UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

It's more your debating style.

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:48 ----------



There's obviously more to fisheries than simply "they're our fish" there's a limited supply and they move. Fish also have a monetary value, especially fresh fish, so it's a reasonable trading chip for us to use access to get something we want in return (and vice versa).

That's the whole notion of international trade. It might not be as straightforward as money = goods but it's always going to be a thing for as long as we share the same sea.

Level playing field is another area where actually we probably agree with the EU. Would we want German subsidised industry to flood our markets with their goods? Of course not. Why would the EU settle for us not agreeing to state aid rules?

They do and this is why, they swim by flexing their bodies and tail back and forth. Fish stretch or expand their muscles on one side of their body, while relaxing the muscles on the other side. This motion moves them forward through the water. Fish use their back fin, called the caudal fin, to help push them through the water.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

All trade deals require rules, that’s what makes it a “deal”. There are rules and a framework in place for both sides to adhere to.

If we aren’t willing to be bound by rules established by ourselves as a sovereign nation within these agreements then yes, we probably should just walk away and forget international trade at all with anyone.

That's somewhat off beam, jfman.

Trade deals need negotiation of the rules. We are stuck at the negotiation stage where the bully says that they are bigger than us and the won't entertain a deal that gives way on any of our red lines. I.e. their red lines are the negative of ours.

But then you know all that.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

There's obviously more to fisheries than simply "they're our fish" there's a limited supply and they move. Fish also have a monetary value, especially fresh fish, so it's a reasonable trading chip for us to use access to get something we want in return (and vice versa).

That's the whole notion of international trade. It might not be as straightforward as money = goods but it's always going to be a thing for as long as we share the same sea.

Level playing field is another area where actually we probably agree with the EU. Would we want German subsidised industry to flood our markets with their goods? Of course not. Why would the EU settle for us not agreeing to state aid rules?

I think you are still looking at this as if we were somehow obligated or bound to the EU. From January next year, we will be an independent nation and we don't have to let any foreign country fish within our territorial waters. This isn't up for negotiation. It's international law. If the EU don't like it, they can do one. Our trade will simply migrate towards the US if the EU don't get their acts together soon.

I don't think Barnier and his lot have actually smelt the coffee yet. They need to step away from their self righteous platform and start to get real about negotiating a trade deal. Yes, a trade deal, not BRINO, which still seems to be their approach to these discussions.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I think you are still looking at this as if we were somehow obligated or bound to the EU. From January next year, we will be an independent nation and we don't have to let any foreign country fish within our territorial waters. This isn't up for negotiation. It's international law. If the EU don't like it, they can do one. Our trade will simply migrate towards the US if the EU don't get their acts together soon.

I don't think Barnier and his lot have actually smelt the coffee yet. They need to step away from their self righteous platform and start to get real about negotiating a trade deal. Yes, a trade deal, not BRINO, which still seems to be their approach to these discussions.

You fail to have grasped that fish migrate across territorial waters, and unsustainable fishing by either side ends up with everyone losing.

Of course we aren't obliged to do anything for the EU, however we are under obligation to our fishing communities to ensure that fishing in the sea is done in a sustainable way.

Equally, we have businesses in supply chains that would like fresh fish found in EU waters more than ours - therefore it's in both our interests to get fresh fish to our shores as quickly as possible rather than import it from the EU. This makes the negotiation very important.

Someone hasn't woke up and smelt coffee but I doubt it is the EU, our Government are sleeping at the wheel here and an extension inevitable.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

You fail to have grasped that fish migrate across territorial waters, and unsustainable fishing by either side ends up with everyone losing.

Of course we aren't obliged to do anything for the EU, however we are under obligation to our fishing communities to ensure that fishing in the sea is done in a sustainable way.

Equally, we have businesses in supply chains that would like fresh fish found in EU waters more than ours - therefore it's in both our interests to get fresh fish to our shores as quickly as possible rather than import it from the EU. This makes the negotiation very important.

Someone hasn't woke up and smelt coffee but I doubt it is the EU, our Government are sleeping at the wheel here and an extension inevitable.

Whilst I don't think the Guvmin is sleeping at the wheel (they are, I hope, playing a canny game), the bit I've highlighted is the nub of the matter.

