Brexit process

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12401
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

Catweazle wrote:..........Spot on. If they had given her a token victory to take home the deal would have been done.
A face saving offer never does any harm and often helps.

Mind you the EU have driven themselves into such a corner that any face saving offer from the UK is very difficult.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8152
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Re: Brexit process

Post by adam2 »

The present sticking point in the talks would seem to be "to what extent EU boats should have access to UK fishing waters"

Why ? I thought that one of the benefits of Brexit was that we would regain control over our fishing grounds, so why should EU vessels retain ANY access to our waters. The civil service are no doubt working very hard to give away our fisheries, but to call it something other than giving away.

And yes I know that fishing is a small part of our economy, but it is an important part with regard to food security. I also somewhat trust UK fishermen to abide by rules regarding preservation of fish stocks, foreign fishing fleets have a very poor record in this.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12401
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Brexit process

Post by kenneal - lagger »

I think the point is that the EU have offered to let us have back about 20% of our fishing quota rather than asking if they might possibly retain, with our permission, 60% of it. They are still no acknowledging that they have to ask our permission to fish in our national waters rather than them graciously allow us a little more of our fish!
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
cubes
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:40 pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Brexit process

Post by cubes »

Disagreements on fish are laughable. It's such a small industry compared to the ones they are throwing under a bus. It's not about soverignty, it's "what agreement (or lack thereof) makes my friends the most money".
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Re: Brexit process

Post by UndercoverElephant »

cubes wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 1:52 pm Disagreements on fish are laughable. It's such a small industry compared to the ones they are throwing under a bus. It's not about soverignty, it's "what agreement (or lack thereof) makes my friends the most money".
It is absolutely about sovereignty.
It's such a small industry compared to the ones they are throwing under a bus.
That's because it is about sovereignty.

This is no joke. It's deadly serious. The EU has all along just assumed that the UK would cave in on fisheries, and the arrogance they've displayed is quite breathtaking. Johnson cannot and will not back down on this precisely because it is the bellweather issue that defines brexit. It's what proves we've regained sovereignty.
it's "what agreement (or lack thereof) makes my friends the most money".
I think you are mixing up two quite different things here. Yes, for many tories brexit is an opportunity to make money in one way or another. But Johnson isn't just acting in their interests. He's actually representing everybody who voted for brexit, and he's doing it quite well. Your argument is self-defeating: if Johnson was really just interested in what makes his friends the most money, and fisheries aren't what makes his friends the most money, why would he choose this hill to die on?
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12401
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Brexit process

Post by kenneal - lagger »

I couldn't agree more, UE.

The arrogance of the EU in offering us some of our quota back is breathtaking.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8773
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Re: Brexit process

Post by clv101 »

It isn't 'the EU's' to offer is it? I thought English (not the Scots, or NI) sold the majority of their quota to overseas (EU) companies back in the 90s. Can't cry foul now, a couple decades later wanting the quotas back, if the UK government went back on the deal those companies would sue and likely be successful. Is the government suggesting buying back these sold quotas and gifting(?!) them to the English fleet?
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Re: Brexit process

Post by UndercoverElephant »

clv101 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:06 pm It isn't 'the EU's' to offer is it? I thought English (not the Scots, or NI) sold the majority of their quota to overseas (EU) companies back in the 90s. Can't cry foul now, a couple decades later wanting the quotas back,
Wanting quotas back? The "quotas" you are referring to are EU constructs. We are no longer in the EU.

This is not some sleight of hand. When we joined the EU, we pooled various resources and responsibilities. When we left the EU, we unpooled them. Those quotas are a percentage proportion of joint EU resource that UK fisheries are no longer a part of. Leaving the EU returns those fisheries to the UK, by default. By leaving the EU, we legally get back control of our own fisheries. They are not the EU's to quota out.
if the UK government went back on the deal those companies would sue and likely be successful.
They would absolutely be unsuccessful, because there is no legal case and because the ultimate decision would be made by a British court, not the ECJ.

Is the government suggesting buying back these sold quotas and gifting(?!) them to the English fleet?
You don't understand! The government does not have to buy back any quotas. We have left the EU. Regaining control of those fisheries was part of what we got by default when we left the EU. It was part of the calculation. They are ours to bargain with, not the EU's. That is what this argument is about.

Those companies did NOT buy the right to fish in British territorial waters. They bought EU quotas. The UK did not control its own waters when that transaction took place. It had bargained them in return for EU favours which have been withdrawn.
RevdTess
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Newquay

Re: Brexit process

Post by RevdTess »

UndercoverElephant wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:34 pm You don't understand! The government does not have to buy back any quotas. We have left the EU. Regaining control of those fisheries was part of what we got by default when we left the EU. It was part of the calculation. They are ours to bargain with, not the EU's. That is what this argument is about.

Those companies did NOT buy the right to fish in British territorial waters. They bought EU quotas. The UK did not control its own waters when that transaction took place. It had bargained them in return for EU favours which have been withdrawn.
I wonder why this argument isn't more well-known. If you read the MSM all you see is that there's a disagreement about fishing rights with the EU still wanting access to UK fishing waters and the UK saying nope. All this nuance about quotas is completely missing.

Anyway, thanks for illuminating the situation - the disagreement makes more sense now since it is clearly one of those situations that arises from having totally different premises.

IMO, while the UK position makes a kind a sense if you feel the ideological principle is valuable enough to throw many others under the bus, it surely detracts further from the UK's credibility as a trustworthy international partner. If you sell something and then later by an act of sovereign fiat make what you sold worthless, you will not be trusted in future.

But of course sovereignty was never important to me - at least not Tory govt sovereignty. I have never personally felt any sovereignty over my own country, but I certainly felt more when the EU prevented the worst excesses of Tory ambition. If I lived in Scotland right now, sovereignty would be supremely important to me for all the same reasons that Brexiteers have been banging on about for years, and I'd be calling for independence at every opportunity.

Sovereignty is only worth anything if it's used to do good, otherwise it's just another form of evil tyranny. But as we've seen in America and elsewhere, in the postmodern absence of objective morality, political good and evil are very much in the eye of the beholder - or at least the eye of whatever media bubble you wander into.

It's nice to be able to write these things without LJ popping up to tell me to eff off :D
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Re: Brexit process

Post by UndercoverElephant »

RevdTess wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:46 am
I wonder why this argument isn't more well-known. If you read the MSM all you see is that there's a disagreement about fishing rights with the EU still wanting access to UK fishing waters and the UK saying nope. All this nuance about quotas is completely missing.
We live in a post-truth world. The truth doesn't matter anymore. All that matters is the political consequences of what is said. Words are just a tool for trying to get whatever it is you want, and it is easier to do that by over-simplifying everything than trying to explain what is actually going on.
IMO, while the UK position makes a kind a sense if you feel the ideological principle is valuable enough to throw many others under the bus, it surely detracts further from the UK's credibility as a trustworthy international partner. If you sell something and then later by an act of sovereign fiat make what you sold worthless, you will not be trusted in future.
But it wasn't the UK government that sold these things. It was a transaction between two private companies. The real problem here is that the lawyers who drew up the contracts never considered what would happen if a country left the EU. That isn't the UK's fault.

I do not believe this detracts from the UK's credibility. I don't see what other choice the UK government has but to do what it is currently doing. We cannot just give away national assets for nothing in return.
Sovereignty is only worth anything if it's used to do good, otherwise it's just another form of evil tyranny.
Sovereignty is like free will. Having it all is priceless, but it is part of its nature that it can be used for good or for evil.
But as we've seen in America and elsewhere, in the postmodern absence of objective morality, political good and evil are very much in the eye of the beholder - or at least the eye of whatever media bubble you wander into.
yes
RevdTess
Posts: 2976
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Newquay

Re: Brexit process

Post by RevdTess »

UndercoverElephant wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:13 pm But it wasn't the UK government that sold these things. It was a transaction between two private companies. The real problem here is that the lawyers who drew up the contracts never considered what would happen if a country left the EU. That isn't the UK's fault.
Is that any different to the govt privatising an industry, watching that industry sold to companies abroad, and then renationalising it with no compensation? As a sovereign country you can do it, but you have to expect consequences.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Re: Brexit process

Post by UndercoverElephant »

RevdTess wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:54 pm
UndercoverElephant wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:13 pm But it wasn't the UK government that sold these things. It was a transaction between two private companies. The real problem here is that the lawyers who drew up the contracts never considered what would happen if a country left the EU. That isn't the UK's fault.
Is that any different to the govt privatising an industry, watching that industry sold to companies abroad, and then renationalising it with no compensation? As a sovereign country you can do it, but you have to expect consequences.
Yes, it is different. When the UK handed control of UK fisheries to the EU, we got something in return. When we left the EU (or leave the transition period), then we will cease to get that thing in return.

The difference between your analogy and the actual situation is that in your analogy, the renationalisation is taking back something of value without giving something back in return, whereas as in this current situation we are taking something back something of value while returning something of value - we are returning our rights and privileges as EU members, including the right to sell into the EU market without tariffs.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12401
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Brexit process

Post by kenneal - lagger »

UndercoverElephant wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:52 pm .....................The difference between your analogy and the actual situation is that in your analogy, the renationalisation is taking back something of value without giving something back in return, whereas as in this current situation we are taking something back something of value while returning something of value - we are returning our rights and privileges as EU members, including the right to sell into the EU market without tariffs.
So it's up to the EU to compensate their own fishermen.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 11169
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:00 am
Location: south east England

Re: Brexit process

Post by UndercoverElephant »

kenneal - lagger wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:57 pm
UndercoverElephant wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:52 pm .....................The difference between your analogy and the actual situation is that in your analogy, the renationalisation is taking back something of value without giving something back in return, whereas as in this current situation we are taking something back something of value while returning something of value - we are returning our rights and privileges as EU members, including the right to sell into the EU market without tariffs.
So it's up to the EU to compensate their own fishermen.
Exactly. The EU have failed to offer the UK a deal that would keep the UK in the EU, therefore the EU has lost control of those fisheries, therefore it is the EU which has a moral obligation to compensate their own fishermen.
Post Reply