How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)

[andymadmak]

banjowilly said:

Homophobic in thought?

What??!!! You can read my thoughts? Christ, the absolute state of it. We're done, enough crazies in my life between the kids & the missus without taking any more on, gratis.

So getting frothing angry (as you did) at your inaccurate but homophobic interpretation of Crackies cartoon is not an indication of your attitudes?

OK, whatever you say

[andymadmak]

Brooking10 said:

Wow.

Not sure if serious ?

Did you read the exchanges? They did not read well for Banjo

[banjowilly]

andymadmak said:

Fittster said:

Which red lines will the ERG be prepared to give up?

I don't think the ERG is an homogenous unit with just one position. It's made up of individuals, each of whom will have thresholds that must be met, some higher and some lower than others. In any event I think that Boris can, to some degree, bypass the ERG. I think a majority of the house want an orderly exit, based around a sensible WA, sans backstop. It's just my guess, and I might be wrong on this.

Anyway, ignoring the cheap seats whose idea of debate is to smear, let's stay on the topic. This ^^^ is a non answer of flowering nonsense. The only truth contained within it is the ERG is indeed made up of individuals. to get round the difficulty of being individuals, they take positions on issues & Johnson with is majority of one is wise to be frit of them. So yes, you are wrong on this. Again. As usual.

[andymadmak]

banjowilly said:

Anyway, ignoring the cheap seats whose idea of debate is to smear, let's stay on the topic. This ^^^ is a non answer of flowering nonsense. The only truth contained within it is the ERG is indeed made up of individuals. to get round the difficulty of being individuals, they take positions on issues & Johnson with is majority of one is wise to be frit of them. So yes, you are wrong on this. Again. As usual.

Again you do not comprehend

[hutchst]

Brooking10 said:

All that said is it not correct that the U.K. has sold portions of the quota on a piecemeal basis which has ended up with a heavy concentration in a few commercial hands and potentially disadvantaged smaller operators ?

I understand that some of those operators are to all intents and purposes non U.K. but exploiting the rulings you refer to have demonstrated a tenuous economic link and are in continued receipt of access of rights granted by HM Govt, in return for monies paid. Is my understanding wrong ?

UK fishermen have sold quotas, but only after the Factortame ruling, not before.

[banjowilly]

andymadmak said:

Again you do not comprehend

If you say so, petal.

[anonymous-user]

hutchst said:

Brooking10 said:

All that said is it not correct that the U.K. has sold portions of the quota on a piecemeal basis which has ended up with a heavy concentration in a few commercial hands and potentially disadvantaged smaller operators ?

I understand that some of those operators are to all intents and purposes non U.K. but exploiting the rulings you refer to have demonstrated a tenuous economic link and are in continued receipt of access of rights granted by HM Govt, in return for monies paid. Is my understanding wrong ?

UK fishermen have sold quotas, but only after the Factortame ruling, not before.

I get that hence my reference to it being exploited above.

Seems counter productive that having been on the receiving end of what seems like an iniquitous legal judgment U.K. govt would then heap further inequity onto the small fisherman.

[crankedup]

crankedup said:

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.

Nobody wish to comment upon good news?

[psi310398]

pgh said:

Take the emotion out of it and things become much easier.
Would it make sense to have the UK as part of EASA? (we're one of the biggest hubs in the world)
Does it make sense to have the UK in EurAtom? (we have plenty to bring to the table)

If you start thinking in terms of a business transaction, things make far more sense. Countries (and political projects) shouldn't get emotional with each other.

Quite. Also nobody has yet come up with the answer as to where most of Europe will store its spent waste if shipping it to Sellafield isn’t recognised.

There is also the rather interesting notion that the UK would cease storing its own or other countries’ waste simply because we had left Euratom, but if I were a nuclear bureaucrat I’d not mind that I had no visibility of what was happening a day’s blow away from me if it was to further the cause of the ideological purity of the EU.

There is then the rather tricky dimension of the Lancaster House agreements under which the UK is coworking with France on aspects of nuclear defence. I suppose it’s possible that the French no longer want access to UK expertise but the agreements aren’t that old...

