The Brexit aftermath thread

[Kiri]

And to the communities who rely on fishing it could be considered "fair" for them to be enriched if they fish exclusively in "their" waters whilst keeping to quotas necessary to maintain a healthy aquatic ecosystem. The EU involves some give-and-take for the general enrichment of all, but for some communities there's a fairly legitimate sentiment that more was taken than given, and it's a bit of a disappointment to them if leaving the EU doesn't result in that "taken" being given back.

Yeah, but that is the point - the quotas necessary to maintain said ecosystem should be the same as those given by the EU. If the data they are working on is correct, the sentiment you are talking about is simply borne out of shortsightedness and describes the tragedy of the commons. That is because people do not take the future sufficiently into account when they determine whether or not more was taken than given. People simply tend to value 'being able to fish more during the next decades' higher than 'not having less overall fish to fish after said decades.

In the end, letting the UK unilaterally fish more just means they make more at the expense of either future generations or fishing villages in other countries sharing the same resource. If they want to fish more in a fair way, they will have to build a wall around "their waters". Until they do, it is not "their" waters in the slightest.

[Noradin]

As others have said, the best way to explain what the UK needs from the EU is that they want a second smaller EU that they can belong to. Because every one of these agreements that are now handled through the EU will have to be replicated, duplicating dozens of organizations and regulatory bodies.

Well, actually... what they want is a copy of the EU with "British Empire" instead of "Europe" in the name.

[ranzino]

newest gem: 13 Tories+DUP said in a letter to PM May they would not back a vote in Commons over the current deal. but Labour would save the day, as any "no deal" means hard cold Brexit without transition and that's not in their books.

it could come to pass that PM May will not survive Brexit, because her very own party backstabs her and she cannot stay its leader.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...b0e9845cfda0cf

[Pann]

And on other news as the the Brexit comedy continues to roll on, Jacob Rees-Mogg's plans to sling fish into the Thames hits a rock as TFL (Transport for London) refuse permission for the trawler to dock.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3795181.html

But everyone's favourite Sir Nige (seen here with his own personal warning) was undeterred...



...and here he is throwing dead fish into the Thames from HMS Brexit



...take that EU!

If anyone feels a little mischievous you can report Nigel's illegal rubbish dumping at; https://www.westminster.gov.uk/fly-t...nt#fly-tipping

- - - Updated - - -

newest gem: 13 Tories+DUP said in a letter to PM May they would not back a vote in Commons over the current deal. but Labour would save the day, as any "no deal" means hard cold Brexit without transition and that's not in their books.

it could come to pass that PM May will not survive Brexit, because her very own party backstabs her and she cannot stay its leader.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...b0e9845cfda0cf

Do you actually read the stories you post?

You appear to have noticed that it would be dependent on Labour but then go on to completely over-blow the significance of a small number of Tories potentially voting against the bill and attempt to sensationalise May's party backstabbing her.

You seem to have missed this part; "The MPs don’t explicitly say they would vote against the deal"

this bit; " Labour were broadly supportive of the transition deal, and so there is no reason to believe that the transition deal on its own would be rejected by the Commons." (emphasis mine)

this; " If 14 MPs (or 23, if Wilson’s nine DUP colleagues were to join him) were to vote against with all the opposition parties, May would lose." (emphasis mine)

and this; "Labour has talked about voting down the withdrawal agreement deal on the basis that such a vote could force the government to go back to Brussels to try for something better. But if it were clear that that renegotiation would never happen, and that such a vote would just lead to a hard Brexit, Labour MPs could well think twice about voting down the deal. So, as the chances of the Tories voting against increase, the chances of Labour voting against may diminish."


But that is all academic as the Spanish have their knickers in a twist over Gibraltar and are looking like they will refuse to back the withdrawal bill.

[ranzino]

....

Do you actually read the stories you post?
.....

You appear to have noticed that it would be dependent on Labour but then go on to completely over-blow the significance of a small number of Tories potentially voting against the bill and attempt to sensationalise May's party backstabbing her.

