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

[robblok]

Just for the record the FTA deals the EU made also put into place rules like environmental and labor rules. So competition is more fair. Not sure why people on this forum seem to think otherwise. FTA does not mean free trade without rules. It has rules just like the EU is now asking the UK to adhere to to have access to the market.

 

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1870

 

[quote] In most trade agreements since the 2011 EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement, an advisory group is set up in the EU and in the partner country or countries to advice on the implementation of the sustainable development chapters in EU trade agreements. Those chapters contain commitments to respect multilateral labour and environmental agreements and to ensure that labour and environment standards are not lowered in order to attract trade. On this web-page you will find information on the EU DAGs (domestic advisory groups) and on joint meetings between DAG members from both parties. [/quote]

Edited November 24, 2020 by robblok

[billd766]

1 hour 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?

 

it is also much easier when only 2 countries act instead of 1 applicant country, a committee plus 27 other countries, each having the power of vetoing the proposed deal.

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

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.

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.

 

Back it up with some facts and read the article i post. It shows why both sides are stupid. I found it quite enlightening and certainly not bias towards one side. 

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

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.

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.

 

As for the EU not changing they are changing and they are voting on budgets. Thing is like any goverment they are never 100% perfect. Governing is making compromises. This is how things work and of course its hard in a huge diverse geographical area like the EU. 

 

Be honest do you agree with everything your government does ? If not (seems the most logical answer) then why do you expect to agree with everything the EU does. You have to look at the big picture. In the big picture its a good thing. There are plenty of things to complain about but the good outweighs the bad. 

 

Problem is just that UK politicians blamed all ails and failings on the EU and the populace believed it.

 

Also about the fishing, the UK fishermen sold fishing rights to the other countries its fishermen instead of themselves. So the rape was self inflicted. But lets not talk about that. 

Edited November 24, 2020 by robblok

[Laughing Gravy]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Back it up with some facts and read the article i post. It shows why both sides are stupid. I found it quite enlightening and certainly not bias towards one side. 

Just look at the map of Europe. Which country has water all around it. Which country allows more fish to be taken out from other countries, than it takes itself.

 

Go back and read all the threads on this. You have jumped on the bandwagon a few weeks ago and now you are a so called  expert.

 

Some of us have stated the so called facts loads of times on here, so you have a lot of homework to catch up on. Then come back as hopefully you would have learned a lot.

[transam]

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

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. 

I never said it was a bad thing for you, you just said that, but for the UK leave camp you can keep it, you using your own land and waters...

[robblok]

Just now, Laughing Gravy said:

Just look at the map of Europe. Which country has water all around it. Which country allows more fish to be taken out from other countries, than it takes itself.

 

Go back and read all the threads on this. You have jumped on the bandwagon a few weeks ago and now you are a so called  expert.

 

Some of us have stated the so called facts loads of times on here, so you have a lot of homework to catch up on. Then come back as hopefully you would have learned a lot.

No need Gravy the article i mentioned says it all. Its summarizes it all. So unless you post some facts ill see it as unproven. 

 

 

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, billd766 said:

it is also much easier when only 2 countries act instead of 1 applicant country, a committee plus 27 other countries, each having the power of vetoing the proposed deal.

Yes that's also true. That's why EU trade deals take many years, sometimes decades. The UK on the other hand has signed or agreed in principle deals with 52 countries in less than 2 years. I think around 30 have actually been signed now, including Japan, South Korea and Canada.

 

In this case though, I think it's a case of the EU trying to punish the UK and retain control over it after it has left. Just like a bitter ex-girlfriend, they cannot accept the rejection and try to cling on as long as they can and destroy that which rejected them. Not very mature, but then this is the EU we are talking about.

[Laughing Gravy]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

As for the EU not changing they are changing and they are voting on budgets.

Hilarious. Why don't they give every country an U vote to leave then.

 

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Be honest do you agree with everything your government does ?

But I can vote them out directly. i cant vote any of the 5 presidents out.

 

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

Also about the fishing, the UK fishermen sold fishing rights to the other countries its fishermen instead of themselves. So the rape was self inflicted.

You obviously have no idea. Go back and do your homework. The waters are not for sale they were loaned. We are calling that loan in. Yes Heath lied to get us into the EEC and Major and Blair contributed to the demise.  Talk about the lie getting into the EU that's interesting.

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, transam said:

I never said it was a bad thing for you, you just said that, but for the UK leave camp you can keep it, you using your own land and waters...

I don't get this reply at all you made a post mocking that i said we need the EU and then when I asked why you mocked it you come back saying... oh your actually right that you stay with the EU.

 

Then you post some stupid remark about fishing (fishing is not an important sector) i could not care less if it was done on our side. I have no problems with that at all. Like i stated countless times. So why come back with something i already agree upon. Makes no sense.

