UK had 'one or two' Brexit teething issues on fishing, minister says

[bannork]

1 hour ago, Hi from France said:

31st Dec. was the final date the UK crossed the line:

• before that the UK was "with us" with compatible rules and laws and contributing to the EU 
• After that we went our separate ways: of course the UK wanted to get the perks of the EU while following only they rules that please them, without contributing... 

So yes your goods and services were not automatically accepted anymore.

 

 

Likewise, as soon as the UK is able to put in place its own customs, EU good and services won't be acceptable in the UK either. 

 

 

The Four fundamental freedoms state that goods, services, capital and persons can move without

restriction within the EU. You cannot cherry pick he Four fundamental freedoms like getting the perks of our financial markets while denying the free movement of persons. 

 

And given the present national - populist government in power, the present UK stance has become adversarial. Like giving an inferior status to our ambassador, refusing any UK - EU military cooperation, refusing even like Frost to say "the European Union" and say "your organisation". Hostile environment. 

 

• If you are optimistic, it was "the first regressive trade deal in history".
• If you are pessimistic, under the guise of friendship you realise the UK became a rival, like the USA at best like Russia or China at worst, but anyway much closer geographically. 

 

This is sad

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/26/lying-is-no-longer-a-sin-sylvie-bermann-on-brexit-and-boris-johnson

 

. 

That article is spot on in so many ways.

[Tofer]

1 hour ago, Hi from France said:

before that the UK was "with us" with compatible rules and laws and contributing to the EU 

 

The shellfish ban, has got nothing to do with rules and laws, or customs documentation - it's about standards, and these have not changed. The UK waters did not, all of a sudden overnight, become more polluted. The fish the French are still catching in UK waters is quite acceptable, but not that caught by the British... Please explain why?

 

1 hour ago, Hi from France said:

So yes your goods and services were not automatically accepted anymore.

 

You need to explain much more clearly why our goods became unacceptable, instead of your one liner off the cuff comments, of we're not in your club anymore?

 

Financial services equivalence, is being used as a punishment tool, since the only reason it has not been agreed is because the EU fear the UK might change their regulations. It's total BS, since a clause can easily cover any deviation in regulations and trading standards, no differently to any other country, i.e. USA.

 

1 hour ago, Hi from France said:

After that we went our separate ways: of course the UK wanted to get the perks of the EU while following only they rules that please them, without contributing... 

 

Same old statement. We don't want membership of your club. We want fair trade, and we're not getting that as noted above. The free movement of goods across borders is the only aspect that is defensible in your argument, since of course there will now need to be customs checks and cross border documentation. 

 

Apart from that there is no valid reason to interrupt trade with a country that has identical regulations and standards, other than as a punishment tactic, to deter others from following suit.

[bannork]

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

I just did, with the financial services storey, or did you not understand it?

The financial services story you quote- the companies have to set up a physical base if they want to operate now the UK is a third country. 

The sane vice versa, many UK financial service companies will have to set up offices in the EU now.

The governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, said Brexit had cost between 5000- 7000 jobs in the UK already.

[bannork]

13 minutes ago, Tofer said:

 

The shellfish ban, has got nothing to do with rules and laws, or customs documentation - it's about standards, and these have not changed. The UK waters did not, all of a sudden overnight, become more polluted. The fish the French are still catching in UK waters is quite acceptable, but not that caught by the British... Please explain why?

 

 

You need to explain much more clearly why our goods became unacceptable, instead of your one liner off the cuff comments, of we're not in your club anymore?

 

Financial services equivalence, is being used as a punishment tool, since the only reason it has not been agreed is because the EU fear the UK might change their regulations. It's total BS, since a clause can easily cover any deviation in regulations and trading standards, no differently to any other country, i.e. USA.

 

 

Same old statement. We don't want membership of your club. We want fair trade, and we're not getting that as noted above. The free movement of goods across borders is the only aspect that is defensible in your argument, since of course there will now need to be customs checks and cross border documentation. 

 

Apart from that there is no valid reason to interrupt trade with a country that has identical regulations and standards, other than as a punishment tactic, to deter others from following suit.

The EU know that the UK want to diverge in regulations, next week Sunak will announce the proposed establishment of free ports in the UK.

The EU also know from experience that Johnson is totally untrustworthy, so any major divergence will result in retaliation, tariffs for example.