But that is all academic as the Spanish have their knickers in a twist over Gibraltar and are looking like they will refuse to back the withdrawal bill.

So what ? the rebellers might even do this in autumn just because they know it is pure for statistics as the deal would not fail in the Commons by virtue of the opposition saving britain.

As for backstabbing: it is usually such if you own majority abandons you. PM will win the vote by other means, but not by her own benches' support. it is like Merkel has to rely on AfD: totally unacceptable

[Pann]

Yeah, but that is the point - the quotas necessary to maintain said ecosystem should be the same as those given by the EU. If the data they are working on is correct, the sentiment you are talking about is simply borne out of shortsightedness and describes the tragedy of the commons. That is because people do not take the future sufficiently into account when they determine whether or not more was taken than given. People simply tend to value 'being able to fish more during the next decades' higher than 'not having less overall fish to fish after said decades.

In the end, letting the UK unilaterally fish more just means they make more at the expense of either future generations or fishing villages in other countries sharing the same resource. If they want to fish more in a fair way, they will have to build a wall around "their waters". Until they do, it is not "their" waters in the slightest.

There is nothing to suggest that UK fishermen would over fish British waters given the opportunity and it is possible that fish stock would be under less pressure without the Cornelis Vrolijk, which alone takes a quarter of the available quotas, fishing British waters. And maybe fish would benefit from the Dutch fishing fleet, who classify a number of their vessels as research boats in order to avoid the ban on electro pulse fishing, not being able to fish in British waters? Also a smaller fishing fleet would probably mean that 23,600 tonnes of cod, 31,048 of hake and 6,000 of whiting would not need to be discarded as they were in 2007 in the North Sea alone.

But, yeah, it's all the British.

- - - Updated - - -

So what ? the rebellers might even do this in autumn just because they know it is pure for statistics as the deal would not fail in the Commons by virtue of the opposition saving britain.

As for backstabbing: it is usually such if you own majority abandons you. PM will win the vote by other means, but not by her own benches' support. it is like Merkel has to rely on AfD: totally unacceptable

What do mean "so what?"? As it stands it's a total non-story that you are, and not for the first time, trying to spin into something much more... dramatic.

[Noradin]

There is nothing to suggest that UK fishermen would over fish British waters given the opportunity

Past experience tells us otherwise.

[Acidbaron]

Past experience tells us otherwise.

I think in part due to British politics as it is on other fronts is nowadays far too cowardly to deal with their own people and confront them. The dutch had big riots paired with illegal fishing i don't think the british ever had that chapter.

[Kiri]

There is nothing to suggest that UK fishermen would over fish British waters given the opportunity and it is possible that fish stock would be under less pressure without the Cornelis Vrolijk, which alone takes a quarter of the available quotas, fishing British waters. And maybe fish would benefit from the Dutch fishing fleet, who classify a number of their vessels as research boats in order to avoid the ban on electro pulse fishing, not being able to fish in British waters? Also a smaller fishing fleet would probably mean that 23,600 tonnes of cod, 31,048 of hake and 6,000 of whiting would not need to be discarded as they were in 2007 in the North Sea alone.

But, yeah, it's all the British.

- - - Updated - - -



What do mean "so what?"? As it stands it's a total non-story that you are, and not for the first time, trying to spin into something much more... dramatic.

What do you define as British waters here, first of all? The territorial sea limits of the UK do not really extend far enough for that many other nations to be fishing there. What would be the British waters to fish in after Brexit? Just kind of establishing a common ground to discuss this on.

Regarding the Dutch: someone should fix that loophole then. They won't stop fishing if the UK is excluded, they will just fish elsewhere in the North Sea. Ame with the others.
Why would fishing fleets suddenly become smaller if the British want to fish more?

[Pann]

What do you define as British waters here, first of all? The territorial sea limits of the UK do not really extend far enough for that many other nations to be fishing there. What would be the British waters to fish in after Brexit? Just kind of establishing a common ground to discuss this on.

