How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Nickgnome said:
You will have to provide evidence that the Spanish bought no British registered vessels if you want to support your assertion.
I posted earlier that you should read the cases. It is patently obvious that neither you nor your mate wittering on about selling quotas have done that. You can find any answer you want on google or wikipedia, but most of them are wrong. Here is a relevant extract from the transcript of the judgement:The appellants in the main proceedings, including Factortame Ltd (the applicants), are a number of companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and also the directors and share-holders of those companies, most of whom are Spanish nationals. Those companies between them own or manage 95 fishing vessels which were until 31 March 1989 registered as British fishing vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. 53 of those vessels were originally registered in Spain and flew the Spanish flag. Those 53 vessels were registered under the 1894 Act at various dates from 1980 onwards. The remaining 42 vessels had always been British. They were purchased by the applicants at various dates, mainly since 1983.
The statutory system governing the registration of British fishing vessels was radically altered by Pt II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1926. It is common ground that the United Kingdom amended the previous legislation in order to put a stop to the practice known as 'quota hopping', whereby, according to that state, its fishing quotas are 'plundered' by fishing vessels flying the British flag but lacking any genuine link with the United Kingdom.
I have underlined the important parts, which are facts. Real ones.
Factortame & others v Secretary of State for Transport (No.2) [1991] 1 All ER 70, 75
psi310398 said:
But they can’t have it both ways: if the very principle of the backstop is not negotiable, then there’s really no point proposing alternative arrangements either.
The bit that is non negotiable is having only a vague commitment to protecting NI etc. That is why the PM goes on at the beginning about how important NI and peace is etc. before saying but we don’t want to make a binding commitment so can we call is “as far as possible” - which is very different.
The letter would be rather better / more credible if he proposed a solution.
It’s Schrödinger’s “very easy but also very hard can’t write it down” solution again, as with the reality of most brexit things.
hutchst said:
I posted earlier that you should read the cases. It is patently obvious that neither you nor your mate wittering on about selling quotas have done that. You can find any answer you want on google or wikipedia, but most of them are wrong. Here is a relevant extract from the transcript of the judgement:
The appellants in the main proceedings, including Factortame Ltd (the applicants), are a number of companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and also the directors and share-holders of those companies, most of whom are Spanish nationals. Those companies between them own or manage 95 fishing vessels which were until 31 March 1989 registered as British fishing vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. 53 of those vessels were originally registered in Spain and flew the Spanish flag. Those 53 vessels were registered under the 1894 Act at various dates from 1980 onwards. The remaining 42 vessels had always been British. They were purchased by the applicants at various dates, mainly since 1983.
The statutory system governing the registration of British fishing vessels was radically altered by Pt II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1926. It is common ground that the United Kingdom amended the previous legislation in order to put a stop to the practice known as 'quota hopping', whereby, according to that state, its fishing quotas are 'plundered' by fishing vessels flying the British flag but lacking any genuine link with the United Kingdom.
I have underlined the important parts, which are facts. Real ones.
Factortame & others v Secretary of State for Transport (No.2) [1991] 1 All ER 70, 75
In summary then the Spanish legally bought the quotas. The boats are a bit of a “red herring” The appellants in the main proceedings, including Factortame Ltd (the applicants), are a number of companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and also the directors and share-holders of those companies, most of whom are Spanish nationals. Those companies between them own or manage 95 fishing vessels which were until 31 March 1989 registered as British fishing vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. 53 of those vessels were originally registered in Spain and flew the Spanish flag. Those 53 vessels were registered under the 1894 Act at various dates from 1980 onwards. The remaining 42 vessels had always been British. They were purchased by the applicants at various dates, mainly since 1983.
The statutory system governing the registration of British fishing vessels was radically altered by Pt II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1926. It is common ground that the United Kingdom amended the previous legislation in order to put a stop to the practice known as 'quota hopping', whereby, according to that state, its fishing quotas are 'plundered' by fishing vessels flying the British flag but lacking any genuine link with the United Kingdom.
I have underlined the important parts, which are facts. Real ones.
Factortame & others v Secretary of State for Transport (No.2) [1991] 1 All ER 70, 75
The UK tried to change the law but about 5-10 years too late.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I mentioned a few weeks ago that CLAAS have invested multi millions into their U.K. head office this year, build still in progress. They have also invested into significantly more stock, the CEO informs that they have every confidence in the U.K. and judging from the investment that seems obvious.
An additional multi billion takeover has just been completed, Green King brewery have agreed a two half billion pound takeover bid from a investor based in Hong Kong. Again a business based in my home town of Bury st Edmunds.
This may come as a shock to some remainers in here, good news on the business front to be celebrated.
An additional multi billion takeover has just been completed, Green King brewery have agreed a two half billion pound takeover bid from a investor based in Hong Kong. Again a business based in my home town of Bury st Edmunds.
This may come as a shock to some remainers in here, good news on the business front to be celebrated.
DeepEnd said:
In summary then the Spanish legally bought the quotas. The boats are a bit of a “red herring”
The UK tried to change the law but about 5-10 years too late.
