UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

It really wasn't clear to me.

It's obvious everyone wants fresh fish, and fresh fish holds value. So UK fishermen in EU territorial waters (and vice versa) has some net monetary value based on whatever fish it is.

Some fish are found more in our waters, some in theirs. Therefore an agreement from both sides is desirable from where I'm sitting. I don't see why it's any more an objectionable part of the discussion any more than farming, wider manufacturing or the service sector.

But as with any other sector, the UK sets rules for the UK, and the EU sets rules for the EU.


Agreements on sustainability of fishing stocks is not subject to fishing rights.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Yes - we agree on the above. That's why I said earlier that politics then plays into the question and the matter of sovereignty. I hope that the Guvmin is being canny and they'll stare the EU down into some concessions so that the fishing rights can go back into the mix.

But the EU is too far up itself ; or is it?

Seph sometimes I read your posts and I know deep down we aren't a million miles apart here.

UK-EU trade is a combined £600bn a year, fish being a tiny fraction of that.

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:44 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

But as with any other sector, the UK sets rules for the UK, and the EU sets rules for the EU.

Agreements on sustainability of fishing stocks is not subject to fishing rights.

The sustainability of fishing in a shared sea requires an agreement by both sides. I don't see how sustainability and fishing rights can be kept separate for as long as the fish don't recognise borders.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Seph sometimes I read your posts and I know deep down we aren't a million miles apart here.

UK-EU trade is a combined £600bn a year, fish being a tiny fraction of that.

On fishing, we're not a million miles apart.

But I am also sympathetic to the sovereignty argument and I really hate the bully tactics of the EU.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Seph sometimes I read your posts and I know deep down we aren't a million miles apart here.

UK-EU trade is a combined £600bn a year, fish being a tiny fraction of that.

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:44 ----------



The sustainability of fishing in a shared sea requires an agreement by both sides. I don't see how sustainability and fishing rights can be kept separate for as long as the fish don't recognise borders.

Regional Fisheries Management
Organisations (RFMOs) are
international organisations formed by
countries with fishing interests in an
area. Their role is to guarantee the
management, conservation and
sustainable exploitation of the living
marine species covered in their remit
by setting catch limits, technical
measures and control obligations.

The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) is the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) for the North East Atlantic, one of the most abundant fishing areas in the world. The area covered by the NEAFC Convention stretches from the southern tip of Greenland, east to the Barents Sea, and south to Portugal.
NEAFC’s objective is to ensure the long-term conservation and optimum utilisation of the fishery resources in the Convention Area, providing sustainable economic, environmental and social benefits. To this end, NEAFC adopts management measures for various fish stocks and control measures to ensure that they are properly implemented. NEAFC also adopts measures to protect other parts of the marine ecosystem from potential negative impacts of fisheries.

No preconditions demanded by the EU for those and no links to trade agreements.


Often I wonder why I bother with actually researching this sort of stuff, when it gets repeatedly ignored.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

No preconditions demanded by the EU for those and no links to trade agreements.

Often I wonder why I bother with actually researching this sort of stuff, when it gets repeatedly ignored.

It's ignored because it's irrelevant to the EU stance that it wants it included in a trade deal. Everyone in a deal wants to tie in their strongest positions to those they are weakest on, to achieve a balance in the middle. That's negotiations day in day out between people, businesses and countries.

It's not the "big bad EU". It's capitalism 101.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

It's ignored because it's irrelevant to the EU stance that it wants it included in a trade deal. Everyone in a deal wants to tie in their strongest positions to those they are weakest on, to achieve a balance in the middle. That's negotiations day in day out between people, businesses and countries.

It's not the "big bad EU". It's capitalism 101.

... but the EU isn't on strong ground with their demands.
It is not possible that the UK Guvmin will yield sovereignty. The only strength the EU has to hold to us is in relation to financial passporting or equivalence.
But they demand we cede sovereignty as I've outlined earlier before they'll discuss that.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... but the EU isn't on strong ground with their demands.
It is not possible that the UK Guvmin will yield sovereignty. The only strength the EU has to hold to us is in relation to financial passporting or equivalence.
But they demand we cede sovereignty as I've outlined earlier before they'll discuss that.

I'm going to respectfully bow out, Seph.

I don't view agreeing to something as yielding, but we actually agree on the main points as we want the best deal for us.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.



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 ----------



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.

Where do I start? OK, I'll keep it brief as I know you are playing a game here.

My point on your argument for an extension of the withdrawal agreement is that the government is still insisting there will not be one. As usual, you are simply saying there will be an extension with absolutely nothing to back up your claim. For that reason, you would be well advised to state your reservations rather than explicitly state that an extension will be requested. I say this to spare you embarrassment if it doesn't happen at the end of the year, as I believe to be the case.

What's all this about limited space in the North Sea? What a load of codswallop

Look, whether some fish like to swim on the left hand side or the right hand side is irrelevant. Our fishermen want their territory back to fish in, end of. If the Europeans have some fish that we want and vice versa, there is this thing called trade.

I am sure that neither side wants to over-fish, jfman, because to do so will lead to smaller catches in the future.

My reference to what was happening prior to our EU days was simply making the case that we did not need a European agreement then to fish in our own waters and we don't need one now.

