Focus on fish and economic fair play as EU-UK trade talks go on remotely

[snoop1130]

Focus on fish and economic fair play as EU-UK trade talks go on remotely

 

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - British and European Union negotiators on Monday resumed talks on their post-Brexit relationship via video-conferencing, with the focus still squarely on dividing up fishing quotas and ensuring fair competition for companies, including on state aid.

 

Face-to-face talks, suspended last week after a member of the EU delegation tested positive for the coronavirus, will resume in London “when it is safe to do so”, said a source who follows Brexit, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

Another source, an EU official, added: “The differences on the level playing field and fisheries remain major.”

 

These issues are the key obstacles to clinching a new deal to maintain free, frictionless trade between the estranged allies after Britain’s standstill transition out of the EU following Brexit completes at the end of this year.

 

British newspaper The Sun reported at the weekend that the negotiators were looking at a review clause that would allow a renegotiation of any new fishing arrangement from 2021 in several years’ time.

 

An EU diplomat, a third source who spoke under condition of anonymity, confirmed that such an idea was under discussion, but added that the bloc insisted on linking it to the overall trade agreement, meaning fishing rights could only be renegotiated together with the rest of trade rules.

 

“We need to uphold the link between fishing and trade rules, this comes in a package,” said the person.

 

The EU official stressed that annual renegotiation of fishing quotas was still a no-go for the 27-nation bloc. Fisheries are a particularly sensitive issue for France.

 

Thierry Breton, the French representative on the European Commission, the EU executive, said last week: “We shouldn’t have in the Brexit deal revision clauses in one or two years, when everything would change again... We won’t let that happen. We need to give our entrepreneurs predictability.”

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-11-23

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[robblok]

The French are right this should be arranged for a longer period fishermen can't do investment if what will happen is negotiated each year. Its unworkable in any industry if your rules change per year. Making investments is then dangerous.

see below explanation of the EU and Brit side of fishing rights.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-fish-johnson-macron-barnier/

 

For me far more important is the one market and economic fair play. They should not do any concessions there state support can create unfair competition and the standards that the EU has for products must remain valid else its possible to have false competition. 

 

Also the fishing rights are so minor economically that IMHO its just a point of pride on both sides. I feel that its not really important and they should just do what is said in the article i mentioned.

 

 

 

[Loiner]

4 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Another source, an EU official, added: “The differences on the level playing field and fisheries remain major.”

There's no economic fair play in the EU’s position on any of those issues.  Why does the anti-Brexit Reuter’s headline mislead in suggesting this? 

[sammieuk1]

• Well baked last orders on the "oven ready" cod for Manual and Pierre looks like sprats again for Boris ????

Edited November 23, 2020 by sammieuk1

[Scott]

Troll post removed.   This is a discussion forum.  

 

[rupert the bear]

a political hot potato,a deals in everyones interest and fishing is a small detail in a very much bigger picture.there needs to be compromise on both sides,the problem is these are no longer eu waters theyre Uk waters and the UK side has the right to manage them now.the french and other fishers take fish the brits dont want or use,the brits must allow that to continue and they also sell a lot of their fish to eu,they obviously want to do that more at the expense of french boats particularily,the agri lobby is huge in france hence we have this problem.annual meetings ummmm.stocks can and have been very over fished but  both sides will look at that suspiciously ,a middle way but tying fishing in as part f the broader trade agreement and hanging that over all our heads is a bit much and thats where the problem lies.as the other issues are bigger and far more important.ahhh major and blair could have avoided all this but.....here we are dealing with politicos dirty deals .....again.slightly off topic but why isnt blair in jail?the hague should have grabbed him a decade back, a liar and a mass murderer wow what these guys can get away with.all conveniently brushed under the carpet ,disgraceful

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, Loiner said:

There's no economic fair play in the EU’s position on any of those issues.  Why does the anti-Brexit Reuter’s headline mislead in suggesting this? 

Why do Brexit officials refuse to negotiate the issue? There can't be fair play if one side rejects talks.

[robblok]

11 hours ago, Loiner said:

There's no economic fair play in the EU’s position on any of those issues.  Why does the anti-Brexit Reuter’s headline mislead in suggesting this? 

Could you explain me how there is no fair play this is the bases of the one market on what points is it unfair ? 

[Rookiescot]

Wonder how Johnson is going to sell the idea of freedom of movement to all the Brexiteers ????.

[JonnyF]

Time to walk away Boris. You can't negotiate with an organization that makes completely unrealistic demands and then refuses to compromise on any of them.

 

A mutually beneficial FTA would have been nice, but that would have required both sides around the table to act in good faith and only the UK has done so.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Time to walk away Boris. You can't negotiate with an organization that makes completely unrealistic demands and then refuses to compromise on any of them.

 

A mutually beneficial FTA would have been nice, but that would have required both sides around the table to act in good faith and only the UK has done so.

In what world are you living, its the Brits that backed out of an international deal already done with the EU. Something only third world countries do. That is not good faith.

 

Indeed the UK should back out and take responsibility and then let the voters in a few years decide if it was economically bright to do so. And with them backing out they only have themselves to blame BJ can't blame anyone. That is why they wont pull out.

 

BJ promised a great deal (he is kinda like Trump) cant deliver, needs a scapegoat. Wants the EU to take the blame for his miscalculations and lies. Now the only way for that to happen is for the EU to pull out and say they won't deal. The UK pulling out will make it look like he took responsibility himself and then later he cant blame anyone. So no the UK wont pull out. 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

In what world are you living, its the Brits that backed out of an international deal already done with the EU. Something only third world countries do. That is not good faith.

 

Indeed the UK should back out and take responsibility and then let the voters in a few years decide if it was economically bright to do so. And with them backing out they only have themselves to blame BJ can't blame anyone. That is why they wont pull out.

 

BJ promised a great deal (he is kinda like Trump) cant deliver, needs a scapegoat. Wants the EU to take the blame for his miscalculations and lies. Now the only way for that to happen is for the EU to pull out and say they won't deal. The UK pulling out will make it look like he took responsibility himself and then later he cant blame anyone. So no the UK wont pull out. 

 

"The Brits" that you so detest haven't backed out of anything. We've proposed some legislation that hasn't yet been passed. If it is passed it in itself does not break anything either. It does however give us the ability to break an ambiguous law if the EU interprets it in a way that would attempt to break up the UK, which knowing them they probably would.

 

At this point I don't care who walks away. I'd be just as delighted if the EU would. But given their reaction when Boris threatened to end talks last month (panicking and jumping on the next flight to London) there is no chance of that unfortunately.

 

I've given up hope of any type of "Fair" FTA with these EU shysters. I'm hoping for No Deal now.

 

Great news on the UK-Canada FTA though. See how quick and easy it is when both sides act in good faith?

 

[robblok]

39 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

"The Brits" that you so detest haven't backed out of anything. We've proposed some legislation that hasn't yet been passed. If it is passed it in itself does not break anything either. It does however give us the ability to break an ambiguous law if the EU interprets it in a way that would attempt to break up the UK, which knowing them they probably would.

 

At this point I don't care who walks away. I'd be just as delighted if the EU would. But given their reaction when Boris threatened to end talks last month (panicking and jumping on the next flight to London) there is no chance of that unfortunately.

 

I've given up hope of any type of "Fair" FTA with these EU shysters. I'm hoping for No Deal now.

 

Great news on the UK-Canada FTA though. See how quick and easy it is when both sides act in good faith?

 

I don't detest the Brits just think Brexiteers are not logical.

 

So they are indenting to pass laws that can break it. That is third world country style. No wonder the EU does not trust them.

 

Its just that BJ his demands are crazy little Britain trying to dictate rules. Anyway the fishing stuff both sides should compromise. The access to the market only if the Brits agree to fair play but that seems to be something they dont want to do. 

[Baerboxer]

17 hours ago, robblok said:

The French are right this should be arranged for a longer period fishermen can't do investment if what will happen is negotiated each year. Its unworkable in any industry if your rules change per year. Making investments is then dangerous.

see below explanation of the EU and Brit side of fishing rights.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-fish-johnson-macron-barnier/

 

For me far more important is the one market and economic fair play. They should not do any concessions there state support can create unfair competition and the standards that the EU has for products must remain valid else its possible to have false competition. 

 

Also the fishing rights are so minor economically that IMHO its just a point of pride on both sides. I feel that its not really important and they should just do what is said in the article i mentioned.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the EU should also undo all the state aid France has given to it's "strategic" industries such as steel, car making, agriculture, aerospace over the years in complete defiance of EU rules?

