[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

All the government sources are still saying there will be no extension, jfman. I understand that the need for an extension is your personal view as you keep repeating it, but that doesn't mean the government will do it. In fact, they've categorically denied that they would do so, pointing out that the electorate have made it clear that people just want this to be over.

Yes and at risk of repeating myself the Government saying something vs the Government delivering it is two wildly different things.

At no time, in any referendum or general election, has a Government been given a mandate to end the transition agreement on 31st December at all costs.

A mandate was for leaving on 31st January. Johnson's Government delivered.

As far as fishing is concerned, whatever did we do before we joined the EU? We will not be giving away our fish stocks again and UK fishermen have been promised that they will get back their fishing rights next year.

Can UK fishermen not fish in our waters? I'm unsure the relevance of 50 year old practice in the fishing industry, but it's obvious to me (as a non-fisherman) that in the limited space that is the North Sea an agreement on sustainable fishing is desirable.

Otherwise unregulated and uncontrolled capitalism does what it does best - seeks short terms gains against long term sustainability. It's undesirable to have no fish at all - I'm sure even you would agree that's obvious.

---------- Post added at 19:49 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

We are perfectly capable of setting our own limits for UK waters. How much of any overfishing in UK and non-UK waters is down to other EU countries(eg Spain). I doubt we are looking to completely ban EU fleets, just to be the ones that decide and control that, just as the EU would be able to decide and control fishing in EU waters.

Either EU fishing rights are such a huge benefit for them, or the EU are just being awkward.

You are missing the point of an agreement. We both agree mutually beneficial terms and the other party is committed to do their bit to enforce their side.

Whether the EU or the UK are a net beneficiary on the single issue of fisheries is frankly an irrelevance. It is nationalist flag waving nonsense against the backdrop of a much larger trade agreement.

I'm sure the City of London would consider access to the EU financial sector much more important than whether we have a net loss of a few hundred million pounds per year in fish to the EU. Also I'm sure the Treasury would find their revenues would benefit overall.