Thanks for clearing that up.
There are several hundred pages of judgement to read and absorb. Come back in a couple of days when you've done that, rather than a link to an article in the Daily Express.The UK tried to change the law but about 5-10 years too late.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Spain joined the EEC in 1986, and the UK changed the law in 1988 to close the loophole.
You are way out of your depth here. Not for the first time.
DeepEnd said:
The bit that is non negotiable is having only a vague commitment to protecting NI etc.
That is why the PM goes on at the beginning about how important NI and peace is etc. before saying but we don’t want to make a binding commitment so can we call is “as far as possible” - which is very different.
The letter would be rather better / more credible if he proposed a solution.
It’s Schrödinger’s “very easy but also very hard can’t write it down” solution again, as with the reality of most brexit things.
No, that’s simply not true. The E.U. continues to hold that the entire WA is incapable of being reopened. If the PM won’t accept the backstop, and the E.U. won’t drop its insistence on keeping to the terms of the WA, there really is no point In talking any more. That is why the PM goes on at the beginning about how important NI and peace is etc. before saying but we don’t want to make a binding commitment so can we call is “as far as possible” - which is very different.
The letter would be rather better / more credible if he proposed a solution.
It’s Schrödinger’s “very easy but also very hard can’t write it down” solution again, as with the reality of most brexit things.
hutchst said:
DeepEnd said:
In summary then the Spanish legally bought the quotas. The boats are a bit of a “red herring”
The UK tried to change the law but about 5-10 years too late.
Thanks for clearing that up.
There are several hundred pages of judgement to read and absorb. Come back in a couple of days when you've done that, rather than a link to an article in the Daily Express.The UK tried to change the law but about 5-10 years too late.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Spain joined the EEC in 1986, and the UK changed the law in 1988 to close the loophole.
You are way out of your depth here. Not for the first time.
psi310398 said:
No, that’s simply not true. The E.U. continues to hold that the entire WA is incapable of being reopened. If the PM won’t accept the backstop, and the E.U. won’t drop its insistence on keeping to the terms of the WA, there really is no point In talking any more.
The problem with that analysis is it's contradicted by the Prime Minister bothering to write a letter at all & moreover suggesting alternative However you try to spin it, the bottom line is always the same: Johnson's ham fisted pack of performing seals doesn't have a clue on the border. Neither did his predecessor, who to be fair had it land in her not especially competent lap & neither does anyone who sponsored leaving in 2016 & it's blindingly obvious the strategy from No.10 is to engineer a no deal in tacit recognition that a solution doesn't exist & then to spin the life out of things blaming EU intransigence.
hutchst said:
There are several hundred pages of judgement to read and absorb. Come back in a couple of days when you've done that, rather than a link to an article in the Daily Express.
Spain joined the EEC in 1986, and the UK changed the law in 1988 to close the loophole.
You are way out of your depth here. Not for the first time.
Questions so you can help everyone get to the nub of the issue:Spain joined the EEC in 1986, and the UK changed the law in 1988 to close the loophole.
You are way out of your depth here. Not for the first time.
- Do the spanish companies legally own the UK quotas?
- Did the UK allow them to be sold, whereas other EU countries chose not to do so.
hutchst said:
Nickgnome said:
You will have to provide evidence that the Spanish bought no British registered vessels if you want to support your assertion.
I posted earlier that you should read the cases. It is patently obvious that neither you nor your mate wittering on about selling quotas have done that. You can find any answer you want on google or wikipedia, but most of them are wrong. Here is a relevant extract from the transcript of the judgement:The appellants in the main proceedings, including Factortame Ltd (the applicants), are a number of companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and also the directors and share-holders of those companies, most of whom are Spanish nationals. Those companies between them own or manage 95 fishing vessels which were until 31 March 1989 registered as British fishing vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. 53 of those vessels were originally registered in Spain and flew the Spanish flag. Those 53 vessels were registered under the 1894 Act at various dates from 1980 onwards. The remaining 42 vessels had always been British. They were purchased by the applicants at various dates, mainly since 1983.
The statutory system governing the registration of British fishing vessels was radically altered by Pt II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1926. It is common ground that the United Kingdom amended the previous legislation in order to put a stop to the practice known as 'quota hopping', whereby, according to that state, its fishing quotas are 'plundered' by fishing vessels flying the British flag but lacking any genuine link with the United Kingdom.
I have underlined the important parts, which are facts. Real ones.
Factortame & others v Secretary of State for Transport (No.2) [1991] 1 All ER 70, 75
You seem to be upset that the ECJ ruled against us, without any counter argument as to why you consider they got it wrong.
On a connected point why did the British allow the Spanish vessels to be re registered in the UK in a he first place.
I’ve met a number of Partners in quite a few of the legal practices in London. Without exception their phraseology is much more measured than yours and they would find your approach counter productive.
banjowilly said:
The problem with that analysis is it's contradicted by the Prime Minister bothering to write a letter at all & moreover suggesting alternative unicorns arrangements in it. If you're correct, we would have all gone home by now & called the whole thing off. Then you get to Merkel & her public utterances at being willing to look at options to solve the riddle (her words) of the Northern Ireland border. Awks.
