Brexit negotiations

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:Great article in the Sunday Times today pointing out that even after we leave the EU most of Britain's fish will still belong to Spain, Holland and Iceland because they have bought up more than half the quota assigned to Britain.

Perhaps a brexit fan could explain exactly how this is "taking back control".

The worrying part in your comment is that for some reason the British allocation wasn't bought. Why is this, were they outbidded, or have the fishing fleets been reduced so much they couldn't put enough out to complete their allocation? Either way, its not good. Maybe there's another reason. Perhaps you know what it is XM, but have ignored it in your constant tirade against anything Tory, or Brexit.

It is not a secret. It is due to us failing to use existing EU rules to protect our own fishermen. Quotas are allocated to governments which then distribute those quotas to fishermen. Unlike France and Ireland we (in the spirit of Tory market philosophy) allow our fishermen to sell their quotas. These quotas are then bought by companies owned by other EU countries.

So now glos please explain how we are "taking back control". We had the control before but chose not to use it!

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:Great article in the Sunday Times today pointing out that even after we leave the EU most of Britain's fish will still belong to Spain, Holland and Iceland because they have bought up more than half the quota assigned to Britain.

Perhaps a brexit fan could explain exactly how this is "taking back control".

The worrying part in your comment is that for some reason the British allocation wasn't bought. Why is this, were they outbidded, or have the fishing fleets been reduced so much they couldn't put enough out to complete their allocation? Either way, its not good. Maybe there's another reason. Perhaps you know what it is XM, but have ignored it in your constant tirade against anything Tory, or Brexit.

It is not a secret. It is due to us failing to use existing EU rules to protect our own fishermen. Quotas are allocated to governments which then distribute those quotas to fishermen. Unlike France and Ireland we (in the spirit of Tory market philosophy) allow our fishermen to sell their quotas. These quotas are then bought by companies owned by other EU countries.

So now glos please explain how we are "taking back control". We had the control before but chose not to use it!

You haven't cleared up the point about why the British fishermen sell their quotas, even though they say they want more.
Although nowhere near taking back control at this time, even you must realise its not going to happen overnight, but I personally feel that we are now getting involved in many aspects, (probably far more than you and I are aware of), so much so, that the EU cannot stay in their ivory tower, and are now having to consult. I doubt anyone will expect anything concrete for some time.
Another little dig, (sorry, I couldn't resist it), but you must be spitting feathers seeing how Theresa May is very much in the ascendency politically, on different fronts, whilst Corbyn is yet again cocking things up, and losing popularity, with even his front bench.

Corbyn has peaked.

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:

gloswhite wrote:

xmiles wrote:Great article in the Sunday Times today pointing out that even after we leave the EU most of Britain's fish will still belong to Spain, Holland and Iceland because they have bought up more than half the quota assigned to Britain.

Perhaps a brexit fan could explain exactly how this is "taking back control".

The worrying part in your comment is that for some reason the British allocation wasn't bought. Why is this, were they outbidded, or have the fishing fleets been reduced so much they couldn't put enough out to complete their allocation? Either way, its not good. Maybe there's another reason. Perhaps you know what it is XM, but have ignored it in your constant tirade against anything Tory, or Brexit.

It is not a secret. It is due to us failing to use existing EU rules to protect our own fishermen. Quotas are allocated to governments which then distribute those quotas to fishermen. Unlike France and Ireland we (in the spirit of Tory market philosophy) allow our fishermen to sell their quotas. These quotas are then bought by companies owned by other EU countries.

So now glos please explain how we are "taking back control". We had the control before but chose not to use it!

You haven't cleared up the point about why the British fishermen sell their quotas, even though they say they want more.
Although nowhere near taking back control at this time, even you must realise its not going to happen overnight, but I personally feel that we are now getting involved in many aspects, (probably far more than you and I are aware of), so much so, that the EU cannot stay in their ivory tower, and are now having to consult. I doubt anyone will expect anything concrete for some time.
Another little dig, (sorry, I couldn't resist it), but you must be spitting feathers seeing how Theresa May is very much in the ascendency politically, on different fronts, whilst Corbyn is yet again cocking things up, and losing popularity, with even his front bench.

British fishermen sell their quotas because they are offered money for them. It is simple market economics and a keystone of Tory party policy. Ironic that we could have stopped them selling their quotas and still remained in the EU.

As for Corbyn, I am not a fan. I think he is a hypocrite and a liar.

Cajunboy wrote:Corbyn has peaked.

He may not have yet.

Corbyn or not, people have woken up to the mess of the Tories and they’ll be out of power soon. What an absolute mess they’ll have left the country in.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Corbyn or not, people have woken up to the mess of the Tories and they’ll be out of power soon.

They won't.

I wouldn't underestimate the depths of ill feeling people of my generation feel towards the Tory party. Local elections in May will reveal a lot as to where people are at the moment. My feeling is that with brexit going the way it is, the Tories will not come out of this with much credibility from either side.