[Nickgnome]

Brooking10 said:

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

All that said is it not correct that the U.K. has sold portions of the quota on a piecemeal basis which has ended up with a heavy concentration in a few commercial hands and potentially disadvantaged smaller operators ?

I understand that some of those operators are to all intents and purposes non U.K. but exploiting the rulings you refer to have demonstrated a tenuous economic link and are in continued receipt of access of rights granted by HM Govt, in return for monies paid. Is my understanding wrong ?

This makes for an interesting read.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishin...

And this

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/07/fishin...

Edited by Nickgnome on Tuesday 20th August 13:42

[anonymous-user]

crankedup said:

crankedup said:

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.

Nobody wish to comment upon good news?

No one ever does. Doesn’t fit the agenda for many.

[Mrr T]

pgh said:

Take the emotion out of it and things become much easier.
Would it make sense to have the UK as part of EASA? (we're one of the biggest hubs in the world)
Does it make sense to have the UK in EurAtom? (we have plenty to bring to the table)

If you start thinking in terms of a business transaction, things make far more sense. Countries (and political projects) shouldn't get emotional with each other.

It not just emotion. It makes no sense for the EU to allow the UK to remain in EASA and EurAtom. The difficulty faced by the UK are opportunities for EU countries.

[Nickgnome]

crankedup said:

crankedup said:

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.

Nobody wish to comment upon good news?

Where do the profits end up?

[banjowilly]

Garvin said:

A few points on this:

- A proposal is not going to be made by letter!
- If the EU are going to ‘engage’ why have their officials already poo-poo’d Boris’ letter?
- The UK can have as much confidence in the alternatives but the current WA relies on the EU agreeing and does not allow for independent arbitration in the event that it doesn’t and plays silly buggers.

-A proposal was not made by letter. Nothing was in the letter. We have not made a workable proposal on the border in three long years - you may have missed that but it is nevertheless true.

-The EU have reacted negatively to the letter because it offers nothing. This isn't a secret, there are acres of reaction in all major news outlets a mere click away.

-What are the alternatives? If they are workable, then why hasn't the EU responded positively? And again, if they are workable, what's the problem with the never-going-to-be-needed backstop?

[Coolbanana]

Garvin said:

A few points on this:

- A proposal is not going to be made by letter!
- If the EU are going to ‘engage’ why have their officials already poo-poo’d Boris’ letter?
- The UK can have as much confidence in the alternatives but the current WA relies on the EU agreeing and does not allow for independent arbitration in the event that it doesn’t and plays silly buggers.

I think Boris is right to start a dialogue around 'commitments' but both he and the EU know that the Backstop has to stay and that it is for one of them to find a compromise to the wording thereof that would give both an equal measure of insurance. The EU believes the onus is upon the UK, as the leaving Party, to come up with an acceptable proposal, following the EU's offer of the WA and the Backtop as it currently is.

The next stage is for Boris to propose how the Backstop could be acceptable to the UK given certain modifications - the EU will then consider those and either accept, amend for further discussion or reject outright to begin again.

The EU wants the Backstop. No amount of pleading or decrying it as undemocratic will change this - the very fact that the UK is unwilling to commit to the Backstop sends alarm bells to the EU that they were correct to want an insurance in the first place. As has been mentioned, if the UK was bullishly confident in finding workable, mutually acceptable measures, then it would put its money where its mouth is, so to speak, and play down the threat of being tied in indefinitely as not just improbable, but impossible.

However, the UK is equally right, in light of not wanting to take any risk, to portray the current wording as unfair to the UK since it is an EU-only insurance policy. Hence the need to negotiate it and arrive at a compromise with its wording - including perhaps, as you have suggested, independent arbitration among other desirables from the UK side.

Dismissing the Backstop altogether and blaming the EU for a 'No Deal' on the basis of refusing one, is a UK failure to my mind. I wholly believe that the EU needs to compromise but I also believe that the UK needs to go back with what it would accept in the form of a Backstop that would give both a measure of security for their respective red-lines in the long-term. Yes, it is difficult but I'm pretty confident smart minds on both sides can find a solution if they both want to. As things stand, no smart minds are being employed from either side in preventing a 'No Deal' and one could be forgiven for assuming that perhaps that is what they both actually want - perhaps they want to part ways completely but to 'sell' it they need to be able to 'blame' each other to their respective peoples. Guess we'll soon see.

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

pgh said:

Take the emotion out of it and things become much easier.
Would it make sense to have the UK as part of EASA? (we're one of the biggest hubs in the world)
Does it make sense to have the UK in EurAtom? (we have plenty to bring to the table)

If you start thinking in terms of a business transaction, things make far more sense. Countries (and political projects) shouldn't get emotional with each other.

It not just emotion. It makes no sense for the EU to allow the UK to remain in EASA and EurAtom. The difficulty faced by the UK are opportunities for EU countries.

It is not for the EU to decide whether we can be members of EASA.

Indeed, even without being direct members, we can be aligned with EASA processes via associate membership.

Further, the CAA have representation on the ICAO panels - which create the regs which EASA then determines the compliant implementation requirements for.

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

crankedup said:

crankedup said:

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.

Nobody wish to comment upon good news?

No one ever does. Doesn’t fit the agenda for many.

It’s neither particularly good nor particularly bad news, it’s just news.

Headline is that a UK public company has been purchased by an HK co who wish to leverage the beer brands into emerging markets and add to their existing significant UK property assets.

The UK pub estate won’t grow significantly as the market is both challenged and saturated and the beer brands will either be exported in greater numbers or contract manufactured in the Far East. The opportunity for significant further job creation is slim.

The purchase timing is opportunistic and the currency dip made the asset cheap.

The company will be delisted from the UK markets and profits will ultimately leave the UK.

[psi310398]

Brooking10 said:

It’s neither particularly good nor particularly bad news, it’s just news.

Headline is that a UK public company has been purchased by an HK co who wish to leverage the beer brands into emerging markets and add to their existing significant UK property assets.

The UK pub estate won’t grow significantly as the market is both challenged and saturated and the beer brands will either be exported in greater numbers or contract manufactured in the Far East. The opportunity for significant further job creation is slim.

The purchase timing is opportunistic and the currency dip made the asset cheap.

The company will be delisted from the UK markets and profits will ultimately leave the UK.

So, by your own narrative, a dying or at least static UK business extracts value for its shareholders by selling to someone who can see potential in the asset? The bought out shareholders gain access to funds to invest more efficiently elsewhere. Isn’t that a sign that the system is working?

Or would you really prefer to have an asset retained in the UK with dwindling profits simply because UK? What about all those overseas companies in which the UK invests?

[hutchst]

Mrr T said:

Just for starters can you explain to me UK law I have never heard of it.

That is patently obvious to anybody that has read your posts.

[anonymous-user]

psi310398 said:

Brooking10 said:

It’s neither particularly good nor particularly bad news, it’s just news.

Headline is that a UK public company has been purchased by an HK co who wish to leverage the beer brands into emerging markets and add to their existing significant UK property assets.

The UK pub estate won’t grow significantly as the market is both challenged and saturated and the beer brands will either be exported in greater numbers or contract manufactured in the Far East. The opportunity for significant further job creation is slim.

The purchase timing is opportunistic and the currency dip made the asset cheap.

The company will be delisted from the UK markets and profits will ultimately leave the UK.

So, by your own narrative, a dying or at least static UK business extracts value for its shareholders by selling to someone who can see potential in the asset? The bought out shareholders gain access to funds to invest more efficiently elsewhere. Isn’t that a sign that the system is working?

Or would you really prefer to have an asset retained in the UK with dwindling profits simply because UK? What about all those overseas companies in which the UK invests?

I don’t necessarily disagree with any of what you have said in para 1.

As I say it’s neither good nor bad news nor, with the exception of the obvious currency issue promoting value, is there a Brexit angle.

It’s a question of balance, there’s no immediate direct benefit to UK plc but as you say there’s a trickle down effect.

Para 2 has no relevance to what I said.