 

Or Germany with it's deliberate false statements on environmental issues of cars, bribes by large companies shrugged off as "in region practices" and very weak financial controls on banks? Not to mention their courts ruling German law trumps EU law when it suits them.

 

France, Macron, is scared of being seen to back down and of the French farmers and fishermen. It would harm is career and French pride.

 

Germany is scared of the UK becoming a tax haven and having lower costs to become very competitive. But had no problem with the UK losing business to countries like Poland whose costs are much lower; or Tax havens like Luxembourg which many Germans take advantage of.

 

Selfish arrogance and pride is what this is all about. After all, you can't have a member leave without being punished severely. You must pay and follow our rules forever ...... or else. Not the way to negotiate.

 

All the fluff, weasely rhetoric and double speak shouldn't mask the realist for anyone willing to open their eyes. 

 

The EU aren't being reasonable and some members have always been do as we say, not as we do. 

 

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Perhaps the EU should also undo all the state aid France has given to it's "strategic" industries such as steel, car making, agriculture, aerospace over the years in complete defiance of EU rules?

 

Or Germany with it's deliberate false statements on environmental issues of cars, bribes by large companies shrugged off as "in region practices" and very weak financial controls on banks? Not to mention their courts ruling German law trumps EU law when it suits them.

 

France, Macron, is scared of being seen to back down and of the French farmers and fishermen. It would harm is career and French pride.

 

Germany is scared of the UK becoming a tax haven and having lower costs to become very competitive. But had no problem with the UK losing business to countries like Poland whose costs are much lower; or Tax havens like Luxembourg which many Germans take advantage of.

 

Selfish arrogance and pride is what this is all about. After all, you can't have a member leave without being punished severely. You must pay and follow our rules forever ...... or else. Not the way to negotiate.

 

All the fluff, weasely rhetoric and double speak shouldn't mask the realist for anyone willing to open their eyes. 

 

The EU aren't being reasonable and some members have always been do as we say, not as we do. 

 

 

Of course it should apply to the member states too. Seems logical to me. That there are problems is clear too but then you can go to court. Before that you must agree that its just not allowable. If the UK does not agree to that then no entry to the market or higher tariffs. The UK needs us more then we need them. So no deal (while not preferable) is ok with me.

 

Lets put it this way your looking at things wrongly. You can't expect a member to leave and then get the same deal they had when they were part of the union but not sharing in its burdens. The Brits are totally unrealistic, claiming easy negotiations and a great deal. Why would the EU give a great deal if your no longer sharing in its burdens. That has to be calculated in it too otherwise the EU would give the UK a better deal then its member states. All the benefits but none of the burdens. Does not seem logical.

 

Lets see and wait, a no deal will hurt the UK more so I am ok with that. Though preference is still a deal as it makes more sense economically. 

[transam]

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Why do Brexit officials refuse to negotiate the issue? There can't be fair play if one side rejects talks.

The UK sovereign waters are the issue, they are ours, not the EU's, the EU thinks differently.......Their problem, not the UK's..

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, transam said:

The UK sovereign waters are the issue, they are ours, not the EU's, the EU thinks differently.......Their problem, not the UK's..

The UK's waters are a minor issue (economically). The fair play is many times more important. On the UK's waters i posted some articles. I suppose you did not read them as they contained too many words. Too bad actually as they showed that a compromise was best (and I agree there). But there should be no compromise on the level playing field.

[Baerboxer]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

I don't detest the Brits just think Brexiteers are not logical.

 

So they are indenting to pass laws that can break it. That is third world country style. No wonder the EU does not trust them.

 

Its just that BJ his demands are crazy little Britain trying to dictate rules. Anyway the fishing stuff both sides should compromise. The access to the market only if the Brits agree to fair play but that seems to be something they dont want to do. 

 

Based on current and past behavior only a fool would trust the EU to behave honorably.

 

France, for one, has always placed a unique interpretation on the EU rules to suit itself.

 

Your third paragraph contradicts your first sentence. The EU, especially the French are wanting to control fishing AND dictate how British businesses and commerce are run for the future, for ever. You think that's not dictating and acceptable to anyone? Reasonable?

