Britain tells the EU: we shall not sell out our fishermen

[Logosone]

Even the BBC is asking itself:

 

Brexit: Why is everyone talking about fishing?

 

A Commons research library briefing reckons the UK's fishing and fish processing industries employ a total of 24,000 people, and contribute £1.4bn to the UK economy.

Yes, that's a lot of jobs and a lot of money. But it's a drop in the ocean when you consider that it's 0.12% of the overall economy, and less than 0.1% of the 33 million strong national workforce.

 

What the UK fleet actually catches a lot of is herring - and 93% of it is exported, mostly to Norway and the Netherlands, where people have much more of a taste for it.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46372153

 

By comparison the UK financial services sector, the seventh largest in the OECD, contributes 132 billion GBP to the UK economy.

 

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06193

 

So fishermen - 1.4 bn

 

Financial sector - 132 bn

 

Yes, Boris clearly has all the cards here.

 

 

[samran]

22 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Even the BBC is asking itself:

 

Brexit: Why is everyone talking about fishing?

 

A Commons research library briefing reckons the UK's fishing and fish processing industries employ a total of 24,000 people, and contribute £1.4bn to the UK economy.

Yes, that's a lot of jobs and a lot of money. But it's a drop in the ocean when you consider that it's 0.12% of the overall economy, and less than 0.1% of the 33 million strong national workforce.

 

What the UK fleet actually catches a lot of is herring - and 93% of it is exported, mostly to Norway and the Netherlands, where people have much more of a taste for it.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46372153

 

By comparison the UK financial services sector, the seventh largest in the OECD, contributes 132 billion GBP to the UK economy.

 

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06193

 

So fishermen - 1.4 bn

 

Financial sector - 132 bn

 

Yes, Boris clearly has all the cards here.

 

 

It resonates with the nationalists and the populists - that is why. 
 

Bankers are all out of touch millionaires who probably are filth remainers anyway. If you want to sink them...then fine.

 

But salt of the sea fisherfolk? Well that’s something different (ignore the fact that most of the fishing rights are owned by millionaires anyway).

 

Its the optics that count...

[Logosone]

15 minutes ago, samran said:

It resonates with the nationalists and the populists - that is why. 
 

Bankers are all out of touch millionaires who probably are filth remainers anyway. If you want to sink them...then fine.

 

But salt of the sea fisherfolk? Well that’s something different (ignore the fact that most of the fishing rights are owned by millionaires anyway).

 

Its the optics that count...

Yes, much harder to posture being the defender of travel agents...

 

Even if travel agencies contribute significantly more to the UK economy than fisheries.

[CG1 Blue]

10 hours ago, luckyluke said:

I was rather confused by the term : Sovereign.

 

So I googled "sovereign nations". 

 

I found :

 

-World population review / Sovereign nation 2020-

 

There is a list,

Belgium is listed, so is the United Kingdom. 

 

Belgium is part of the E.U., the U.K. no more,

but both are considered as sovereign.

 

I read here from some British that they are proud to be part of the U. K., a sovereign country. 

 

I suppose that I can also state that I am, as Belgian citizen, proud to be part of the sovereign country Belgium. 

 

 

 

Correct, both Belgium and the UK are sovereign nations. But sovereignty as a noun or adjective really means having supreme power or authority. Having the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. So basically, the more interference from outside bodies, the less sovereignty. 

[CG1 Blue]

10 hours ago, Logosone said:

As for immigration the UK government has no real control over immigration at this point. It's in the new immigration rules. If you read them you will find that EU nationals have the right to enter the UK at will, without any Visa. And to stay for up to 6 months. If you think Poles and Romanians who wish to live in the UK will voluntarily leave after 6 months because they are so law abiding I think you're wrong. What control does the UK government really have, if Poles and Romanians can come in at will, without visa? 

So what you're saying is that tourists and holidaymakers from Europe will be able to come to the UK without a visa, as decided by the UK government. 

 

And you're suggesting that Poles and Romanians will overstay, because they are not law abiding. You're entitled to that opinion. So that's 3 EU member states that you have a low opinion of so far, including the Greeks. Any more? Hungarians maybe? Latvians? Slovenians? 

 

[CG1 Blue]

10 hours ago, sandyf said:

Are you trying to say the Kosovo case was not fought and won on the basis of international law.

The UK has always claimed it abides by international law so little to back up the claim that UK law would prevail.

When push comes to shove the UK will follow the Law of the Sea.

Interestingly, President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Layen is quite content for Greece to flout international law wrt refugees. 

[Logosone]

It is a very hard to to truly grasp the concept of sovereignty. Entire books have been written on it. One of the most famous by the German constitutional law genius Carl Schmitt.

 

Schmitt very perspicaciously realised that it was the body which had the power to declare a state of emergency, or more accurately 'state of exception', such as 'martial law', which truly possessed sovereignty.

 

Schmitt's work is further developed by Giorgio Agamben in 'State of exception'.

 

Interestingly, in the UK sovereignty rests not in the people, nor in the crown, but in the Queen-in-Parliament. a British constitutional law term to effectively refer to the Crown as constrained by parliament.

 

This is why acts of law are signed off by the Queen, why she opens the parliament and so on.

 

So according to CG1 Blue's understanding Germany actually has more and clearer sovereignty, namely public sovereignty, which is not encumbered by reference to a Crown.

 

In reality of course sovereignty is a bit like 'love', hard to pin point or grasp, but giving rise to a whole load of emotional clap-trap. 

 

I still don't see how the UK had any less sovereignty as a EU member, when the UK freely decided to give EU law primacy, and was free to take that back any time. 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Logosone

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

So what you're saying is that tourists and holidaymakers from Europe will be able to come to the UK without a visa, as decided by the UK government. 

 

And you're suggesting that Poles and Romanians will overstay, because they are not law abiding. You're entitled to that opinion. So that's 3 EU member states that you have a low opinion of so far, including the Greeks. Any more? Hungarians maybe? Latvians? Slovenians? 

 

 

What I am saying is that the UK now has no effective control over immigration since it has spread its doors wide open to any East European nationals who happen to be EU nationals.

 

If Poles and Romanians wish to enter the UK, live in the UK and commit illegal acts do you really think they will say 'oh six months are up, best leave now'? I don't. And looking at the gypsy gangs they are overwhelmingly Romanian and law resistant. 

 

So effectively all this Brexit rhetoric of taking back control of borders is just that, empty rhetoric. In real terms the UK government has no real control. Theoretically yes, but not in reality.

 

And yes, I am suggesting that whole armies of gypsy gangs from Romania and some Poles will overstay and are not law abiding. Hungarians, Latvians and Slovenians are saints by comparison.

[Logosone]

And by the by, the UK government granting Romanians and Poles totally free, ie visa free, entry in to the UK illustrates one key point. 

 

For all the sovereignty rhetoric, the UK government was effectively forced to give Romanians and Poles this right of free entry. They only got it because they are EU nationals, and the UK IS VERY MUCH having to accept the influence of the EU in granting reciprocal rights for EU nationals to enter the UK visa free. If Brexiteer little Englanders like Gove and BJ had a free choice you better believe they would not give Romanians and Poles visa free entry.

 

The limits of sovereignty.

 

How free is a bird from the chains of the sky?

 

As Dylan would have said. You may pretend to be an island onto yourself, but you are constrained by reality like everyone else.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

Even the BBC is asking itself:

 

Brexit: Why is everyone talking about fishing?

 

A Commons research library briefing reckons the UK's fishing and fish processing industries employ a total of 24,000 people, and contribute £1.4bn to the UK economy.

Yes, that's a lot of jobs and a lot of money. But it's a drop in the ocean when you consider that it's 0.12% of the overall economy, and less than 0.1% of the 33 million strong national workforce.

 

What the UK fleet actually catches a lot of is herring - and 93% of it is exported, mostly to Norway and the Netherlands, where people have much more of a taste for it.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46372153

 

By comparison the UK financial services sector, the seventh largest in the OECD, contributes 132 billion GBP to the UK economy.

 

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06193

 

So fishermen - 1.4 bn

 

Financial sector - 132 bn

 

Yes, Boris clearly has all the cards here.

 

 

Yes. Because what the UK fleet will be able to catch is a lot of is everything. 

[Rookiescot]

35 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Correct, both Belgium and the UK are sovereign nations. But sovereignty as a noun or adjective really means having supreme power or authority. Having the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. So basically, the more interference from outside bodies, the less sovereignty. 

Does that apply to Scotland as well then?

Given it is a sovereign nation 

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Yes. Because what the UK fleet will be able to catch is a lot of is everything. 

132 billions worth?

Man thats a lot of fish.

Even the refrigerator Johnson hides in is not big enough for all that.

[nauseus]

16 minutes ago, Logosone said:

It is a very hard to to truly grasp the concept of sovereignty. Entire books have been written on it. One of the most famous by the German constitutional law genius Carl Schmitt.

 

Schmitt very perspicaciously realised that it was the body which had the power to declare a state of emergency, or more accurately 'state of exception', such as 'martial law', which truly possessed sovereignty.

 

Schmitt's work is further developed by Giorgio Agamben in 'State of exception'.

 

Interestingly, in the UK sovereignty rests not in the people, nor in the crown, but in the Queen-in-Parliament. a British constitutional law term to effectively refer to the Crown as constrained by parliament.

 

This is why acts of law are signed off by the Queen, why she opens the parliament and so on.

 

So according to CG1 Blue's understanding Germany actually has more and clearer sovereignty, namely public sovereignty, which is not encumbered by reference to a Crown.

 

In reality of course sovereignty is a bit like 'love', hard to pin point or grasp, but giving rise to a whole load of emotional clap-trap. 

 

I still don't see how the UK had any less sovereignty as a EU member, when the UK freely decided to give EU law primacy, and was free to take that back any time. 

 

really meaning that it is a very hard for remainers to truly grasp the concept of sovereignty, as well as the concepts of deception and snow jobs. 

[CG1 Blue]

11 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

What I am saying is that the UK now has no effective control over immigration since it has spread its doors wide open to any East European nationals who happen to be EU nationals.

 

If Poles and Romanians wish to enter the UK, live in the UK and commit illegal acts do you really think they will say 'oh six months are up, best leave now'? I don't. And looking at the gypsy gangs they are overwhelmingly Romanian and law resistant. 

 

So effectively all this Brexit rhetoric of taking back control of borders is just that, empty rhetoric. In real terms the UK government has no real control. Theoretically yes, but not in reality.

 

And yes, I am suggesting that whole armies of gypsy gangs from Romania and some Poles will overstay and are not law abiding. Hungarians, Latvians and Slovenians are saints by comparison.

If Romanian / Polish overstayers become a real issue, the UK government will have the power to address it. They could introduce a bespoke visa system for Poles and Romanians if they wanted to. That's what is meant by taking back control in relation to leaving the EU. Gaining the ability to decide on immigration policy. 

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

132 billions worth?

Man thats a lot of fish.

Even the refrigerator Johnson hides in is not big enough for all that.

Not sure of the value. The catch will be managed to ensure a plentiful supply to the good old British chippy but within sustainable limits, of course.  

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

really meaning that it is a very hard for remainers to truly grasp the concept of sovereignty, as well as the concepts of deception and snow jobs. 

 

I think what's been demonstrated here is that it's hard for Brexiteers to grasp the concept of sovereignty.

 

As for deception, again the British were in no way deceived in the 1970s to join the common market. They were desperate to do so as it became clear that the UK economy was in decline and unable to compete.

 

It was not possible to explain the implications of EU law primacy since even lawyers had to wait for case law to show what it really meant. I still remember sitting in constitutional law class and UK law professors exclaiming in shock how EU law actually had primacy over UK law. And to what extent. This only became clearer much much later.

 

No, the British joined Europe out of their free will and without deception. I suspect they will do so again in the not too distant future.

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not sure of the value. The catch will be managed to ensure a plentiful supply to the good old British chippy but within sustainable limits, of course.  

 

Funnily enough, and you may want to sit down for this....the majority of the fish eaten in the UK is imported.

 

"For an example, let's look at the battered (or breaded) heart of the iconic British fish supper, cod and haddock.

These fish only make up a small slice of the UK catch - 5% is cod, 7% is haddock. And the majority of the stuff actually eaten here is actually imported - 83% of the cod consumed in the UK is shipped in from abroad, alongside 58% of the haddock."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46372153

 

So what you will be served in your good old British chippy is most likely European caught cod or haddock.

 

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

20 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Does that apply to Scotland as well then?

Given it is a sovereign nation 

I think it is generally agreed that Scotland voted against becoming a sovereign nation in 2014. I suppose you could say that Scotland, as an integral part of the UK is sovereign. 

Edited March 6, 2020 by CG1 Blue

[david555]

36 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Interestingly, President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Layen is quite content for Greece to flout international law wrt refugees. 

Maybe an echo came in her head  from : 

"Taking control of our borders and laws " from a certain United Kingdom ….?? ???? ????

Edited March 6, 2020 by david555

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I think it is generally agreed that Scotland voted against becoming a sovereign nation in 2014. I suppose you cold say that Scotland, as an integral part of the UK is sovereign. 

Most of us want another vote because of Brexit.

Or does sovereignty only count if you are English?  

Edited March 6, 2020 by Rookiescot

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

I think what's been demonstrated here is that it's hard for Brexiteers to grasp the concept of sovereignty.

 

As for deception, again the British were in no way deceived in the 1970s to join the common market. They were desperate to do so as it became clear that the UK economy was in decline and unable to compete.

 

It was not possible to explain the implications of EU law primacy since even lawyers had to wait for case law to show what it really meant. I still remember sitting in constitutional law class and UK law professors exclaiming in shock how EU law actually had primacy over UK law. And to what extent. This only became clearer much much later.

 

No, the British joined Europe out of their free will and without deception. I suspect they will do so again in the not too distant future.

 

Rubbish. Everyone knew about the economic problems but only a few were aware of the deception by Heath. We won't be going through that again.

[Logosone]

5 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If Romanian / Polish overstayers become a real issue, the UK government will have the power to address it. They could introduce a bespoke visa system for Poles and Romanians if they wanted to. That's what is meant by taking back control in relation to leaving the EU. Gaining the ability to decide on immigration policy. 

In theory. 

 

Back in reality no British government will ever want to upset the EU, given that the British financial sector will depend on continuous inspection and approval by the EU, and continuous renewal of equivalency.

 

The political reality is that the UK government won't do anything to curtail Romanian and Polish immigration. Indeed has done nothing to curtail it. Quite the contrary, it has opened all its doors to Romanians and Poles, and said 'come in without any need for visa whatsoever'.

 

That's what is meant by political reality. You have no 'control'. You could not even control your own currency. The instruments available to the UK government are blunt, antiquated and  insufficient for the challenges of today.

 

And to cap it all the UK runs a system of free handouts which means it has to go to Germany, Japan and the US cap in hand every single year to beg for the money to finance its welfare state and handouts.

 

The UK is so powerless and without control you and your fellow Brexiteers wouldn't be able to sleep at night if you knew the truth.

 

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, david555 said:

Maybe an echo came in her head  from : 

"Taking control of our borders and laws " from a certain United Kingdom ….?? ????

Well, it looks like there is plenty of spare room in there for some bounce......????

[Aforek]

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

really meaning that it is a very hard for remainers to truly grasp the concept of sovereignty, as well as the concepts of deception and snow jobs. 

What is your concept of sovereignty ? we depend of each other in 2020, Earth is very small, you can't live without contact with the other countries, everybody has to accept conditions 

Britain will say " no " to everything, and will be very lonely 

[CG1 Blue]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

I think what's been demonstrated here is that it's hard for Brexiteers to grasp the concept of sovereignty.

 

As for deception, again the British were in no way deceived in the 1970s to join the common market. They were desperate to do so as it became clear that the UK economy was in decline and unable to compete.

 

It was not possible to explain the implications of EU law primacy since even lawyers had to wait for case law to show what it really meant. I still remember sitting in constitutional law class and UK law professors exclaiming in shock how EU law actually had primacy over UK law. And to what extent. This only became clearer much much later.

 

No, the British joined Europe out of their free will and without deception. I suspect they will do so again in the not too distant future.

If the current EU set-up was offered to the UK electorate back in 1975, EU law primacy, freedom of movement (meaning swathes of Eastern Europeans coming to work), £8-10bn per year subscription fees, I'm pretty sure the UK would have voted to leave by a massive margin. But who knows. 

[david555]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well, it looks like there is plenty of spare room in there for some bounce......????

Also many spare room for very E.U convenient favorable ideas …..????

Nah …. let I to Barnier only, giving U.K a little bit hope ….????

Edited March 6, 2020 by david555

[CG1 Blue]

9 minutes ago, david555 said:

Maybe an echo came in her head  from : 

"Taking control of our borders and laws " from a certain United Kingdom ….?? ????

It's good to know you see the UK as leaders in thought ????

[CG1 Blue]

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

In theory. 

 

Back in reality no British government will ever want to upset the EU, given that the British financial sector will depend on continuous inspection and approval by the EU, and continuous renewal of equivalency.

 

The political reality is that the UK government won't do anything to curtail Romanian and Polish immigration. Indeed has done nothing to curtail it. Quite the contrary, it has opened all its doors to Romanians and Poles, and said 'come in without any need for visa whatsoever'.

 

That's what is meant by political reality. You have no 'control'. You could not even control your own currency. The instruments available to the UK government are blunt, antiquated and  insufficient for the challenges of today.

 

And to cap it all the UK runs a system of free handouts which means it has to go to Germany, Japan and the US cap in hand every single year to beg for the money to finance its welfare state and handouts.

 

The UK is so powerless and without control you and your fellow Brexiteers wouldn't be able to sleep at night if you knew the truth.

 

You really have a problem with Poles and Romanians don't you! ????

[david555]

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

It's good to know you see the UK as leaders in thought ????

just a correction ….

"It's good to know you see the UK as leaders in thought  "chest knocking????" 

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If the current EU set-up was offered to the UK electorate back in 1975, EU law primacy, freedom of movement (meaning swathes of Eastern Europeans coming to work), £8-10bn per year subscription fees, I'm pretty sure the UK would have voted to leave by a massive margin. But who knows. 

Well you'd have to look at the context of the time, in the 1970s British manufacturing and industry began to fail and decline big time. The main reason the British decided to join was economic. They figured, correctly, that the advantages of a common market would be better for their economy.

 

That was the main consideration, not law, immigration...

 

But who knows, it's possible, especially if the East European immigration were highlighted, I don't think Germans loved this idea particularly. Whether it would be enough to lead to a full derailing of the EU membership at the time, well it clearly did with the Brexit referendum, but with a tiny margin.  Maybe in the 70s people were not that xenophobic yet.

 

In any event, as the very serious economic problems of the UK will worsen as Brexit goes on I have no doubt whatsoever that a Labour government will eventually give the British people this choice once again and it is very possible the British will again decide to join Europe.