[jfman]

Old Boy you've clearly not been paying attention, presumably because nationalist fever has you obsessing over fish. Yes, fish is part of trade - I've been stating this for some time now that's why it's rational for the EU to want it in a trade agreement.

I've stated my reasoning on a number of occasions now - that the Civil Service is focused on Coronavirus and we will not be in a position to implement the range of policies across numerous Departments that having no agreement with the EU would necessitate on 1 January 2021. A point readily accepted by others on the forum on both sides of the Brexit debate.

Even the great Dominic Cummings is finding himself as a scientific adviser on SAGE and as wonderful as he is I'm sure that takes it toll and is a distraction from the EU negotiations that I'm sure he would want to have his finger on the pulse of.

No need to spare my embarrassment Old Boy - I'm 100% certain that come 1 January 2021 we will either have an agreement with the EU or be in an extension period. Only a tiny minority, somewhat irrationally, would want to throw our economy into further turmoil all to avoid a minor technical extension to continue trade on current terms while we do everything we can to get Coronavirus, and future trade, right for the good of this country.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Any Brit who respects the EU's bullying position should move there and stay there.

The arrogance of this statement is breathtaking. Your hatred for the EU distorts your definition what constitutes a reasonable trading position. Each side will start out from their respective positions of strength and then after a long period of negotiation, agree on a compromise.

Each side will trade ground based on concessions received in other areas. Don't forget, the EU is the much larger entity so will have more ability to force concessions on our part.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The arrogance of this statement is breathtaking. Your hatred for the EU distorts your definition what constitutes a reasonable trading position. Each side will start out from their respective positions of strength and then after a long period of negotiation, agree on a compromise.

Each side will trade ground based on concessions received in other areas. Don't forget, the EU is the much larger entity so will have more ability to force concessions on our part.

Or, as has been said many times, we could just walk away.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Old Boy you've clearly not been paying attention, presumably because nationalist fever has you obsessing over fish. Yes, fish is part of trade - I've been stating this for some time now that's why it's rational for the EU to want it in a trade agreement.

I've stated my reasoning on a number of occasions now - that the Civil Service is focused on Coronavirus and we will not be in a position to implement the range of policies across numerous Departments that having no agreement with the EU would necessitate on 1 January 2021. A point readily accepted by others on the forum on both sides of the Brexit debate.

Even the great Dominic Cummings is finding himself as a scientific adviser on SAGE and as wonderful as he is I'm sure that takes it toll and is a distraction from the EU negotiations that I'm sure he would want to have his finger on the pulse of.

No need to spare my embarrassment Old Boy - I'm 100% certain that come 1 January 2021 we will either have an agreement with the EU or be in an extension period. Only a tiny minority, somewhat irrationally, would want to throw our economy into further turmoil all to avoid a minor technical extension to continue trade on current terms while we do everything we can to get Coronavirus, and future trade, right for the good of this country.

Oh, I have been paying attention, jfman - have you? I've already made the point that there is a separate team dealing with the EU and they are not also involved in the health emergency.

I have never said that fish is not part of trade, I said our fishing rights are not for the trade agreement.

As for the bit that I've emboldened in your post, I think you are pretty safe in saying that as I cannot think of a third alternative! However, the most likely position will be that the Withdrawal Agreement will end on the due date.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Oh, I have been paying attention, jfman - have you? I've already made the point that there is a separate team dealing with the EU and they are not also involved in the health emergency.

I have never said that fish is not part of trade, I said our fishing rights are not for the trade agreement.

As for the bit that I've emboldened in your post, I think you are pretty safe in saying that as I cannot think of a third alternative! However, the most likely position will be that the Withdrawal Agreement will end on the due date.

The third being walking away without any deal or extension?

You completely underestimate the task of aligning the UK to a no trade deal/no extension scenario if you think that it's as simple as one team in EU negotiations walking away. The implications for the Home Office, HMRC, Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs and the devolved administrations is huge. Yes, those departments are all being stretched due to Coronavirus and no, it's not as simple for them as they have extra people hanging around to work on Coronavirus with no implications for staff who were moved into Brexit related roles.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

The third being walking away without any deal or extension?

You completely underestimate the task of aligning the UK to a no trade deal/no extension scenario if you think that it's as simple as one team in EU negotiations walking away. The implications for the Home Office, HMRC, Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs and the devolved administrations is huge. Yes, those departments are all being stretched due to Coronavirus and no, it's not as simple for them as they have extra people hanging around to work on Coronavirus with no implications for staff who were moved into Brexit related roles.

You completely underestimate that a provision for a no trade deal/no extension scenario exists. That would then suggest that it would be a matter of agree a deal at all costs because we haven't thought of anything else if we can't do one.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

You completely underestimate that a provision for a no trade deal/no extension scenario exists.

I fail to see that I'm underestimating that such a provision exists - indeed I acknowledge the existence of it in the very post you are quoting.

That would then suggest that it would be a matter of agree a deal at all costs because we haven't thought of anything else if we can't do one.

Or of course extend, rather than negotiate a bad deal under pressure or unnecessarily compound the economic misery that comes out of Coronavirus by resorting to WTO rules.