Brett talks on the Irish border are about to begin in earnest.
Obviously this is of massive concern to anyone who likes Twirls.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I wouldn't underestimate the depths of ill feeling people of my generation feel towards the Tory party. Local elections in May will reveal a lot as to where people are at the moment. My feeling is that with brexit going the way it is, the Tories will not come out of this with much credibility from either side.

You said they would be out of power soon. The simple fact is that they won't, regardless of what happens in local elections.

I have no doubt the Tories will do badly at the local elections, but come the next election the people know what they are getting with the Tories, and will vote them in again.

What are they getting with the Tories? I couldn’t tell you, certainly not economic security looking at their performance since 2009.

Never mind economic security, what about Twirls? Are they to be replaced by British chocolates when the wall goes up?

The tories are doing a great job of fucking it up.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I wouldn't underestimate the depths of ill feeling people of my generation feel towards the Tory party. Local elections in May will reveal a lot as to where people are at the moment. My feeling is that with brexit going the way it is, the Tories will not come out of this with much credibility from either side.

To be a bit technical, local elections are not like for like with the General Elections and work on a four yearly cycle.

Basically there are two types of authorities, the big ones like the London Boroughs, Metropolitans and County Councils, and the smaller ones like the Districts.

The districts have a choice of all seats standing for an election, or, just a third of seats standing over three consecutive elections (with no elections taking place in the fourth year - local election terms lasting for four years).  Some authorities do it by halves to further complicate things.

And just to confuse things even more most of the unitary authorities stand in thirds as well!

So what I'm trying to get to is you need to look back to the 2014 elections and the things that were happening back then to get an idea of what the outcome of the forthcoming elections might be.

Just to compound things the 2014 elections took place at the same time as the European Elections and broadly speaking people tend to vote the same way in both of the individual elections taking place on that day.

The 2018 election cycle is the one where the big authorities electorate will be voting in.


For the record Labour did well in the 2014 elections -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014

And of course UKIP did well in the EU elections -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_(United_Kingdom)

(Note - All the country voted in the EU's and not just limited to those councils standing for the 2014 local elections.


So what I'm trying to say is that the Conservative party may not do as badly as people may expect because they start from a low position anyway because Labour had won mostly in 2014 - and thus are defending more seats than the Conservatives - and consequently the seats they (the Conservatives) are defending are more likely to be more hard core blue seats with more solid underlying support than the more normal 'swing seats' that the Labour party probably won a majority of them back last time they stood (and will probably win again this time around also).

Add to this that London were one of the few places that voted Remain, are standing this time - and are already Labour held in the first place - so it is unlikely that there is vast room for them to claim a great many more seats here in any event.

All fascinating stuff, eh?

Thanks, but I am aware of the differences and their significance. 

The point I was trying to make (poorly) was that although the overall result isn’t reflective of a general election, results and levels of swing are a good barometer of public opinion. 

For example in London, Barnet, Wandsworth and Westminster are 3 flagship Tory boroughs, should Labour win them (which by all accounts they had a chance of prior to the last couple of weeks), it would be a major victory for the party.

People tend to vote for the same party at General Elections. Take the folk on here, most would still vote Labour even if they abolished food and air.

I vote for the party that speaks to me on voting day. How my Grandfather voted 70 years ago is immaterial.

Agree with you Nat, although it’s the opposite where I’m from. People vote Tory simply because their parents do, and they’re not interested enough to do the research and decide for themselves.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Thanks, but I am aware of the differences and their significance. 

The point I was trying to make (poorly) was that although the overall result isn’t reflective of a general election, results and levels of swing are a good barometer of public opinion. 

For example in London, Barnet, Wandsworth and Westminster are 3 flagship Tory boroughs, should Labour win them (which by all accounts they had a chance of prior to the last couple of weeks), it would be a major victory for the party.

I too was trying to make the point that the level of swing and results might be poor from Conservative to Labour (particularly in London) because the 2014 elections gave Labour it's biggest aggregate of seats there in 40 years - but you clearly didn't wish my input.

Fwiw Barnet is a conservative authority of just a single seat majority, so it wouldn't be that much of a shock if they lost overall control to Labour (defending the smallest majority in the whole of London)but it is very unlikely Wandsworth or Westminster would fall with their majority of seats they are defending.

Shocks not the word, achievement is and a sign of changing opinions in a London. Barnet council has never been Labour, since the first elections in 1964. I can assure you the Tories would be worried to see it go.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Shocks not the word, achievement is and a sign of changing opinions in a London. Barnet council has never been Labour, since the first elections in 1964. I can assure you the Tories would be worried to see it go.

I'm sure they would not wish to lose Barnet but I imagine that there's simply been a significant demographic change in population of that borough over the years to bring about that possibility - these things do happen.

A loss of an authority with a majority of just one seat is hardly a major shock/achievement (call it what you will) in a practical sense although it my be a major issue locally.

I imagine much bigger majority's will be overturned on the day.