87% less
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Are you drunk? 87% is an arbitrary number brought up by you without anything to back it up, I very much doubt it is true that 23% of British fishing rights make up 87% of Dutch fishing
devilish made a very good point here. The fishermen were probably the dumbest of them all in supporting Brexit. The best they can hope for is that nothing changes for them.Also, I'm willing to bet my house British fishermen are also fishing outside of UK waters...
Well that's brilliant news isn't it. The EU countries need our fish exports. They'll need them even more if they lose the right to fish in our waters.
It's not needed, it goes to EU shores because in the EU, exactly in France there is Rungis, the largest wholesale food market in the world, and almost everything goes there and is sold everywhere in the world.
There's always Billingsgate in the future.
Doesnt the prosecco rule work on this?
The bigger winners will probably be norway who catch loads of fish and unlike the uk they already have a tarriff free trade on this. Unless the uk manages to set a deal on this then poof one of their major competitors is gone
Last edited:
Are you drunk? 87% is an arbitrary number brought up by you without anything to back it up, I very much doubt it is true that 23% of British fishing rights make up 87% of Dutch fishing
Also, I'm willing to bet my house British fishermen are also fishing outside of UK waters...
Just watch nos news on nederland 1 from last night,.rhis was the owner of a huge fishery that was asked how much of his daily haul was caught in british waters. How more factual do you want? Maybe he's lying.
And i doubt develish made a good point
We had this conversation in the general 5 years ago. Lobster caught in british waters mostly goes to spain cos there isnt the demand in the uk.
The europeans can moan about it but they cant cherry pick what they want from a deal
He will have to adapt to changes. Businesses hate that. If aint damaged....
What about the prosecco rule? Does that work only when the brits are buying goods?
I doubt it, the same way the City isn't going to lose much.
Cheeky
Surprise surprise. More Brexit propoganda exposed as bullshit.
What gets me is that even if the bullshit about the EU usurping the Great British Democracy TM (hums Land of Hope and Glory) were true (hint: it isn't) then why would that be a bad thing? Could they do a worse job than the incompetents that we have elected to "lead" us? They have been universally terrible since well before I was born.
What gets me is that even if the bullshit about the EU usurping the Great British Democracy TM (hums Land of Hope and Glory) were true (hint: it isn't) then why would that be a bad thing? Could they do a worse job than the incompetents that we have elected to "lead" us? They have been universally terrible since well before I was born.
Oil up 9%. What's the exchage rate nowadays ?
Last edited:
So it's not their fishing industry, but one company out of probably thousands.so basically meaningless. And you didn't reply to my second point....if we were to restrict fishing, GB would lose 80% of the North Sea and the rest about 20? Good deal
Want, not need
Brexiteers don't understand that. Goods like that are easily exported from elsewhere or, if it gets too expensive, people will buy other things to eat. And while fishing is relatively important for GB and most of their export goes to Europe, it's not nearly as important to the continent and I doubt the GB exports are a high percentage of continental imports.
2,3 percent of German fish imports are from the U.K.. Vietnam is at 4%. Yeah, we will starve.
The uk was traditionally the food basket of europe.....not
When the Uk joined the EEC one of the biggest concessions it was forced to make as a price for joining was that of joining the the common agricultural and fisheries policy.
International law has moved on since the UK joined the EEC and outside the EU the UK has an absolute sovereign right to sole exploitation of its EEZ.
The UK sacrificed over 20000 jobs in inshore fishing from Grimsby and Hull alone.
I mentioned this months ago as a very obvious benefit to leaving the EU as the common fisheries policy is useless, poorly managed, environmentally awful and opens UK waters to the right of EU member states to bid and fish our waters as we have the right to fish theirs except they get very angry about it when we do.
There is no question that if the UK leaves the common fisheries policy it takes a huge slice of the fish stock with it.
There are in fact not enough fish in the sea, we over fish most fish stocks which is why we have fish farms and quotas for landing fish.
I don't think I have read a post as wrong as this in a very long time. I am not sure if this is sarcasm because of how wrong it is. I can't see any white text so I'm going for pure ignorance, you have heard of fishing quotas and that British fishermen would love to land more fish but they are forbidden from doing so because their catch is restricted.
How on earth can you come to conclusion that they are lazy and don't want to go out and fish when the days they are forced to stay in port because they have met their assigned quotas is killing them financially?
