International Brexit Discussions v11: U.K and Switzerland sign post-Brexit financial services deal
- Thread starter Arkain2K
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,994
- Reaction score
- 852
Ah the distraction. Let's make the country worse off for nothing...well except make a certain select group of people very rich so the consequences of this won't have an effect.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,350
- Reaction score
- 2,170
Just absolute madness. No more freedom of travel in Europe, suddenly all these ex pats have to fuck off and they can’t fathom why. But hey, at least duty free products in the airports are slightly cheaper. You saved 20 pounds on that carton of cigs, enjoy literally everything else going up
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,708
- Reaction score
- 229
Spot on.
Had the EU had thrown Cameron a few crumbs when he went cap-in-hand to them at the start of this whole debacle we would never be in this situation.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 20,615
- Reaction score
- 7,417
The UK already had the Brit bonus for decades. This never was an option that was on the table.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2017
- Messages
- 15,906
- Reaction score
- 12,817
Yeah them visa costs suck....... fancy having to pay for a visa, god forbid.......
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Messages
- 1,350
- Reaction score
- 2,170
don’t think UKIP and company would have still waged their campaign of lies and misinformation for a break away? Serious question, not being smarmy.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,708
- Reaction score
- 229
Fair question, didn't come across smarmy mate!
It wouldn't have stopped them but had he come back with something, anything, I think he could have played it as a win for GB and it would've placated enough of the media and politicians to stop the Brexit ball rolling.
Farage preyed on Cameron's complete failure to get any concession from the EU as evidence that it was completely inflexible and did not have our interests at heart.
It didn't help that Cameron himself didn't even appear to make much effort to get anything done.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,708
- Reaction score
- 229
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 20,615
- Reaction score
- 7,417
I am not saying you are necessarily wrong. But imagine a situation where 49 states have two senators and one has three. And then is not satisfied and wants more.
Bad analogy, I know. The point is, already the original Brit rebate was a disgrace that never should have happened. There was zero wiggle room, given that the UK was already in an exceptionally luxurious position.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,443
- Reaction score
- 5,729
Earlier in this thread some members (Irish I think?) couldn't fathom the possibility of fishing rights could even be a negotiation point - much less the final roadblock - since it's such a small part of the economy for both the U.K and the E.U, and only affects the fishermen from a handful of coastal European countries.
Well, perhaps this would help:
A Brexit trade deal may be announced soon, or it might not. But it’s in many ways fitting that fishing rights are seen as the final hurdle to be cleared. This one policy area — complex, emotive and wrapped in historical rights and grievances — encapsulates both what’s so infuriating about the European Union in the eyes of many Brits and the ineluctable realities of economic interdependence.
What surprises most people is how small the economic stakes are. While some $1.5 billion in fish is sold each way annually, fisheries account for just 0.12% of the U.K. economy and employ only 24,000 workers. It’s a sardine-sized share of the EU’s economy too. A failure to secure a trade deal because of fish would probably indicate that one party wanted to kill the whole process anyway.
That isn’t to downplay the problem. Trade deals often founder on apparently minor details. And the fish issue is totemic for Brexiters and politically explosive for EU coastal states, especially France where unpopular President Emmanuel Macron has lots of appeasing to do.
Put simply, the EU wants continued access to Britain’s rich fishing waters. You can see why: More than half of the fish and shellfish caught in U.K. waters is landed by EU countries. Britain wants to reclaim control over its exclusive economic zone (which under international law extends up to 200 nautical miles from the coast) and leave the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, which sets quotas for how much and what kind of fish EU nations are allowed to catch.
While the U.K. would seem to have the leverage here, EU negotiator Michel Barnier has linked “access to waters” to “access to markets.” This means the EU can withdraw preferential treatment on tariffs and goods trade at any point if it’s unhappy with the fisheries settlement.
There are old scores to settle. While Europe’s fishermen have been working in U.K. waters for centuries (Belgium claims rights in British seas were granted to fishermen in Bruges in perpetuity by King Charles II in 1666), the British Conservative government of 1973 sacrificed the fishing industry’s interests in its accession to the European Economic Community. It’s that status quo Barnier is cheekily seeking to preserve now.
Fish disputes have a nasty habit of getting messy, even violent. During the “Cod Wars” of the 20th century, NATO was compelled to intervene to calm disputes between Icelandic gunboats and Royal Navy escorts protecting British trawlers. French and British fishermen clashed as recently as 2018 over scallops. And just last week London said it was readying the Royal Navy to protect British waters post-Brexit and French fishermen threatened blockades.
While the EU will have to give up some rights here, the Brexiter argument — that the U.K. should simply control its territorial waters — is deceptive in its simplicity. A failure to get a deal on fish would doom the wider trade deal. That wouldn’t just be bad news for the British economy, it would devastate the very industry Boris Johnson claims to be protecting.
There are some 73 different fish stocks subject to quotas in U.K. waters. Some are preferred by Brit consumers and others by Continental palates. Even if Britain managed to repatriate all the quotas in its seas, it doesn’t have the vessels or landing capacity to fish or process it. It would be additionally self-defeating because British fishermen export 70% of their catch, with France their largest market. Having tariffs would be painful. Add in the burden of inspections, health certificates and export documents and there would be truckloads of rotting fish to deal with.
Brexiters are also unhappy that half of England’s current EU quota — 160 million pounds ($177 million) worth of fish — is in the hands of Icelandic, Spanish and Dutch vessels with British flags. Most of these boats fish for species that aren’t popular with British consumers, but the U.K. wants more of them processed on its shores to create jobs. Fishing industry lobbies want the government to go even further by barring the foreign boats.
Scotland is key, too. It holds 60% of the U.K. quota and largely fishes with its own vessels. The promise to take back control over fishing waters has been a key pledge of Scottish Conservatives. With the Scottish National Party pushing ever harder for independence, Johnson is determined to ensure they can’t use a compromise to bolster their case.
While the differences are real, the fish dispute is also a convenient foil for other areas of the trade negotiations where the stakes are much higher. The two sides need each other; there’s plenty of scope to make any maritime agreement reviewable in the future or even set different rules for different types of fish.
Still, it is only in the final hours of trade negotiations that you know what really matters to both sides.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...e-s-fish-fight-reveals-ultimate-brexit-truths
Well, perhaps this would help:
The Fish Fight Reveals Ultimate Brexit Truths
A Brexit trade deal may be announced soon, or it might not. But it’s in many ways fitting that fishing rights are seen as the final hurdle to be cleared. This one policy area — complex, emotive and wrapped in historical rights and grievances — encapsulates both what’s so infuriating about the European Union in the eyes of many Brits and the ineluctable realities of economic interdependence.
What surprises most people is how small the economic stakes are. While some $1.5 billion in fish is sold each way annually, fisheries account for just 0.12% of the U.K. economy and employ only 24,000 workers. It’s a sardine-sized share of the EU’s economy too. A failure to secure a trade deal because of fish would probably indicate that one party wanted to kill the whole process anyway.
That isn’t to downplay the problem. Trade deals often founder on apparently minor details. And the fish issue is totemic for Brexiters and politically explosive for EU coastal states, especially France where unpopular President Emmanuel Macron has lots of appeasing to do.
Put simply, the EU wants continued access to Britain’s rich fishing waters. You can see why: More than half of the fish and shellfish caught in U.K. waters is landed by EU countries. Britain wants to reclaim control over its exclusive economic zone (which under international law extends up to 200 nautical miles from the coast) and leave the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, which sets quotas for how much and what kind of fish EU nations are allowed to catch.
While the U.K. would seem to have the leverage here, EU negotiator Michel Barnier has linked “access to waters” to “access to markets.” This means the EU can withdraw preferential treatment on tariffs and goods trade at any point if it’s unhappy with the fisheries settlement.
There are old scores to settle. While Europe’s fishermen have been working in U.K. waters for centuries (Belgium claims rights in British seas were granted to fishermen in Bruges in perpetuity by King Charles II in 1666), the British Conservative government of 1973 sacrificed the fishing industry’s interests in its accession to the European Economic Community. It’s that status quo Barnier is cheekily seeking to preserve now.
Fish disputes have a nasty habit of getting messy, even violent. During the “Cod Wars” of the 20th century, NATO was compelled to intervene to calm disputes between Icelandic gunboats and Royal Navy escorts protecting British trawlers. French and British fishermen clashed as recently as 2018 over scallops. And just last week London said it was readying the Royal Navy to protect British waters post-Brexit and French fishermen threatened blockades.
While the EU will have to give up some rights here, the Brexiter argument — that the U.K. should simply control its territorial waters — is deceptive in its simplicity. A failure to get a deal on fish would doom the wider trade deal. That wouldn’t just be bad news for the British economy, it would devastate the very industry Boris Johnson claims to be protecting.
There are some 73 different fish stocks subject to quotas in U.K. waters. Some are preferred by Brit consumers and others by Continental palates. Even if Britain managed to repatriate all the quotas in its seas, it doesn’t have the vessels or landing capacity to fish or process it. It would be additionally self-defeating because British fishermen export 70% of their catch, with France their largest market. Having tariffs would be painful. Add in the burden of inspections, health certificates and export documents and there would be truckloads of rotting fish to deal with.
Brexiters are also unhappy that half of England’s current EU quota — 160 million pounds ($177 million) worth of fish — is in the hands of Icelandic, Spanish and Dutch vessels with British flags. Most of these boats fish for species that aren’t popular with British consumers, but the U.K. wants more of them processed on its shores to create jobs. Fishing industry lobbies want the government to go even further by barring the foreign boats.
Scotland is key, too. It holds 60% of the U.K. quota and largely fishes with its own vessels. The promise to take back control over fishing waters has been a key pledge of Scottish Conservatives. With the Scottish National Party pushing ever harder for independence, Johnson is determined to ensure they can’t use a compromise to bolster their case.
While the differences are real, the fish dispute is also a convenient foil for other areas of the trade negotiations where the stakes are much higher. The two sides need each other; there’s plenty of scope to make any maritime agreement reviewable in the future or even set different rules for different types of fish.
Still, it is only in the final hours of trade negotiations that you know what really matters to both sides.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...e-s-fish-fight-reveals-ultimate-brexit-truths
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2014
- Messages
- 12,753
- Reaction score
- 8,784
dont confuse him with facts, his tiny mind will pop..
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,708
- Reaction score
- 229
I disagree that we were in an exceptionally luxurious position.
Even with the rebate we were the third or fourth heaviest net contributor out of twenty eight countries. Without it only Germany (and possibly France?) would be paying in more.
Given the enormous subsidies the French farming sector receives through the CAP or the fact that the EU has been run to the benefit of the German exportation market for decades I'm not sure you could say we were in a better position than our peers.
We could talk all night about the merits of the rebate (I happen to think that it was justified) but the fact remains that, even after the rebate, we were a heavy net contributor which should have carried some weight in the minds of more enlightened people.
The EU and Cameron arrogantly believed the UK would never vote out so they ignored the problem and ended up handing Farage and the euro sceptic Tories the opportunity/issue they could build and fight upon.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,708
- Reaction score
- 229
There's no fact in the post you quoted genius.
- Joined
- May 30, 2019
- Messages
- 55,281
- Reaction score
- 121,378
Why is just about everyone who's pro-Brexit in this thread American lol?
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2020
- Messages
- 3,644
- Reaction score
- 3,769
Our right wing is anti-eu. They see it as trying to destroy the white race and Europeans in general.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2010
- Messages
- 20,615
- Reaction score
- 7,417
The European Parliament set a deadline for Sunday at midnight, arguing that they still need to be able to assess any kind of deal prior to ratification.
I am quite sure states will ignore that, as they have done in comparable situations in the past. But this attitude might backfire at some point, because legislation like this cannot pass without the EP.
I am quite sure states will ignore that, as they have done in comparable situations in the past. But this attitude might backfire at some point, because legislation like this cannot pass without the EP.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2018
- Messages
- 767
- Reaction score
- 397
I'm pro-Brexit, and the fact that it's mostly Americans or re-posts of stuff I've already seen/read means I only check up every now and then.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Elections Israel Secretly Targets U.S. Lawmakers With Influence Campaign- Latest: Rational Poster
-
-