Of course the standards have changed, the UK is now a third country. Should the EU make the UK an exception? That would go down well with other third countries.

'The rules don't apply to the UK, they're special.'.

Brexiteers suffering from delusions of grandeur.

[7by7]

19 hours ago, vinny41 said:

LONDON — The European Commission published the full text of the trade agreement in principle between the U.K. and EU on Saturday morning. 

The U.K. government published the text on its website shortly after. Both the UK and the Commission also published additional texts covering economic, security and nuclear cooperation. One includes joint declarations in areas such as financial services.

https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-publishes-full-text-of-uk-eu-brexit-trade-agreement/

 

So that would have been Saturday 26th December 2020

Its quite normal in major negotiations that the only parties that have details of the negotiation are the negotiation team and the people that they report back to

 

You missed the second paragraph from your source: "The text is dated December 25. A version obtained by POLITICO on Friday was dated December 24."

 

Did you follow the link to the UK government's website? If you did, did you read it?

 

From that link "Published 24 December 2020."

 

OK, that's the Summary Explainer and the full text was not added until the 26th; but the explainer published on the 24th contains enough for Ms Prentiss to have known the basics. 

 

Most damning off all, she actually said to the Lords committee that the agreement came when she was too busy on organising her local Nativity trail on Christmas Eve, See from 1:18 in the video of that conversation.

 

Even the Tory supporting Spectator says

Quote

Mr S is glad to hear that Prentis takes her festive responsibilities seriously. But one imagines that fishermen across the country will have been rather less pleased by the minister’s lack of interest in their fate…

 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, vogie said:

 

 

 

I stand corrected. 

[7by7]

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

When will it sink in ????

 

Please stop repeating stuff about EU law allowing this and that. The question is not could we have gone our own way, the question is would we have gone our own way? 

Brexiteers here are repeating Hancock and Rees-Mogg's lie that we could not have gone our own way without Brexit.

 

Including you! For example " if the UK had never voted for Brexit and had still been a full EU member, we'd have been obliged to join the EU vaccine program whether it was in law or not."

 

 

18 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

And obviously we wouldn't have. 

It is not obvious at all.

 

Whilst still a member the UK opted out of

• the Schengen area,
• the economic and monetary union,
• the area of freedom, security and justice,
• the charter of fundamental rights and
• the social chapter (although Blair later reversed this one).

There is zero evidence to suggest that had Brexit never happened we would not have used the EU regulations to unilaterally approve the Pfizer vaccine.

 

 

[7by7]

15 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

So you think opting out of the single currency along with eight other member states is the same as opting out of a vaccine program during a pandemic that all the other member states agreed to is the same sort of thing? I don't. 

 

As we've now left the EU, only one member state has permanently opted out of the Euro; Denmark.

 

The others are obliged to join at some time in the future "when the economic conditions are right." Though I grant you this means they can postpone joining indefinitely.

[GrandPapillon]

a lot of nice links to important press articles in this thread, thanks all

 

interestingly most of them had this nice disclosure when I clicked on them ????

 

Since you are here

Since you are here, we wanted to ask for your help.

 

Journalism in Britain is under threat. The government is becoming increasingly authoritarian and our media is run by a handful of billionaires, most of whom reside overseas and all of them have strong political allegiances and financial motivations.

 

Our mission is to hold the powerful to account. It is vital that free media is allowed to exist to expose hypocrisy, corruption, wrongdoing and abuse of power. But we can't do it without you.

 

If you can afford to contribute a small donation to the site it will help us to continue our work in the best interests of the public. We only ask you to donate what you can afford, with an option to cancel your subscription at any point.

 

To donate or subscribe to The London Economic, click here.

 

The TLE shop is also now open, with all profits going to supporting our work.

 

The shop can be found here.

 

You can also SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER .

Edited February 27, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

There you go again, twisting the thread to try to perpetuate an irrelevant argument. If you want to get your dig in, at least make it feasible....

 

If you check back, you will see my response to a post highlighting the lazy benefits claimants who refuse to work in the fields picking fruit and veg. It did not refer to you specifically, if you are on sickness benefit it's a totally different scenario.

 

There you go again; hoping everyone has forgotten what you posted and lack the nous to go back and look!

 

My quote was from this post of yours in which, after your comments on the unemployed, you said "But correct me if I'm wrong, are all remainers sat on their backsides chewing the cud at mine and the other tax payers expense?"

