Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Make you wonder why all our resident Mary Whitehouses never say anything?  I find it baffling.

Absolutely no idea what this post means, sorry.

[Buce]

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-pinching-our-fish/

 

"[The EU is] Pinching our fish"

Boris Johnson quoted in The Telegraph, 16 June 2016

The UK does have fishing quotas, as does every country within the EU with a fishing industry. For stocks shared with non-EU countries, the quotas are agreed with those countries.

The European Union’s Council of Ministers sets the tonnage of specific fish, or ‘Total Allowable Catch’ (TAC), which can be caught within EU waters and then divides this between each member state.

The quota each member state receives is based largely on how much they fished in those areas in the 1970s, before the Common Fisheries Policy came into effect.

This method of splitting up the stocks is designed to keep the levels of fishing in these areas relatively stable. However, it has been criticised in the UK, particularly as for much of the 1970s the UK fishing fleet spent much of its time in the waters around Iceland, which is not a member of the EU.

In 1976 the UK fleet was expelled from this area when fishing limits around Iceland were extended to 200 miles.

Other methods of dividing fish stocks have been proposed, but the House of Commons Library has said the system is unlikely to change.

It’s also impossible to determine what the policy on fishing would be if we left the EU and things wouldn’t necessarily be any better.

Currently EU member states are allowed to place limits on who can fish in their territorial waters, and up to 100 nautical miles fishing is restricted to those who traditionally fished there, but the legislation covering this expires in 2022. Whether or not this will be replaced by that date will be a matter for the politicians to determine.

The UK’s fishing haul has increased in recent years

The UK’s share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU.

The UK has recently promoted its work to help secure an increase in the Total Allowable Catches of some key fish stocks.

This would suggest that within the EU the UK is improving its position.

Some academic research has suggested that the UK’s fishing quotas allow fishermen based here to catch around 30% of fish in UK waters. But, the quotas for individual species also vary widely.

The research also points out the fact that many species of fish migrate widely and so it is very difficult to determine exactly fish would be British fish in the first place.

The share of fish which goes to other EU countries also varies widely depending on species and area. For example, France received roughly 84% of the overall Total Allowable Catch on cod in the Eastern Channel whilst in the North Sea it received only 4%.

Elizabeth Truss, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has said the waters around the UK make up 13% of the total waters of the EU. We asked Defra for the source for this figure and they told us that it was a widely accepted fact.

Quotas aren’t necessarily working, but things are unlikely to improve outside of the EU

Total Allowable Catches are intended to ensure that fishing is sustainable within each fishing zone and that the areas are not overfished. There are doubts within the industry as to whether or not the EU’s fishing policy has actually achieved this. But, some species, such as North Sea cod, seem to be recovering and an assessment is underway to determine whether or not it is now sustainable.

If we left the EU it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the situation would improve. The House of Commons Library has said that “many of the underlying issues that affect fisheries management would remain unchanged.”

The UK is signed up to the UN Law of the Sea Convention which allows countries to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone of up to 200 nautical miles from their coast. If the UK were to leave the EU we could have control of all fish which were within this zone. But, the same laws also require countries to ensure that fish stocks are conserved and that the allowable catch is specified and where necessary shared with other countries.

Countries such as Norway have this 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone in place, they also have agreements with a number of countries, and with the EU to allow fishing in those waters.

Update 21 June 2016

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

According to 2015 figures, the UK fishing industry is made up of more than 6,000 vessels, landing 708,000 tonnes of fish worth £775m. About 10,000 tonnes of fish were caught by other countries under the London convention, worth an estimated £17m.

 

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/02/uk-take-back-control-london-fisheries-convention-michael-gove

 the University of the Highlands and Islands’ NAFC Marine Centre  say differently. I think you've been brainwashed by the leftwing press. 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

 the University of the Highlands and Islands’ NAFC Marine Centre  say differently. I think you've been brainwashed by the leftwing press. 

Quite an accusation, how do you know the right wing press aren't using a university nobody's ever heard of to brainwash you? There must be an official body we can get trustworthy figures from.

[Webbo]

G'won Frank!.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

Quite an accusation, how do you know the right wing press aren't using a university nobody's ever heard of to brainwash you? There must be an official body we can get trustworthy figures from.