Regarding the Dutch: someone should fix that loophole then. They won't stop fishing if the UK is excluded, they will just fish elsewhere in the North Sea. Ame with the others.
Why would fishing fleets suddenly become smaller if the British want to fish more?

I define British waters as those defined under the Exclusive Economic Zone.

However that is besides the point that instead of actually bothering to find out even the tiniest amount about the subject you decided that the British, without the supervision of the EU, could not be trusted not to deplete the seas. Which to be honest comes across as somewhat hypocritical when other European nations have been so keen to game the system at the expense of others.

Fishing fleets would not become smaller however I am sure you appreciate that the British fishing is smaller than the British plus other European fishing fleets.

[Triks]

No seriously, what is about you guys and fish? Financial services, I can understand. Industry - I can sort of see the point. But fucking fish? Seriously?

[Dizzeeyooo]

There is nothing to suggest that UK fishermen would over fish British waters given the opportunity

nothing apart from 118 years of recorded UK industrial fishing history and related evidence from before strict record keeping began

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1013

Landings per unit power figures suggest that the availability of bottom-living fish for the fleet fell by 94% from 1889 to 2007. This implies a massive loss of biomass of commercially fished bottom-living fish from seas exploited by the UK fleet. The loss is particularly serious as it encompasses an entire component of the marine ecosystem rather than a single species.

The collapse in fisheries productivity is brought into sharp relief by the landings data. In 1889, a largely sail-powered fleet landed twice as many fish into the United Kingdom than the present-day fleet of technologically sophisticated vessels. One hundred years ago, in 1910, the fleet landed four times more fish into the United Kingdom than it does today. Peak catches came in 1938, when landings were 5.4 times more than today. The trawl fishery first expanded in southern England in the early nineteenth century and then spread northwards3. The decline in landings for English and Welsh fleets is even more stark (Fig. 1a) with a decrease of 4.3 times since 1889, 9.3 since 1910 and a peak in 1937 of 14.2 times more landings than today.

The year 1889 does not represent the onset of fisheries intensification in England and Wales; it simply picks it up from the point when catch statistics become available. As early as 1863, complaints about the declining condition of demersal fish stocks (mainly nearshore) led to a Royal Commission of Enquiry into fisheries.

[Pann]

nothing apart from 118 years of recorded UK industrial fishing history and related evidence from before strict record keeping began

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1013

Haha, yeah! Even by your decidedly low standards this is particularly terrible.

You do realise that the electro-pulse fishing that is banned, but ignored by certain EU nations, specifically targets bottom feeding fish?

According your link, which you've obviously not read, in 2007 34% of fish caught in British waters were landed on mainland Europe thus British fishermen could increase their catches by roughly 50% whilst still complying with the current sustainable quotas. So just why do you think that given the opportunity the British fishing fleet with the access to modern scientific methods and data collection that were not available 50 years ago let alone in 1863 will ignore all of this and start to fish in a non-sustainable manner?

Your link even states that by the mid-1970s landing limits for some species had been introduced so why do you think the Government would not seek to manage over fishing just as had been done several years before the CFP came into effect?

Do you think that there is sufficient demand for fish or even capacity within the British fishing fleet to drive this overfishing that you seem to believe will happen because it happened a 100 years or more ago?

I, of course, know that you will not answer these questions, as anyone who had put even the slightest bit of thought into the issue would not have posted the above, instead you will hope that someone does the running for you.

[Kiri]

I define British waters as those defined under the Exclusive Economic Zone.

However that is besides the point that instead of actually bothering to find out even the tiniest amount about the subject you decided that the British, without the supervision of the EU, could not be trusted not to deplete the seas. Which to be honest comes across as somewhat hypocritical when other European nations have been so keen to game the system at the expense of others.

Fishing fleets would not become smaller however I am sure you appreciate that the British fishing is smaller than the British plus other European fishing fleets.

