astute
Well-Known Member
The EU will do what they can to keep hold of fishing in UK water.
The EU will do what they can to keep hold of fishing in UK water.We could of course leave the EU and join the EEA. Norway has its own policy on fishing.
If it wasn't a part of the remain campaign why was it all about remaining in the EU?The leaflet had to be distributed as laid down by the HoL. It was not part of the campaign. The same government duty of responsibility as the pesky government papers warning of the possible effects of a no deal Brexit that you don't like. You don't like these things, but the government has to tell you. If they didn't and these things happen, there would be uproar.
If it wasn't a part of the remain campaign why was it all about remaining in the EU?
The EU will do what they can to keep hold of fishing in UK water.
How much of the fish sold in the EU comes from UK water?And we will do what we can in order to export fish to the EU.
It was pro EU propaganda. Full stop.It was about the effect of the referendum. The same as the government papers that are being released now... although there is no referendum at the moment. Ordered by the HoL. Not part of campaign.
How much of the fish sold in the EU comes from UK water?
How much of this fish is caught by UK fishermen because of EU rules?
We should catch what we want when we want. As you keep reminding us when the EU breaks it's own rules and regulations it isn't breaking the law. So neither would we. We would only be breaking the law if we broke our own rules and regulations.
Sajid Javid says no deal would be opportunity for 'tax incentives' and attracting global talent
Britain should respond to a no-deal Brexit with tax cuts, increased spending on infrastructure and policies that will draw “global talent” to the country, Sajid Javid has suggested.
The Home Secretary told a specially convened Cabinet meeting last week that the Government should introduce new “tax incentives”, thought to include targeted cuts, to help the economy withstand the effects of leaving the EU without an agreement.
The intervention, seen as a rebuke of Philip Hammond’s insistence the Treasury could not afford tax cuts, will be welcomed by senior Brexiteers who have urged the Chancellor to prepare radical reforms of the economy to take advantage of the “opportunities” of Brexit.
It was pro EU propaganda. Full stop.
Anything released now has nothing to do with an election. Even you had to admit to that.
And no doubt the inevitable cuts to public services.
How much of the fish sold in the EU comes from UK water?
How much of this fish is caught by UK fishermen because of EU rules?
We should catch what we want when we want. As you keep reminding us when the EU breaks it's own rules and regulations it isn't breaking the law. So neither would we. We would only be breaking the law if we broke our own rules and regulations.
Sajid Javid says no deal would be opportunity for 'tax incentives' and attracting global talent
Britain should respond to a no-deal Brexit with tax cuts, increased spending on infrastructure and policies that will draw “global talent” to the country, Sajid Javid has suggested.
The Home Secretary told a specially convened Cabinet meeting last week that the Government should introduce new “tax incentives”, thought to include targeted cuts, to help the economy withstand the effects of leaving the EU without an agreement.
The intervention, seen as a rebuke of Philip Hammond’s insistence the Treasury could not afford tax cuts, will be welcomed by senior Brexiteers who have urged the Chancellor to prepare radical reforms of the economy to take advantage of the “opportunities” of Brexit.
Because the EU doesn't allow us to catch the fish in our own water but gives a massive quota to other countries to catch our fish. Once out of the EU we will get our water back. Then we can catch our own fish again....just like we used to.How much fish is imported from other EU countries to the UK due to the country's tastes?
Yet when it was done to put the other side of the argument forward it was counted as money used out of the budget allowed.Exactly. They are warnings/ information that has nothing to do with the campaign and as such the ones issued in advance of the referendum were not counted as campaign expenses. I thought the first ones explained the government‘s position with both sides of the argument ( I cannot remember exactly).
How many billions would be needed just to catch up with where we are now?More like „man the lifeboats“ as a way of not going down with the sinking ship.
Why aren’t we dealing with infrastructure now? Why aren’t we pumping money into .education? Why is money suddenly there or is there room for tax cuts after we leave? And don’t say because of our net payment to the EU as this is already being eaten into by extra bureaucracy, increased civil service staff and preparations for possible chaos. A relatively small fall in GDP will take care of the rest.
To cause a depression?Basically just crap. Billions are being used now for preparations for leaving the single market and largest economic bloc in the world to effectively cause a depression, and now come the carrots in the form of promises of a better life to hide the fact that we are heading for at least short term misery. You couldn’t make this up. Still the UK will be booming in 50 years according to a hedge fund grounder and part owner with investment funds in Russia and the EU and relatively little in Brexit Britain. Glad I‘m out of it. Like Britain’s richest man who said Brexit is great... and then promptly left to enjoy low taxes in Monaco. Except in my case I am constantly dealing with the taxman.