But this is also a political matter where sovereignty gets in the way of business and economics. And sovereignty is the entire political interpretation of the Referendum & GE result.

Difficult, isn't it?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You fail to have grasped that fish migrate across territorial waters, and unsustainable fishing by either side ends up with everyone losing.

Of course we aren't obliged to do anything for the EU, however we are under obligation to our fishing communities to ensure that fishing in the sea is done in a sustainable way.

Equally, we have businesses in supply chains that would like fresh fish found in EU waters more than ours - therefore it's in both our interests to get fresh fish to our shores as quickly as possible rather than import it from the EU. This makes the negotiation very important.

Someone hasn't woke up and smelt coffee but I doubt it is the EU, our Government are sleeping at the wheel here and an extension inevitable.

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.

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

You fail to have grasped that fish migrate across territorial waters, and unsustainable fishing by either side ends up with everyone losing.

Of course we aren't obliged to do anything for the EU, however we are under obligation to our fishing communities to ensure that fishing in the sea is done in a sustainable way.

Equally, we have businesses in supply chains that would like fresh fish found in EU waters more than ours - therefore it's in both our interests to get fresh fish to our shores as quickly as possible rather than import it from the EU. This makes the negotiation very important.

Someone hasn't woke up and smelt coffee but I doubt it is the EU, our Government are sleeping at the wheel here and an extension inevitable.

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.

[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.

[nomadking]

Nothing whatsoever stopping the UK being part of the pre-existing organisation, just as the EU is now?

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.

The EU has similar arrangements for fishing in other parts of the non-EU world. If the EU can and DOES manage to deal with other countries and areas in a reasonable way, why can't it do the same for the UK?

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) are international organisations formed by countries with fishing interests in an area.
...
The EU plays an active role in 6 tuna RFMOs and 11 non-tuna RFMOs.
...
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements allow EU fleets to fish in
third countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones, with a regulated and
guaranteed environment
...
In exchange for access rights, the EU, firstly pays for those
rights, and secondly also contributes financially to support local fishing
sectors and third countries fishing governance, including IUU fight and
scientific research.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Nothing whatsoever stopping the UK being part of the pre-existing organisation, just as the EU is now?

The EU has similar arrangements for fishing in other parts of the non-EU world. If the EU can and DOES manage to deal with other countries and areas in a reasonable way, why can't it do the same for the UK?

That may be a solution, but as with anything in trade there is give and take - so what would be the consequences elsewhere in trade terms?

You claim the EU is being unreasonable but can't actually demonstrate it. Indeed, would the UK wish to be a signatory to these agreements if the EU has a say in developing the terms?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

That may be a solution, but as with anything in trade there is give and take - so what would be the consequences elsewhere in trade terms?

You claim the EU is being unreasonable but can't actually demonstrate it. Indeed, would the UK wish to be a signatory to these agreements if the EU has a say in developing the terms?

I said OR are they simply being unreasonable. Either fishing rights are such a huge benefit they override any other trade aspect OR they are simply being unreasonable. Either the UK has a huge bargaining chip, OR the EU are simply being unreasonable. The EU treats fishing rights as separate from any other possible trade agreement with the rest of the world, so why not with the UK?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I said OR are they simply being unreasonable. Either fishing rights are such a huge benefit they override any other trade aspect OR they are simply being unreasonable. Either the UK has a huge bargaining chip, OR the EU are simply being unreasonable. The EU treats fishing rights as separate from any other possible trade agreement with the rest of the world, so why not with the UK?

Because the EU has to have an agreement for the Mediterranean but doesn't have a trade agreements with all of the countries who can fish in it.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

That may be a solution, but as with anything in trade there is give and take - so what would be the consequences elsewhere in trade terms?

You claim the EU is being unreasonable but can't actually demonstrate it. Indeed, would the UK wish to be a signatory to these agreements if the EU has a say in developing the terms?

It was very clear to me what Nomad meant.

It is unreasonable for the EU to impose red lines on a simple trade agreement with the UK when it didn't do so with other trading nations. Your second sentence in the highlighted paragraph is incomprehensible.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It was very clear to me what Nomad meant.

It is unreasonable for the EU to impose red lines on a simple trade agreement with the UK when it didn't do so with other trading nations. Your second sentence in the highlighted paragraph is incomprehensible.

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.

[Sephiroth]

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.

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?