It was a silly bitchy comment. 

[Carl the Llama]

Image isn't working? (I'm on shitty free train WiFi tbf)

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

It was a silly bitchy comment. 

Well I never.

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

 the University of the Highlands and Islands’ NAFC Marine Centre  say differently. I think you've been brainwashed by the leftwing press. 

I think neither of us knows very much about the EU fishing policy. The difference is that only one of us is pretending it formed part of the reason he voted brexit.

[Webbo]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Well I never.

I was polite with it.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

I think neither of us knows very much about the EU fishing policy. The difference is that only one of us is pretending it formed part of the reason he voted brexit.

People ask for reasons, I give them reasons, they ask for facts , I give them facts. That's still not good enough? Anyone would think you were still just sulking because you lost?

[Rogstanley]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

People ask for reasons, I give them reasons, they ask for facts , I give them facts. That's still not good enough? Anyone would think you were still just sulking because you lost?

No it's fine, you're entitled to your reasons. Other people are entitled to disagree with them. That's a few times you've had a similar little moan. Why put your views up here if you don't want them challenged?

[Webbo]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

No it's fine, you're entitled to your reasons. Other people are entitled to disagree with them. That's a few times you've had a similar little moan. Why put your views up here if you don't want them challenged?

I don't mind if people challenge my views. I say what I think and people can  take them or leave them, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I only have a problem when people tell what I'm allowed to believe and demand I justify myself.

[Buce]

Anti-Corbyn rightwing press attacks 'boost Momentum support'

Exclusive: Negative stories in Daily Mail often lead to spikes in membership, says group

 

Attacks on Jeremy Corbyn by the rightwing press are leading to large spikes in his support base immediately after negative newspaper articles, according to data seen by the Guardian.

Figures from Momentum come days after Labour went on the offensive over reports in the Daily Mail, the Sun and other newspapers that Corbyn met a Czechoslovakian spy in the 1980s.

Breaking from the tradition of his predecessors, who courted the tabloids, Corbyn blamed significant parts of the national press “owned by billionaire tax exiles” for “a succession of false and absurd stories”.

 

Buoyed by its gains in the general election, Corbyn’s Labour has maintained it can use social media to bypass the mainstream press and any ad hominem attacks.

Momentum, the Corbyn-supporting group, said its numbers not only supported this assertion, but indicated that high-profile press attacks had become a “seal of approval”.

With 37,000 members and additions of more than 1,500 newcomers a month, Momentum insiders said the group’s membership was estimated to exceed that of the Conservative party in less than two years. It is already larger than Ukip and will overtake the Green party’s membership later this year.

On 21 January, when the Sunday Times ran a front page story headlined “Jeremy Corbyn allies plot to oust 50 Labour MPs,” Momentum said 250 members joined the organisation, its second highest intake since September 2017. In the four days following the story, 554 members joined, the highest number over any four-day period in the same timeframe.

On 15 January, Momentum said it received large amounts of critical coverage after it successfully backed three candidates in Labour’s national executive committee election: Jon Lansman, Momentum’s co-founder, Yasmine Dar and Rachel Garnham. On that day, 142 new members joined and a further 350 joined over the following four days, making the average number of new members in January 52 a day.

 

The group said negative stories in the Daily Mail worked as effective recruitment tools. Facebook posts encouraging supporters to join reached twice as many people when they featured a Daily Mail headline, and Facebook posts advertising job roles reached up to 10 times as many people when featuring a headline from the newspaper.

The pace of Momentum’s membership growth is increasing. In November 2017, 1,155 new members joined the group, in January this rose to 1,619, and this month it expects more than 1,800 people to join as members. It is embarking on further membership drives by building more digital tools as well as hiring a digital campaigns officer.

 

“Labour’s extraordinary result in the last election showed that tabloids run by tax-dodging press barons do not decide elections,” said Laura Parker, Momentum’s national coordinator. “But the fact that attacks by the rightwing press have actually increased support for Momentum shows how low they have sunk in the eyes of the public. Being hated by the Daily Mail has become a seal of approval and, for most people, their criticism is actually an endorsement.”

 

Ash Sarkar from Novara Media said each time the papers sensationally attacked Corbyn it reinforced “the sense that he must be getting something right”.

 

“It’s also unwittingly punctured one of the key Tory myths, which is competence in all things,” she said. “With Ben Bradley having to issue this grovelling apology, and the marked and hurried climbdown by senior Tory MPs who really went for Corbyn, we found out there’s one thing worse than malevolence; it’s incompetence.”

Corbyn’s recent media dismissals have been likened to those of populist leaders such as Donald Trump, but his supporters say it is entirely unsurprising for an outsider to rally against a system that is obviously rigged.

“There’s a huge difference between saying media claims have no basis in fact and we can measure these biases, and calling every story you don’t like fake news,” said Sarkar. “It’s structural critique, not a dismissal.”

[Innovindil]

Rog, if you're going to spit your dummy out Toddy style, you need to be gone at least a week before anyone gives a shite.

 

Just throwing it out there.

[Donut]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

People ask for reasons, I give them reasons, they ask for facts , I give them facts. That's still not good enough? Anyone would think you were still just sulking because you lost?

Weve worked out by now that you love your fish despite knowing the square root of nothing about EU law, so lets examine a few quotes from Buce's article:

 

"The quota each member state receives is based largely on how much they fished in those areas in the 1970s, before the Common Fisheries Policy came into effect".....a good old nod to the 1970s that you felt had been ignored, which hasnt been.

 

"The UK’s share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU...This would suggest that within the EU the UK is improving its position.

"..... so the UK were actually catching more fish despite being within the horrid threat to your freedom that was the EU

 

"On the subject of the objective of the policy, which is to enhance sustainable supplies of fish for everyone: There are doubts within the industry as to whether or not the EU’s fishing policy has actually achieved this. But, some species, such as North Sea cod, seem to be recovering and an assessment is underway to determine whether or not it is now sustainable".....So there was evidence the policy was working and a report had been comissioned to confirm this.

 

"If we left the EU it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the situation would improve. The House of Commons Library has said that “many of the underlying issues that affect fisheries management would remain unchanged.”..... Issues not solved by your taking back of control it would seem.

 

"The UK is signed up to the UN Law of the Sea Convention which allows countries to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone of up to 200 nautical miles from their coast. If the UK were to leave the EU we could have control of all fish which were within this zone. But, the same laws also require countries to ensure that fish stocks are conserved and that the allowable catch is specified and where necessary shared with other countries.

Countries such as Norway have this 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone in place, they also have agreements with a number of countries, and with the EU to allow fishing in those waters"....... Damn.....the UK has excerised its sovereignty to sign up to a sea convention programme where it has deemed it would be happy to share stocks of fish with other countries anyway like we did in the EU, and commit to a conservation programme just like the EU had.

 

 

So there you go. Youve taken back control in a desire to end a policy that was working that you thought was a threat and that you didnt like, despite the evidence that you werent aware of or didnt care about, you just went with your EU law is bad boooooooo theory, and it must pain you to death we have a convention with the UN too that we are part of. Maybe we should scrap this too?

 

 

The coup de grace was the "you lost" quote though. Genius. Straight off the playground.

 

 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Donut said:

Weve worked out by now that you love your fish despite knowing the square root of nothing about EU law, so lets examine a few quotes from Buce's article:

 

"The quota each member state receives is based largely on how much they fished in those areas in the 1970s, before the Common Fisheries Policy came into effect".....a good old nod to the 1970s that you felt had been ignored, which hasnt been.

 

"The UK’s share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU...This would suggest that within the EU the UK is improving its position.

 

"..... so the UK were actually catching more fish despite being within the horrid threat to your freedom that was the EU

 

"On the subject of the objective of the policy, which is to enhance sustainable supplies of fish for everyone: There are doubts within the industry as to whether or not the EU’s fishing policy has actually achieved this. But, some species, such as North Sea cod, seem to be recovering and an assessment is underway to determine whether or not it is now sustainable".....So there was evidence the policy was working and a report had been comissioned to confirm this.

 

"If we left the EU it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the situation would improve. The House of Commons Library has said that “many of the underlying issues that affect fisheries management would remain unchanged.”..... Issues not solved by your taking back of control it would seem.

 

"The UK is signed up to the UN Law of the Sea Convention which allows countries to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone of up to 200 nautical miles from their coast. If the UK were to leave the EU we could have control of all fish which were within this zone. But, the same laws also require countries to ensure that fish stocks are conserved and that the allowable catch is specified and where necessary shared with other countries.

Countries such as Norway have this 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone in place, they also have agreements with a number of countries, and with the EU to allow fishing in those waters"....... Damn.....the UK has excerised its sovereignty to sign up to a sea convention programme where it has deemed it would be happy to share stocks of fish with other countries anyway like we did in the EU, and commit to a conservation programme just like the EU had.

 

 

So there you go. Youve taken back control in a desire to end a policy that was working that you thought was a threat and that you didnt like, despite the evidence that you werent aware of or didnt care about, you just went with your EU law is bad boooooooo theory, and it must pain you to death we have a convention with the UN too that we are part of. Maybe we should scrap this too?

 

 

The coup de grace was the "you lost" quote though. Genius. Straight off the playground.

 

 

You lost mate, get over it.

[Donut]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

You lost mate, get over it.

The best justification you've ever come out with. At least in that one you didn't pretend to know anything.

[Webbo]

Just now, Donut said:

The best justification you've ever come out with. At least in that one you didn't pretend to know anything.

You seem a little obsessed with me mate. It isn't healthy.

[Donut]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

Why shouldn't we have control of it? Nobody has given me a good reason why we should let foreign boats take our fish

Answered above

 

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

You're very angry aren't you?

Has ran out of anything constructive to say, as shown above as well.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Always find it strange when a paper refers to a ‘major study’ as the base of a story, but fails to provide a link to that study. But here it is, if you’d like to read about fish!

 

https://www.nafc.uhi.ac.uk/research/eez-reports/fish-landings-from-the-united-kingdoms-exclusive-economic-zone-and-uk-landings-from-the-european-unions-eez/

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

And here’s a briefing paper courtesy of the House of Commons Library

 

Some interesting statistics in here.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Quote

The first rules were created in 1970. The original six Common Market members realised that four countries applying to join the Common Market at that time (Britain, Ireland, Denmark including Greenland, and Norway) would control the richest fishing grounds in the world.

 

The original six therefore drew up Council Regulation 2141/70 giving all Members equal access to all fishing waters, even though the Treaty of Rome did not explicitly include fisheries in its agriculture chapter. This was adopted on the morning of 30 June 1970, a few hours before the applications to join were officially received.

 

This ensured that the regulations became part of the acquis communautaire before the new members joined, obliging them to accept the regulation. In its accession negotiations, the UK at first refused to accept the rules but by the end of 1971 the UK gave way and signed the Accession Treaty on 22 January 1972, thereby bringing into the CFP joint management an estimated four fifths of all the fish off Western Europe. Norway decided not to join. Greenland left the EC in 1985, after having gained partial independence from Denmark in 1979.

 

Now if I wasn’t happy about the CFP - one of the areas of displeasure has to be directed at our own government and officials for not protecting our own - identifying a weakness in negotiating skills even then. 

 

Given this, expectations on what can be achieved in negotiations both with the EU and outside of that may need to be tempered... we might not be as good at striking deals as we think.

Edited 25 February 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Donut]

10 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

 

Now if I wasn’t happy about the CFP - one of the areas of displeasure has to be directed at our own government and officials for not protecting our own - identifying a weakness in negotiating skills even then. 

 

Given this, expectations on what can be achieved in negotiations both with the EU and outside of that may need to be tempered... we might not be as good at striking deals as we think.

Only if you interpret signing up to a policy to share waters and resources fairly and conserve the fish population to maintain the health of the industry for years to come as a bad thing though? The UK didnt veto the policy. The figures Buce posted showed the UK was benefitting from the policy.

 

On your part about negotiating, this links in some ways to trade deals we will have to negotiate.

 

If its a choice between almost inevitably being personally poorer after brexit, or taking back control of a fishing policy that was working, that was causing no problem to me or i would estimate the overwhelming majority of people, and that probably wouldnt be changed under UK law anyway, id take the former.

 

Being poorer is something i think everyone can directly relate to without much debate.

[Wymsey]

Probably a correct assumption at the moment..