 

You're wrong, and so I did as you asked and corrected you!

 

I see that my comment on expat Brexiteers touched a nerve! Seems that your happy to dish it out, but hate taking it!

 

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

21 hours ago, 7by7 said:

I'm currently receiving SSP, paid for out of my NICs over my 40 years working life

 

- this statement is incorrect! Benefits are paid out of tax revenues, not NI contributions.

 

Technically you are correct; my and every other workers NICs pay the state pensions of those currently retired.

 

However, certain benefits, such as SSP and JSA, are dependent on one having paid the relevant NICs. 

 

 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

I just did, with the financial services storey, or did you not understand it?

 

To which I responded; did you not understand that response?

 

Here it is again

 

Of course some financial companies who wish to continue trading with the UK or on UK markets have had to move here since Brexit; but have the jobs created replaced those lost by companies going the other way since the referendum?

 

From February 2019: Which companies are leaving UK, downsizing or cutting jobs ahead of Brexit?

 

It's still happening; on the advice of HMG! Move to EU to avoid Brexit costs, firms told 

 

Even Brexit supporters are moving to the EU: Brexit-backing Ineos boss confirms new cars will be built in France instead of Wales

 

Are the city jobs created replacing the manufacturing and other industry jobs lost? Doesn't seem so.

 

Do you really think a net increase in unemployment is a benefit?

[7by7]

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

You're still missing the point, our goods and services complied with EU rules on the 31st Dec. but were all of a sudden unacceptable one second later.

 

As for new rules regarding the free flow of goods - that's a completely different context. That's related to border controls and checks requiring proper documentation. The punishment and business grabbing tactics, are exactly that - tactics and punishment.

 

Until the 31st December our goods and services did not have to comply with the EU's rules on imports from non members because. although we had left, we were still in the transition period and treated as a member.

 

After that we were no longer a member and so treated as all other non members.

 

Stop whinging because leaving the EU means we're not treated as members anymore. It's what you voted for!

[7by7]

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

More than 1,000 EU firms plan first UK office after Brexit.

Extract from your own quoted source, clearly contradicts your statement therein, first I presume can be considered new...

 

That article and the BBC news report you later quote is an exact replica of the content of the media I quoted.

 

But, oh no it can't be true because it came from a right wing media group... ???? ????

 

 

Like I said; your source almost got it right.

 

I don't know about you, but when I was taught maths I learned that 1000 is less than 1500!

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

<snip>

We don't want membership of your club. We want fair trade, and we're not getting that as noted above.

Take your complaint to Lord Frost who negotiated the trade agreement and Boris Johnson who signed it!

 

But think how much worse things would be with the option preferred by many Brexiteers; WTO rules!

 

As said to you many, many times; you voted to leave the EU; time to stop whingeing because you got what you voted for!

[candide]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

The shellfish ban, has got nothing to do with rules and laws, or customs documentation - it's about standards, and these have not changed. The UK waters did not, all of a sudden overnight, become more polluted. The fish the French are still catching in UK waters is quite acceptable, but not that caught by the British... Please explain why?

Easy!

The EU regulation (voted by UK when it was a member) is that consumption of live and untreated molusc is only allowed from class A waters. According to retained EU law Regulation, Wales waters (for example) are classified as B by UK, and Scotland as A. So shellfish from Scotland can be consumed live and shellfish from Wales must be purified or treated. It's still the case in UK now as the law has been retained. You cannot consume shellfish from class B waters which have not been purified or treated. (See source)

https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/shellfish-classification

 

When UK was in the common market, it did not matter where shellfish from Wales were treated, so they could be treated after being transported from UK, in the area of consumption. This is important as the shelf life is shorter after treatment.

 

Now UK is not any more in the common market, so the treatment must be made before entry in the EU for shellfish from class B waters (ex Wales). Live shellfish from Scotland (class A waters) can still be imported without treatment.

Edited February 27, 2021 by candide

[tebee]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

The shellfish ban, has got nothing to do with rules and laws, or customs documentation - it's about standards, and these have not changed. The UK waters did not, all of a sudden overnight, become more polluted. The fish the French are still catching in UK waters is quite acceptable, but not that caught by the British... Please explain why?

 

 

 

 

Prior to Brexit the UK supported the ban on imports of shellfish from polluted waters in third countries because it shut  so many of their competitors.

Nobody seems to have considered that after Brexit UK would become a third country itself!

Now the EU can't make an exception for the UK because of those pesky WTO rules - It would have to allow imports from all third countries.

 

UK could purify the shellfish itself, and while in theory these could then be sold to the EU, in practice the  short post-purification shelf life would make it difficult. But they could sell them to the domestic market.

[tebee]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

....

 

 

Same old statement. We don't want membership of your club. We want fair trade, and we're not getting that as noted above. The free movement of goods across borders is the only aspect that is defensible in your argument, since of course there will now need to be customs checks and cross border documentation. 

 

Apart from that there is no valid reason to interrupt trade with a country that has identical regulations and standards, other than as a punishment tactic, to deter others from following suit.

 

You are not getting the same treatment because the UK specifically stated it doesn't what to adhere to EU standards (presumably to allow for a US trade deal) 

 

  So you can't argue there is no valid reason to disrupt trade because we are not having  identical regulations and standards, we have also refused to accept EU monitoring of those standards or mutually recognize qualifications. Therefor each load we ship now needs to be certified individually to adhere to the EU's standards.   

[vinny41]

14 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

Prior to Brexit the UK supported the ban on imports of shellfish from polluted waters in third countries because it shut  so many of their competitors.

Nobody seems to have considered that after Brexit UK would become a third country itself!

Now the EU can't make an exception for the UK because of those pesky WTO rules - It would have to allow imports from all third countries.

 

UK could purify the shellfish itself, and while in theory these could then be sold to the EU, in practice the  short post-purification shelf life would make it difficult. But they could sell them to the domestic market.

First oyster exports since Brexit save historic Fal Fishery from doom

Mr Duane said Falcatch had to figure its way around export health certificates, catch certificates, getting a UK export agent plus a French import agent, customs rep and fiscal rep.

“The biggest issue once we figured our way around all that was that we, like most exporters, didn’t know about and had no government guidance on the need for a French VAT number to trade directly with our French customers which would take six to eight weeks to receive,” he added.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/first-oyster-exports-brexit-save-5025070

[tebee]

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

First oyster exports since Brexit save historic Fal Fishery from doom

Mr Duane said Falcatch had to figure its way around export health certificates, catch certificates, getting a UK export agent plus a French import agent, customs rep and fiscal rep.

“The biggest issue once we figured our way around all that was that we, like most exporters, didn’t know about and had no government guidance on the need for a French VAT number to trade directly with our French customers which would take six to eight weeks to receive,” he added.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/first-oyster-exports-brexit-save-5025070

 

 

Yep, this paperwork is what you voted for!

[vinny41]

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

 

Yep, this paperwork is what you voted for!

Interesting Comment here

Chris Ranger, founding director of Fal Oyster, who has worked alongside Falcatch, placed some of the blame with export concerns on fellow fishermen.

He said: “The problem with most fishermen and merchants – they’ve been used to doing so much through the backdoor but they can’t do it through the backdoor anymore and now think they might as well wait for compensation and then give up and blame Brexit. It’s <deleted>.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/first-oyster-exports-brexit-save-5025070

[tebee]

55 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Interesting Comment here

Chris Ranger, founding director of Fal Oyster, who has worked alongside Falcatch, placed some of the blame with export concerns on fellow fishermen.

He said: “The problem with most fishermen and merchants – they’ve been used to doing so much through the backdoor but they can’t do it through the backdoor anymore and now think they might as well wait for compensation and then give up and blame Brexit. It’s <deleted>.

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/first-oyster-exports-brexit-save-5025070

I presume by backdoor he means fishing in polluted waters and getting the shellfish purified in the EU.

He must be lucky and able to fish in catogary 1 waters, which need no purification for human consumption.

Real problem is the amount of pollution in British fishing waters.

[vinny41]

48 minutes ago, tebee said:

I presume by backdoor he means fishing in polluted waters and getting the shellfish purified in the EU.

He must be lucky and able to fish in catogary 1 waters, which need no purification for human consumption.

Real problem is the amount of pollution in British fishing waters.

he is using  depuration tanks approved for cleaning scallops and oysters

I suspect the people using the backdoor are  illegal shellfish harvesting 

Legitimately gathered shellfish are subject to strict purification treatments to ensure they are fit for human consumption, but fish taken from prohibited or unclassified sources, or sold before being properly treated, put the public at risk of serious illnesses caused by the E.coli, novovirus or salmonella bugs, which can all be found in contaminated molluscs.

https://theecologist.org/2012/may/30/revealed-illegal-shellfish-trade-thats-putting-consumer-health-risk

[7by7]

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

<snip>

I suspect the people using the backdoor are  illegal shellfish harvesting 

 

And doing what with their catch? Illegally smuggling it into the EU?

 

If so, they're not among those affected by the red tape caused by Brexit!

 

I also have to wonder why, if your suspicions are correct, Mr Ranger has not reported these illegal activities to the appropriate authorities!

[tebee]

6 hours ago, vinny41 said:

6 hours ago, vinny41 said:

he is using  depuration tanks approved for cleaning scallops and oysters

I suspect the people using the backdoor are  illegal shellfish harvesting 

Legitimately gathered shellfish are subject to strict purification treatments to ensure they are fit for human consumption, but fish taken from prohibited or unclassified sources, or sold before being properly treated, put the public at risk of serious illnesses caused by the E.coli, novovirus or salmonella bugs, which can all be found in contaminated molluscs.

https://theecologist.org/2012/may/30/revealed-illegal-shellfish-trade-thats-putting-consumer-health-risk

 

 

The problem with using depuration (purification) tanks is it shortens the shelf life of the bi-valves considerably - you need to get them on sale in your  target market within 36 hours of finishing the process. This is why most British fisherman didn't do it themselves, but sold their produce on to be processed in France.

 

He seems to be suggesting that some of the category 2 stock was being sold unprocessed to the public before ? In which case it's probably a good thing that Brexit has stopped this.  

[Tofer]

17 hours ago, bannork said:

The EU know that the UK want to diverge in regulations, next week Sunak will announce the proposed establishment of free ports in the UK.

 

If, or when that happens, then the EU can pull up the drawbridge. Until that time it is simply vindictive punishment, particularly since the UK have continuity agreements to prevent such situations as the shellfish fiasco.

 

17 hours ago, bannork said:

The EU also know from experience that Johnson is totally untrustworthy, so any major divergence will result in retaliation, tariffs for example.

 Fine, so be it, but to impose sanctions before the event is simply vindictive.

 

You talk about Johnson being untrustworthy. You have a short memory, forgetting very quickly UvdL's treachery.

17 hours ago, bannork said:

The rules don't apply to the UK, they're special.'.

 

You mean the EU's inventive punishment rules.... 

[Tofer]

17 hours ago, bannork said:

The EU know that the UK want to diverge in regulations,

 

Let's rephrase that statement, and see what it looks like from a different perspective;

 

The EU want to use that the UK possibly might diverge in regulations, to cause as much disruption and punishment as possible, combined with forcing business out of London and into Europe.

 

A more valid opinion, unless of course the EUC have crystal balls as well....

[Tofer]

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

I stand corrected. 

 

Congratulations Vogie, you've achieved the impossible.... ????

[Tofer]

17 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

a lot of nice links to important press articles in this thread, thanks all

 

interestingly most of them had this nice disclosure when I clicked on them ????

 

Since you are here

Since you are here, we wanted to ask for your help.

 

Journalism in Britain is under threat. The government is becoming increasingly authoritarian and our media is run by a handful of billionaires, most of whom reside overseas and all of them have strong political allegiances and financial motivations.

 

Our mission is to hold the powerful to account. It is vital that free media is allowed to exist to expose hypocrisy, corruption, wrongdoing and abuse of power. But we can't do it without you.

 

If you can afford to contribute a small donation to the site it will help us to continue our work in the best interests of the public. We only ask you to donate what you can afford, with an option to cancel your subscription at any point.

 

To donate or subscribe to The London Economic, click here.

 

The TLE shop is also now open, with all profits going to supporting our work.

 

The shop can be found here.

 

You can also SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER .

 

The most prolific of these can't afford it, he's on SSP.

[Tofer]

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

My quote was from this post of yours in which, after your comments on the unemployed, you said "But correct me if I'm wrong, are all remainers sat on their backsides chewing the cud at mine and the other tax payers expense?"

 

It was a rhetorical question, not a statement of fact, in a vein of sarcasm, which obviously went over your head.

[Surelynot]

I would just like to say I think Brexit is going just fine, okay one or two minor teething problems......but all we be sorted shortly by that world renowned negotiator Lord Frost....once done we can all look forward to and reap the benefits of a global UK.