 

The Brexit referendum result was very close. Stupid Cameron didn't apply any criteria to the result and promised, outside his authority, to implement the result. May tried a bit of trickery to implement it; failed and lost her majority. Johnson took over and went back to the country, winning a resounding majority. The Conservatives campaigned on implementing the referendum result; Labour to have another referendum; and Liberals to remain in. The massive voting against Labour and Liberals showed the mood of the public had changed dramatically against EU membership. I suggest that was mainly down to frustration and annoyance at the tactics and behavior of the EU and certain member states.

 

The price off entry to the EU market isn't invaluable nor is it necessarily value for what's being demanded, not requested, negotiated, compromised, but demanded. Certain states are playing brinkmanship. And that comes with the risk of getting what you don't want.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

The UK's waters are a minor issue (economically). The fair play is many times more important. On the UK's waters i posted some articles. I suppose you did not read them as they contained too many words. Too bad actually as they showed that a compromise was best (and I agree there). But there should be no compromise on the level playing field.

So you had to make a personal jibe,  you are good at that.....

[JonnyF]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

The UK's waters are a minor issue (economically). The fair play is many times more important. On the UK's waters i posted some articles. I suppose you did not read them as they contained too many words. Too bad actually as they showed that a compromise was best (and I agree there). But there should be no compromise on the level playing field.

 

I agree. There should be a small compromise on fishing. The EU can have a small quota for the next 5 years (which is reciprocated for UK boats in EU waters) and then we can review it again. Quid Pro Quo.

 

I also agree on no compromise on level playing field. It is a ridiculous request and should be dismissed out of hand by the UK negotiators. Laughed out of the room.

 

What we are asking for is the same thing the EU has granted to the likes of Canada. So to say it's impossible is disingenuous. We don't want the 'benefits' of being a member, we want a mutually beneficial FTA like the EU has with many countries outside the EU. The EU doesn't demand level playing field provisions and unfettered access to fishing waters as part of an FTA for any country other than the UK. It is being unreasonable because it is still sulking that we left, and it will pay the price.

[Baerboxer]

19 minutes ago, robblok said:

Of course it should apply to the member states too. Seems logical to me. That there are problems is clear too but then you can go to court. Before that you must agree that its just not allowable. If the UK does not agree to that then no entry to the market or higher tariffs. The UK needs us more then we need them. So no deal (while not preferable) is ok with me.

 

Lets put it this way your looking at things wrongly. You can't expect a member to leave and then get the same deal they had when they were part of the union but not sharing in its burdens. The Brits are totally unrealistic, claiming easy negotiations and a great deal. Why would the EU give a great deal if your no longer sharing in its burdens. That has to be calculated in it too otherwise the EU would give the UK a better deal then its member states. All the benefits but none of the burdens. Does not seem logical.

 

Lets see and wait, a no deal will hurt the UK more so I am ok with that. Though preference is still a deal as it makes more sense economically. 

 

A no deal will hurt the EU. Anyone who thinks it won't isn't living in the real world. It will also hurt the UK. For how long is very debatable.

 

No one expects to leave and get a deal better than being a member. To think anyone would think that is foolish. But no one expects to leave and still be managed by the organization that you've left. That's just as foolish.

 

Both markets are valuable to each other. But not, as both have repeatedly stated, at any price. France repeatedly stating that their fishing rights are not negotiable and must not change shows how stubbornly selfish some are being. Germany wants control, because Germany always wants to control others, and be in charge of the rules which she breaks herself when convenient. 

 

There was a lot of misinformation, fake news and downright lies in the UK over Brexit, pre and post. I'm pretty sure there has been the same in EU member states.

 

I saw a program interviewing French fishermen. They stated, very clearly, that they would accept lower quotas, as a little was better than nothing. But in this case, wanted a program of compensation agreeing with the French government. It's the politicians refusing to compromise. Loss of face isn't restricted to Asia!

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

A no deal will hurt the EU. Anyone who thinks it won't isn't living in the real world. It will also hurt the UK. For how long is very debatable.

 

No one expects to leave and get a deal better than being a member. To think anyone would think that is foolish. But no one expects to leave and still be managed by the organization that you've left. That's just as foolish.

 

Both markets are valuable to each other. But not, as both have repeatedly stated, at any price. France repeatedly stating that their fishing rights are not negotiable and must not change shows how stubbornly selfish some are being. Germany wants control, because Germany always wants to control others, and be in charge of the rules which she breaks herself when convenient. 

 

There was a lot of misinformation, fake news and downright lies in the UK over Brexit, pre and post. I'm pretty sure there has been the same in EU member states.