Actually, I predicated my argument with "If the current quotas are the correct ones and Britain unilaterally increases fishing". You essentially disagree with the premise of the case I am talking about. That is perfectly fine - and I did agree with you that said loopholes should be closed - but I don't see how that would make me hypocritical. I did not decide that the British could not be trusted, I was making a simple, somewhat hypothetical argument on a premise that someone else brought up.

[Pann]

Actually, I predicated my argument with "If the current quotas are the correct ones and Britain unilaterally increases fishing". You essentially disagree with the premise of the case I am talking about. That is perfectly fine - and I did agree with you that said loopholes should be closed - but I don't see how that would make me hypocritical. I did not decide that the British could not be trusted, I was making a simple, somewhat hypothetical argument on a premise that someone else brought up.

Nothing in Dhrizzle's post mentioned anything about increasing fishing, in fact it stated "whilst keeping to quotas necessary to maintain a healthy aquatic ecosystem." yet you decided that UK fishermen's issues with quotas were "simply borne out of shortsightedness" and you then went on say "If they want to fish more in a fair way, they will have to build a wall around "their waters". Until they do, it is not "their" waters in the slightest."

It is hypocritical to state that the British fishermen will ignore sustainable fishing practices and fish in an unfair way, despite there being no evidence that this is the case, when that is exactly what is happening within the EU today.

[Dizzeeyooo]

According your link, which you've obviously not read, in 2007 34% of fish caught in British waters were landed on mainland Europe thus British fishermen could increase their catches by roughly 50% whilst still complying with the current sustainable quotas.

do you think British fishermen are currently only allowed to fish in British waters, but other EU countries are allowed to fish wherever they want to in their own national waters + British waters?

hint, British fisherman also can (and do) fish where they choose to
https://infacts.org/better-deal-uk-f...ll-hard-catch/

However, the UK doesn’t hold all the cards. First, whilst the Scottish fishing fleet depends relatively little on non-UK waters, the English fleet traditionally catches its fish in Irish, French and Norwegian, as well as UK, waters. Retaining access to those waters will be an essential demand for the UK.

Do you think that there is sufficient demand for fish or even capacity within the British fishing fleet to drive this overfishing that you seem to believe will happen because it happened a 100 years or more ago?

in 2014 the UK had the second largest fishing catch out of all counties in the EU, yet this is an industry that has apparently been decimated by our membership of the EU - if leaving the EU is the only way to save the UK fishing industry, but we expect to still be fishing a similar overall quantity of fish once we take back control of our waters, how exactly are we saving the UK fishing industry and what exactly are we saving it from?

[Kiri]

Nothing in Dhrizzle's post mentioned anything about increasing fishing, in fact it stated "whilst keeping to quotas necessary to maintain a healthy aquatic ecosystem." yet you decided that UK fishermen's issues with quotas were "simply borne out of shortsightedness" and you then went on say "If they want to fish more in a fair way, they will have to build a wall around "their waters". Until they do, it is not "their" waters in the slightest."

It is hypocritical to state that the British fishermen will ignore sustainable fishing practices and fish in an unfair way, despite there being no evidence that this is the case, when that is exactly what is happening within the EU today.

Yeah, and he replied to:

Unless the CFP quotas are calculated totally wrong, any increase in fishing would simply mean that Britain either causes overfishing, or forces others to weaken their fishing communities to enrich their own.

I was actually not clear with what he meant in his post and failed to point that out. He said that these villages, by being forced to adhere to EU quotas, had given more than had been taken from them, which they wanted to take back. If they had to reduce fishing to meet the quotas then by transitivity it implies that fishing is to be increased compared to what it is now. It doesn't make a lot of sense if he meant that the British would exclusively fish in their waters, but keep the same quotas. It is possible he meant that the British would simply incorporate all the fishing quotas related to that area, which by definition would mean lowering those of others, or causing overfishing. I did not notice the possibility back then tbh, so mistake there.
I was still arguing from an increased fishing premise.

Also, I did not state that the British will and that the EU would never do that. Stop asserting that. I repeatedly stated that the argument only is for when the CFP is working with valid data, i.e. all quotas are correct the way they are and no one cheats.

But arguing over that is pretty pointless altogether, so just think of me what you want I guess. No need to derail this discussion.

[Dhrizzle]

Yeah, but that is the point - the quotas necessary to maintain said ecosystem should be the same as those given by the EU. If the data they are working on is correct, the sentiment you are talking about is simply borne out of shortsightedness and describes the tragedy of the commons. That is because people do not take the future sufficiently into account when they determine whether or not more was taken than given. People simply tend to value 'being able to fish more during the next decades' higher than 'not having less overall fish to fish after said decades.

In the end, letting the UK unilaterally fish more just means they make more at the expense of either future generations or fishing villages in other countries sharing the same resource. If they want to fish more in a fair way, they will have to build a wall around "their waters". Until they do, it is not "their" waters in the slightest.

International law has the concept of an "exclusive economic zone" which is an area of sea surrounding the nation's land to which they have exclusive rights to economic activities. In layman's terms it means that they are indeed "their waters."

The Scots would like the sustainable quota of fish caught in Scottish waters to be caught by Scottish fishermen as part of the Scottish economy. With the UK set to leave the EU I hardly think that is an unreasonable expectation, and if you knew more about British politics you'd understand why there are concerns over the willingness of the Conservatives to use the economic wellfare of working class Scottish communities as a bargaining chip to get what they want out of Brexit.

[Pann]

do you think British fishermen are currently only allowed to fish in British waters, but other EU countries are allowed to fish wherever they want to in their own national waters + British waters?

hint, they can also fish where they want
https://infacts.org/better-deal-uk-f...ll-hard-catch/

As expected, you've totally avoided pretty much everything I've written in a pathetic attempt to prove me wrong on an unrelated and minor point.

In answer to your question; no, I don't. And as you can see from the words; "...fish caught in British waters" in the sentence you've quoted I was talking specifically about quotas relating to British waters, as per the topic of conversation, therefore your question, and non-required answer, is not all that relevant. But thanks for trying! You did great!

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, and he replied to:



I was actually not clear with what he meant in his post and failed to point that out. He said that these villages, by being forced to adhere to EU quotas, had given more than had been taken from them, which they wanted to take back. If they had to reduce fishing to meet the quotas then by transitivity it implies that fishing is to be increased compared to what it is now. It doesn't make a lot of sense if he meant that the British would exclusively fish in their waters, but keep the same quotas. It is possible he meant that the British would simply incorporate all the fishing quotas related to that area, which by definition would mean lowering those of others, or causing overfishing. I did not notice the possibility back then tbh, so mistake there.
I was still arguing from an increased fishing premise.

Also, I did not state that the British will and that the EU would never do that. Stop asserting that. I repeatedly stated that the argument only is for when the CFP is working with valid data, i.e. all quotas are correct the way they are and no one cheats.

But arguing over that is pretty pointless altogether, so just think of me what you want I guess. No need to derail this discussion.

He has explained his point in reply to you already so I will not speak for him.

However there appears to be a misunderstanding with regard to quotas and the issues arising from them. It is not that British fishermen disagree with quotas that ensure the sustainability of fish stocks it is that increasingly those quotas are given to European fishing fleets reducing the amounts of fish they are allowed to catch.

[Dhrizzle]

do you think British fishermen are currently only allowed to fish in British waters, but other EU countries are allowed to fish wherever they want to in their own national waters + British waters?

hint, British fisherman also can (and do) fish where they choose to
https://infacts.org/better-deal-uk-f...ll-hard-catch/




in 2014 the UK had the second largest fishing catch out of all counties in the EU, yet this is an industry that has apparently been decimated by our membership of the EU - if leaving the EU is the only way to save the UK fishing industry, but we expect to still be fishing a similar overall quantity of fish once we take back control of our waters, how exactly are we saving the UK fishing industry and what exactly are we saving it from?

That is why we are talking about the Scottish reaction to staying in the CFP. Scottish fishing vessels tend to stay within Scottish waters.