So if we gained our fishing rights back and the vast majority of fish caught by the other EU boats in our water was outlawed where would they get their fish from?We would be breaking the law and we would be sanctioned. And we would be mad not to have any regulations on catches and just take the lot. Overfishing is not a long term solution. Fishing is a small part of GDP and to break the rules and have the economy punished by retaliation would not be clever. The fishermen would lose their export markets with the EU and other countries through EU trade deals anyway. A delicate subject as scallop wars have shown. Plus there are international laws as well.
How you get the appointment of a civil servant into everything is truly amazing.
So if we gained our fishing rights back and the vast majority of fish caught by the other EU boats in our water was outlawed where would they get their fish from?
Certainly not from us you say.......
But in the real world....
As has been said several times before we sell more to the rest of the world than to the EU. And that is even with the restrictions that being part of the EU has on us. The EU sells much more to us than we sell to them. That means nothing you say. So they won't buy fish from us that they can't catch themselves? Get real.
Because the EU doesn't allow us to catch the fish in our own water but gives a massive quota to other countries to catch our fish. Once out of the EU we will get our water back. Then we can catch our own fish again....just like we used to.
'We have been hijacked': fishermen feel used over Brexit
I think the point is that we HAVE to import it because our fishermen have EU quotas that prevent them fulfilling the demand here at home.How much fish is imported from other EU countries to the UK due to the country's tastes?
As I said we are tied to the EU. This is tied to what the EU wants to protect.We sell to the rest of the world via EU deals.
Why doesn't it?That had absolutely nothing to do with what I said and a large reason the UK exports a lot of its own fish is due the country's tastes.
I think the point is that we HAVE to import it because our fishermen have EU quotas that prevent them fulfilling the demand here at home.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Why doesn't it?
We have to import fish from the EU that is caught in UK water as we are not allowed to catch it under EU rules. And the EU says any trade deal must include them keeping the rights to fish our waters.
So they don't need to fish our water or need the fish from it?
To cause a depression?
You are so funny.
As you can't understand what you read I will help you. This is the link from the Guardian from earlier.Go on then, what species of wish do we have to import that's caught in UK waters?
So if we gained our fishing rights back and the vast majority of fish caught by the other EU boats in our water was outlawed where would they get their fish from?
Certainly not from us you say.......
But in the real world....
As has been said several times before we sell more to the rest of the world than to the EU. And that is even with the restrictions that being part of the EU has on us. The EU sells much more to us than we sell to them. That means nothing you say. So they won't buy fish from us that they can't catch themselves? Get real.
It is accepted by most people who want to stay in the EU. But strangely enough nothing that can be seen as pro Brexit is ever accepted. Just like when you tried to say that YouGov were saying that most people wanted another vote. When the proof was put in front of you it was then a different matter.It is accepted by most that there will be at least a mini depression after Brexit.. even by leavers. Rees Mogg and Co are bigging up the situation in 50 years time to convince people it will be worth it. He may well be right, but I won’t be there to see that.
As you can't understand what you read I will help you. This is the link from the Guardian from earlier.
'We have been hijacked': fishermen feel used over Brexit
And here is a part of it that you can't twist in any way.
For Delahunty’s entire career, a lopsided system of quotas has granted up to 84% of the rights to fish some local species, such as English Channel cod, to the French, and left as little as 9% to British boats.
So Iceland could catch enough fish for the whole of the EU? And if dependent on just Iceland the price wouldn't go up?Where they get their fish from is dependent on price, possible tariffs and on international rules. I understand that Iceland also has fish.
It is accepted by most people who want to stay in the EU. But strangely enough nothing that can be seen as pro Brexit is ever accepted. Just like when you tried to say that YouGov were saying that most people wanted another vote. When the proof was put in front of you it was then a different matter.
Just a normal day on this thread.
Yes they are not good. But even though we are leaving they are doing what they can to keep their hands on our fish. So what chance would there be if we stayed in?Luckily we had a prominent UKIP MEP on the fisheries commission fighting tirelessly for our fishing rights.
And yes, fishing quotas have been discredited. No one says the present system is good.
As you can't understand what you read I will help you. This is the link from the Guardian from earlier.
'We have been hijacked': fishermen feel used over Brexit
And here is a part of it that you can't twist in any way.
For Delahunty’s entire career, a lopsided system of quotas has granted up to 84% of the rights to fish some local species, such as English Channel cod, to the French, and left as little as 9% to British boats.
And most people....more than voted leave.....still want Brexit to happen.You are answering the wrong poster. I said YouGov said more people think that we made the wrong decision in leaving. Which is in your own link.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?