[JonnyF]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

Be honest do you agree with everything your government does ? If not (seems the most logical answer) then why do you expect to agree with everything the EU does.

 

We don't expect that.

 

But we know that if we don't agree with the government we can remove them at the ballot box. Unlike the EU commission. 

[robblok]

Just now, Laughing Gravy said:

Hilarious. Why don't they give every country an U vote to leave then.

 

But I can vote them out directly. i cant vote any of the 5 presidents out.

 

You obviously have no idea. Go back and do your homework. The waters are not for sale they were loaned. We are calling that loan in. Yes Heath lied to get us into the EEC and Major and Blair contributed to the demise.  Talk about the lie getting into the EU that's interesting.

 

Quotas were sold fishermen got money for it. Sure take it back but let those UK fishermen pay some money back too. Else its theft.

 

But we can vote what our goverment does in the EU so we do control the EU. Seen it work Dutch have a point and only budge after we got concessions. So each country can influence the EU. That is democracy. The UK however acted like this was not the case blamed whatever was wrong on the EU giving their inhabitants a blinkered view 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

We don't expect that.

 

But we know that if we don't agree with the government we can remove them at the ballot box. Unlike the EU commission. 

If we don't agree with stuff like extra loans we use our veto and get things we want. That is how it works. If a country does not agree with something it has considerable power to resist. Usually you don't get everything you want but you still get good deals. I seen it in the last EU negotiations about COVID. Netherlands did not get all their demands but quite a few. So you can influence all stuff. 

[transam]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

I don't get this reply at all you made a post mocking that i said we need the EU and then when I asked why you mocked it you come back saying... oh your actually right that you stay with the EU.

 

Then you post some stupid remark about fishing (fishing is not an important sector) i could not care less if it was done on our side. I have no problems with that at all. Like i stated countless times. So why come back with something i already agree upon. Makes no sense.

Could it be your English comprehension...????

[candide]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yes that's also true. That's why EU trade deals take many years, sometimes decades. The UK on the other hand has signed or agreed in principle deals with 52 countries in less than 2 years. I think around 30 have actually been signed now, including Japan, South Korea and Canada.

 

In this case though, I think it's a case of the EU trying to punish the UK and retain control over it after it has left. Just like a bitter ex-girlfriend, they cannot accept the rejection and try to cling on as long as they can and destroy that which rejected them. Not very mature, but then this is the EU we are talking about.

These deal are mainly continuity deals of deals previously negotiated by the EU. It has nothing to do with an ability to negotiate quickly. They just took the EU deal and changed the name on the agreement. Many deals are also transitional, pending negotiation on final deals.

[natway09]

The "fishing " question should have been resolved years ago but because it was too hard, the Uk 

turned the page without resolving.. This is now coming back to bite them in the proverbial.

British waters have been raped & pillaged anyway & not a lot left.

You want real fish, ? u need to talk to Norway

[Loiner]

7 hours ago, Srikcir said:

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

They are negotiating the issue, that's why they are still back at talks again now after Boris sent Barnier home a few weeks ago. The EU idea of negotiation is for the UK to capitulate on these issues and accept the EU demands. Well that's not happening. 

Why does the EU not concede that the UK is no longer a member and does not have to give in to the EU demands. That would be fair.

[Loiner]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

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

 

Fair would be to accept that different nations make and apply their own rules and legislation in their own lands. It is unfair for the EU to demand that another sovereign nation should accept EU rules and governance in the other nation.
We left the EU and will not be part of your one market anymore, therefore are free to not accept any rules from the EU. That's fair.

[dunroaming]

5 minutes ago, Loiner said:

They are negotiating the issue, that's why they are still back at talks again now after Boris sent Barnier home a few weeks ago. The EU idea of negotiation is for the UK to capitulate on these issues and accept the EU demands. Well that's not happening. 

Why does the EU not concede that the UK is no longer a member and does not have to give in to the EU demands. That would be fair.

Don't quite get the logic there.

 

The UK can pull the plug on negotiating any time they choose to and just walk away with no deal.  The EU has got nothing to "concede" about.  The negotiations only take place because the UK want to keep trying to get a deal, no matter how many times Boris threatens to die in a ditch!

 

The UK and the EU will cut a deal and they are both well aware of that.  The "negotiations" are about the terms of the agreement made and the EU are holding more cards than the UK.

[transam]

7 minutes ago, Loiner said:

 

Fair would be to accept that different nations make and apply their own rules and legislation in their own lands. It is unfair for the EU to demand that another sovereign nation should accept EU rules and governance in the other nation.
We left the EU and will not be part of your one market anymore, therefore are free to not accept any rules from the EU. That's fair.

It's no use talking to him, he told us he needs the EU, and is very biased because of it....????

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, dunroaming said:

Don't quite get the logic there.

 

The UK can pull the plug on negotiating any time they choose to and just walk away with no deal.  The EU has got nothing to "concede" about.  The negotiations only take place because the UK want to keep trying to get a deal, no matter how many times Boris threatens to die in a ditch!

 

The UK and the EU will cut a deal and they are both well aware of that.  The "negotiations" are about the terms of the agreement made and the EU are holding more cards than the UK.

There's a lot that you don't get, but never mind.
A trade deal might be better all round, but not at any price. No Deal is still better than the bad deal the EU would like us to take. While ever the EU sends Barnier back they are hoping that the UK will give in to their demands. Well that's still not happening is it?
The high and mighty EU and their Remainer worshippers have still not woken up to that and their cards are only a pair of ducks. 

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, transam said:

It's no use talking to him, he told us he needs the EU, and is very biased because of it....????

If only everyone would ignore the facts and just believe in the one true Brexit everything will be fine.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/23/no-deal-brexit-to-cost-more-than-covid-bank-of-england-governor-says

[7by7]

8 hours 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

 What 'completely unrealistic demands' has the EU made?

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

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 way has the EU not acted in good faith?

[Bruntoid]

2 hours ago, transam said:

It's no use talking to him, he told us he needs the EU, and is very biased because of it....????

Have you ever added anything of substance to any forum you’ve ever ‘contributed’ to ? 
 

It’s all toe curlingly Alf Garnett low intellect type dross !

 

No offence like 

[Bruntoid]

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

There's a lot that you don't get, but never mind.
A trade deal might be better all round, but not at any price. No Deal is still better than the bad deal the EU would like us to take. While ever the EU sends Barnier back they are hoping that the UK will give in to their demands. Well that's still not happening is it?
The high and mighty EU and their Remainer worshippers have still not woken up to that and their cards are only a pair of ducks. 

Of course they will give in its utterly guaranteed! They just don’t have to give in yet and are playing to the Sun readers gallery. Some just can’t see it. 
 

Today the BofE governor firing shots across Bojo’s bows - hang on he’s bias right ? What would he know with an army of financial analysts behind him ...

[Bruntoid]

20 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? 

Is everyone that disagrees with the calamitous Brexit bias ? 
 

Just for clarity can you give us an anti-brexit publication/spokesperson/economist that isn’t bias please ? Or could it just be they have the intellectual clout to work out the sums ? 
 

Because right now you appear to be ranking The Sun above the world renowned Reuters ????

Edited November 24, 2020 by Bruntoid

[Bruntoid]

19 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 What 'completely unrealistic demands' has the EU made?

In what way has the EU not acted in good faith?

He’s heard someone else say it so thought I’ll write it as well ????

[7by7]

7 hours 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..

 As far as I am aware, the EU do not deny that since Brexit the UK EEZ belongs to the UK. Where they have said differently?

 

As I understand it, what they want is for the access to those waters enjoyed by EU fleets since well before the EC, let alone the EU, even existed to continue and the licences to fish those waters sold to EU fleets by UK fleet owners to also continue; at least for the time being. Where have they said differently?

 

What you seem to want is for the UK to take away that access and those licences yet the EU to still allow the access to EU waters and EU markets enjoyed by UK fishing fleets!

 

Then there's the question of the UK fleets access to EU markets. From page 12 of the HoC briefing paper dated 5/10/20 UK Sea Fisheries Statistics (you'll need to download the full report).

Quote

In 2019, fish exports to the EU were worth £1.4 billion (67% of all UK fish exports from the UK by value). Fish imports from the EU were worth £1.2 billion (35% of all fish imports to the UK by value).

 

There is a lot more to the fishing question than the simplistic "They're our waters now, so you EU lot can foxtrot oscar" attitude adopted by so many Brexiteers.

[7by7]

6 hours ago, transam said:

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

As the vast majority of your posts are simply such jibes; what does that make you?

[7by7]

6 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

<snip>

Just look at the map of Europe. Which country has water all around it. Which country allows more fish to be taken out from other countries, than it takes itself.

 Yes, EU fleets do take more from UK waters than the UK fleet; no one has ever denied that.

 

The reason, though, has been posted many times here; it is because the UK government allowed UK fleet owners to sell their licences on to foreign fleet owners!

 

If you want to blame anyone, blame the UK fleet owners for selling their licences; blame the UK government for allowing them to do so.

 

6 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

<snip>

Some of us have stated the so called facts loads of times on here, so you have a lot of homework to catch up on. Then come back as hopefully you would have learned a lot.

Yes, you and other Brexiteers have posted, as you put it 'so called facts' many times.

 

Meanwhile, some of us have posted actual, real facts many times; but you and your fellows simply ignore them.