To your mind then you think there is an unlimited stock of fish?
The reason you only consume 2/3 percent is because that all there is, you double it and we make them extinct. You are not buying fish from Vietnam because there is more than enough in the North Sea and it tastes better from Vietnam.
Fish in UK waters worthless to the UK now apparently, can't manage 'em and can't sell 'em even if we could.
Bollocks.
Bollocks.
Post truth, pro EU remoaners, inventing extra fish stocks worldwide because everyone knows the general message from all environmental scientists over the last twenty years is that humans have an unlimited amount of fish they can eat and that the stocks will never becomes depleted. ( see whales for proof of principle ).
No one is saying that. All I am saying is that the good old days of overfishing are over and that the EU imposes heavy tariffs on fish coming from third party countries. The UK's biggest customer by far happens to be the EU so using the Brexit Prosecco rule if tariffs come up you suffer
This is what British fishermen wants
http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/28510/uk-fishermens-federations-adopt-united-stance-on-brexit/
- Fairer shares of catching opportunity for UK vessels.
- Full control over access to the UK EEZ by fishing fleets.
- Creation of a fit-for-purpose management and regulation system, including a grass roots revision of fisheries management based on sustainable harvesting and sound science.
- Establishment of mutually beneficial trading relationships with the EU and other countries.
Now what happens if the EU says that you won't be able to have the fish and eat it and if it wants D then The UK must forget about A, B and C? What would happen if the UK keep insisted in respecting the EU quota and as per result the EU decides to put sanctions on the UK trade (including its fish) as it did with the Faroe?
https://secondreading.uk/science/troubled-waters-negotiating-fish-quotas-post-brexit/
I bet that Brexiters will just tell them to follow the £350m a week for the NHS bus. Its still early days but Things do look heading to that direction
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...as-may-not-increase-with-brexit-a7110766.html
Last edited:
This tweet (and responses) is great.
So apparently Boris has been saying privately he supports freedom of movement.
So apparently Boris has been saying privately he supports freedom of movement.
Its all Cameron's fault for not explaining him that those who support freedom of movement actually had to campaign for the remain camp.
Classic example of why Brexit could even happen: complete denial or criminally low levels of understanding of economics.
Should UK fish get more expensive due to tarrifs, we do not need to replace it with anything. Because it isn't essential to anyone. People will simply eat a bit less fish overall and buy way less of expensive British fish. Easy as that.
This case probably shows best why Brexit is such a feck up.
People aren't going to eat less fish, the fish is bought by european companies and sold everywhere in the world. The EU is mainly a hub, it is like the flower market in Amsterdam, the UK sells a huge amount of their production to the wholesaler that are installed in Amsterdam and those wholesaler are going to continue their business with the UK and won't suffer.
David Davis has just said that the government would consider EU budget contributions in return for single market access.
Get the popcorn out.
Get the popcorn out.
Will give it 5 minutes before Theresa May's spokesperson says 'DD was expressing his opinion in a personal capacity and this does not reflect government policy.'
Shouldn't be a surprise though. Enough European leaders have said 'What the British want the British will have to pay for'. I believe the amounts required will be more than the UK is willing to pay however.
Next great surprise will be when it finally sinks in that the EU will not negotiate anything at all before article 51, and that article 51 will be irreversible, meaning of course that we couldn't have a referendum on 'the terms' even if we wanted one, because we would already be committed to leave by then.
As things stand I can't see past a hard brexit myself.
Last edited:
Just wait till Theresa May herself says that, and her spokesperson comes out with a similar message. What a shambles.
I have to admit that it's a strange differentiation, British nationals are ex-pats while EU nationals are migrants.
Well most of the world is used to white = ex-pat and non-white = immigrant. It's not fair, but that's how it's used.
It's just a term used to create 1st versus 2nd class immigrants honestly.
The problem here is that, it's in the same sentence and EU migrants are mainly white. I don't know how people receive this type of article in the UK but from the rest of the EU POV it kinds of justify the opinion that british people have never tried to be part of the EU.
Well, it's the same us versus them as white vs non white.
"Priveliged" = Expats. Typically White. For the UK, these are UK citizens
"Non-Priveliged" = Immigrants. Typically Non-White. For the UK, these are all the "dirty migrants" from outside the UK "leaching" on benefits.
I'm sure not everyone who lives in the UK sees it this way, but many do