However you try to spin it, the bottom line is always the same: Johnson's ham fisted pack of performing seals doesn't have a clue on the border. Neither did his predecessor, who to be fair had it land in her not especially competent lap & neither does anyone who sponsored leaving in 2016 & it's blindingly obvious the strategy from No.10 is to engineer a no deal in tacit recognition that a solution doesn't exist & then to spin the life out of things blaming EU intransigence.
I’m fairly sure that you are right that the PM is positioning himself for a further rejection from the EU and that he won’t necessarily lose much sleep if they do. However you try to spin it, the bottom line is always the same: Johnson's ham fisted pack of performing seals doesn't have a clue on the border. Neither did his predecessor, who to be fair had it land in her not especially competent lap & neither does anyone who sponsored leaving in 2016 & it's blindingly obvious the strategy from No.10 is to engineer a no deal in tacit recognition that a solution doesn't exist & then to spin the life out of things blaming EU intransigence.
Either the EU caves in or it doesn’t - but BJ is deep into double or quits territory and I think most MPs are more terrified of the consequences of the alternatives to leaving without a WA than the departure itself.
psi310398 said:
I’m fairly sure that you are right that the PM is positioning himself for a further rejection from the EU and that he won’t necessarily lose much sleep if they do.
Either the EU caves in or it doesn’t - but BJ is deep into double or quits territory and I think most MPs are more terrified of the consequences of the alternatives to leaving without a WA than the departure itself.
What is also fascinating is the assumption that MPs will pass a VONC citing the tory rebels while ignoring a similar or greater number of labour MPs that might also vote against their party. Either the EU caves in or it doesn’t - but BJ is deep into double or quits territory and I think most MPs are more terrified of the consequences of the alternatives to leaving without a WA than the departure itself.
psi310398 said:
I’m fairly sure that you are right that the PM is positioning himself for a further rejection from the EU and that he won’t necessarily lose much sleep if they do.
Either the EU caves in or it doesn’t - but BJ is deep into double or quits territory and I think most MPs are more terrified of the consequences of the alternatives to leaving without a WA than the departure itself.
BJ has so deeply committed himself to leaving on 31/10 he as no way out... it is leave or oblivion for him. His plan is now to leave, blame whatever happens as a consequence on the EU or the opposition, at the same time neutralising the Brexit party for the imminent election that all the random policy promises of the last month have been leading up to. The Tory party will be saved, and they’ll do their best to mop up the damage as we lurch into the impending disruption and recession, which of course is the fault of the EU. In 5 years time things will maybe be alright for the next election, bar a few hundred thousand families that have had an abrupt change in lifestyle, but they probably won’t be Tory voters anyway, so inconsequential. All collateral damage to save the pigs in the trough.Either the EU caves in or it doesn’t - but BJ is deep into double or quits territory and I think most MPs are more terrified of the consequences of the alternatives to leaving without a WA than the departure itself.
banjowilly said:
But Johnson must table a proposal. He hasn't done that. It's hard to draw any other conclusion.
I understand he's meeting heads of state and continuing discussions with them over the next week(?) or so. Absolutely no point in tabling a proposal until (a) he has their complete attention and (b) he understands where and how they are willing to compromise.It's the same as the nonsense we had a while back around the Second Referendum dictating the terms we'll ask for - you don't go into negotiations having already decided and publicly declared the exact terms you're expecting to come out with.
abzmike said:
BJ has so deeply committed himself to leaving on 31/10 he as no way out... it is leave or oblivion for him. His plan is now to leave, blamewhatever happens as a consequence on the EU or the opposition, at the same time neutralising the Brexit party for the imminent election that all the random policy promises of the last month have been leading up to. The Tory party will be saved, and they’ll do their best to mop up the damage as we lurch into the impending disruption and recession, which of course is the fault of the EU. In 5 years time things will maybe be alright for the next election, bar a few hundred thousand families that have had an abrupt change in lifestyle, but they probably won’t be Tory voters anyway, so inconsequential. All collateral damage to save the pigs in the trough.
You really need those meds....Le Controleur Horizontal said:
banjowilly said:
But Johnson must table a proposal. He hasn't done that. It's hard to draw any other conclusion.
He has, he has said he is happy to discuss commitments and their relationship to the Uk's position, do you want him to negotiate on Twitter ?I wonder how that will play in Brussels & it still doesn't address the one key line in the letter - we'll aim to search out alternative arrangements. But you haven't PM, none of you have in two years & there's 72 days to go. The strategy is clear - there's no workable solution, so run the clock down, save the party, screw the country, job jobbed.
banjowilly said:
This is the inescapable truth about the letter. If the government had any confidence in the alternatives, the backstop would be of no concern. Once you make the leap, then you understand that Brexit starts & ends with saving the Tory party.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff