Reply to: Tory MPs protest against Brexit

[meridian]

https://thepinprick.com/2018/03/23/f...you-didnt-know


It makes an interesting point about the economics of fishing. The poultry industry is three times larger than the fishing industry, yet Farage/JRM et al are keen on protecting one (British quotas for “British” fish) and throwing the other under a bus (cheaper food imports).

Could it be that there are no populist photo opportunities in the second?

[meridian]

Hmmmm

https://mobile.twitter.com/otto_engl...79326538469376

Three companies own nearly two-thirds of England's fishing quota. One of those - Andrew Marr International (no relation) owns 12%. AIM backs Brexit and seems to be connected to Fishing for Leave. During the Brexit Flotilla - Farage and co were on an Andrew Marr vessel.

The Marr family is on The Times rich list. They are a big business. Sorry to bore long term followers by repeating this yet again. But it can't be said enough. AIM benefits financially from Brexit and end to quotas

They sell this narrative of humble little fishermen against evil Bob Geldof but it was bollocks. Geldof isn't on the Times Rich list... Andrew Marr the fishy people are.

[meridian]

Not really, the Common Fisheries Policy is not much more than a menu, without the aggravation of having to pay for the privilege. It was, with the benefit of hindsight, the most likely reason we were invited to join the EEC in 1973. A case of "all your fishes are belong to us", if you will.

Edit: And throughout most of this time, we've been paying them to help themselves to fish in our waters. FFS, which bit of this do you think is wrong?

“Most likely” = you made it up.

CFP quotas are mostly based on entry in 1973 when the U.K. was still fishing around Iceland, but then Iceland bullied us out of their waters in 1976. The U.K. still retains a quota based largely on those earlier figures though, which is why the U.K. quota is roughly 30% of the total EU quota even though “British” waters are only around 16% of total EU waters.

It’s way more complex than just overall quota numbers though, there are complexities in the types of fish and shellfish that are in our quotas, and the markets that we sell those fish and shellfish to. As an example, migrating fish species may or may not be in “our”waters depending on the season, whereas shellfish tend to stay in their beds. Guess where most of our shellfish catch is sold to?

That’s without even getting into the U.K. quotas being sold by our fishermen to larger EU-reg boats.

[northernladyuk]

I respect your opinion, but I'll never understand it. I try and avoid insults for that very reason, but you clearly don't give a sh!t. You go and feck off to Brussels, and when the sh!t hits the inevitable fan, excuse me whilst I slam the door on your exit strategy back home.

How do you intend to do that?

[Mordac]

Feck me when people call you thick, they're being optimistic.

I respect your opinion, but I'll never understand it. I try and avoid insults for that very reason, but you clearly don't give a sh!t. You go and feck off to Brussels, and when the sh!t hits the inevitable fan, excuse me whilst I slam the door on your exit strategy back home.

[northernladyuk]

Feck me when people call you thick, they're being optimistic.

It is one of the many fascinating strands of Brexit.

[sasguru]

Not really, the Common Fisheries Policy is not much more than a menu, without the aggravation of having to pay for the privilege. It was, with the benefit of hindsight, the most likely reason we were invited to join the EEC in 1973. A case of "all your fishes are belong to us", if you will.

Edit: And throughout most of this time, we've been paying them to help themselves to fish in our waters. FFS, which bit of this do you think is wrong?

Feck me when people call you thick, they're being optimistic.

[Mordac]

You just made that up, didn't you ?

Not really, the Common Fisheries Policy is not much more than a menu, without the aggravation of having to pay for the privilege. It was, with the benefit of hindsight, the most likely reason we were invited to join the EEC in 1973. A case of "all your fishes are belong to us", if you will.

Edit: And throughout most of this time, we've been paying them to help themselves to fish in our waters. FFS, which bit of this do you think is wrong?

[northernladyuk]

Well soon we'll be able to charge them full rates for said fish. They've been getting it for next to nothing* for the last 40 years, so we'll wait and see how much they miss their rollmops...

*Next to nothing, defined under the Common Fisheries Policy as "absolutely f*** all..."

Correction.

You cannot work out the rest for yourself.

[TestMangler]

Well soon we'll be able to charge them full rates for said fish. They've been getting it for next to nothing* for the last 40 years, so we'll wait and see how much they miss their rollmops...

*Next to nothing, defined under the Common Fisheries Policy as "absolutely f*** all..."

You just made that up, didn't you ?

[northernladyuk]

Well as long as the people who normally buy this fish are either happy with frozen fish or are willing to not put up with trade barriers put in place by spoilt children who could not get their own way.

Then I think all will be fine.

The UK is leaving the single market and customs union and is thereby putting trade barriers squarely on the table.

[Mordac]

Much of the UK waters catch is exported to the EU and the delivery of fresh fish is greatly hindered by trade barriers. You can work out the rest for yourself.

Well soon we'll be able to charge them full rates for said fish. They've been getting it for next to nothing* for the last 40 years, so we'll wait and see how much they miss their rollmops...

*Next to nothing, defined under the Common Fisheries Policy as "absolutely f*** all..."

[original PM]

And maybe we can finally restore some of Fleetwood's former glory

https://www.fleetwoodtoday.co.uk/new...hing-1-8427700

[original PM]

You mean the trade barriers that were already there to stop non-EU countries dumping goods into the market?
The barriers that we were inside and had no effect on us?
The barriers that we took part in creating?
The barriers that will only affect us because we chose to leave and be outside them?

I thought the EU did not practise protectionism?

If there is a need for goods the UK currently supplies to Europe to continue to be supplied then why would anyone put barriers in place to suddenly stop that - seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face...

or something a spoiled ten year old would do when they cannot get their own way.

But yes if those countries which currently buy our fish are happy to live without them then fine - that is one of the challenges we expected Brexit to bring about.

[DaveB]

Well as long as the people who normally buy this fish are either happy with frozen fish or are willing to not put up with trade barriers put in place by spoilt children who could not get their own way.

Then I think all will be fine.

You mean the trade barriers that were already there to stop non-EU countries dumping goods into the market?
The barriers that we were inside and had no effect on us?
The barriers that we took part in creating?
The barriers that will only affect us because we chose to leave and be outside them?