 

I saw a program interviewing French fishermen. They stated, very clearly, that they would accept lower quotas, as a little was better than nothing. But in this case, wanted a program of compensation agreeing with the French government. It's the politicians refusing to compromise. Loss of face isn't restricted to Asia!

Of course a no deal will hurt the EU but it will hurt the UK more. Anyone not seeing that does not live in the real world.

 

You will be managed by the organization you left if you want favorable access to its market. Seems logical you either submit to to those laws or agree to pay tariffs. If the UK does not want to agree to fair play then go for WTO rules and WTO tariffs. If you want better submit to the rules asked. The UK is not the powerful party. 

 

Germany has every right for control, they are an economic powerhouse. I feel countries that have a better economy and pay more into the EU have more rights then those who pay less. The French are selfish but the Brits are stupid. (just read the article about the fishing they both just need to accept they can't have it all and that a deal is better then no deal).

 

IMHO there should be changes in the EU nobody thinks the EU is perfect but  its better as doing it on your own. Especially for countries like mine. You should see how many are pro EU. Probably because we haven't been manipulated like the Brits. Easiest deal ever. No problems... right 

 

 

[robblok]

22 minutes ago, transam said:

So you had to make a personal jibe,  you are good at that.....

I know I was trying to get some substance for you but like all others i understand that that is impossible so some jibes are all i can do to try to force you to actually engage your brain in the discussion like so many others have asked of you. 

[transam]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I know I was trying to get some substance for you but like all others i understand that that is impossible so some jibes are all i can do to try to force you to actually engage your brain in the discussion like so many others have asked of you. 

Making jibes of no substance except bashing, is the choice of losers....Try not to do it in future...Thank you...

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I agree. There should be a small compromise on fishing. The EU can have a small quota for the next 5 years (which is reciprocated for UK boats in EU waters) and then we can review it again. Quid Pro Quo.

 

I also agree on no compromise on level playing field. It is a ridiculous request and should be dismissed out of hand by the UK negotiators. Laughed out of the room.

 

What we are asking for is the same thing the EU has granted to the likes of Canada. So to say it's impossible is disingenuous. We don't want the 'benefits' of being a member, we want a mutually beneficial FTA like the EU has with many countries outside the EU. The EU doesn't demand level playing field provisions and unfettered access to fishing waters as part of an FTA for any country other than the UK. It is being unreasonable because it is still sulking that we left, and it will pay the price.

Then you will never get it I don't mind the EU holding firm on this. We will see what the UK gets. You can't get low tariffs and level playing field you can get higher tariffs and a non level playing field. Its really simple. Agree and you get better tariffs don't and you won't. 

 

The fishing rights thing is just stupid compromise there as its better for both sides.

[robblok]

Just now, transam said:

Making jibes of no substance except bashing, is the choice of losers....Try not to do it in future...Thank you...

Trans the jibe was just right again most participants ask you to come up with some facts stop the loser one liners Thank you. 

[transam]

Just now, robblok said:

Then you will never get it I don't mind the EU holding firm on this. We will see what the UK gets. You can't get low tariffs and level playing field you can get higher tariffs and a non level playing field. Its really simple. Agree and you get better tariffs don't and you won't. 

 

The fishing rights thing is just stupid compromise there as its better for both sides.

Says the guy who has quoted here his country NEEDS the EU......????

[transam]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Trans the jibe was just right again most participants ask you to come up with some facts stop the loser one liners Thank you. 

There you go again.......????

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Says the guy who has quoted here his country NEEDS the EU......????

Yes my country needs the EU, its really useful for a small trading nation to be part of a larger block. Can you tell me why it is a bad thing ? Please come up with some facts for once. 

[Laughing Gravy]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

IMHO there should be changes in the EU nobody thinks the EU is perfect but  its better as doing it on your own. Especially for countries like mine. You should see how many are pro EU.

And that's the problem the EU wont change. people vote against them in referendums and they get ignored or told to vote again. You talk like your country being pro EU is progress. Many in the 1930s were pro for a party and ideology in Germany. Looked what happened there.

 

How narrow minded they are and the full brunt of what the EU has done, has only just started.  The UK had the foresight to leave.

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

The fishing rights thing is just stupid compromise there as its better for both sides.

It is not stupid. the UK waters have been raped for years by the French, Dutch, Spanish and others. They should have to pay back for the destruction of the seas that have happened.