Astute
Well-Known Member
Yes you never said anything about Tuna and Prawns.Yeah we are really going to catch loads of tuna and prawns in British waters after Brexit.
Have fun. Had enough of this pro EU propaganda bullshit.
Yes you never said anything about Tuna and Prawns.Yeah we are really going to catch loads of tuna and prawns in British waters after Brexit.
Yes you never said anything about Tuna and Prawns.
Have fun. Had enough of this pro EU propaganda bullshit.
Ha ha ha ha ha. It quotes facts, timelines and events. All of which you can fact check for yourself. It’s hardly an opinion piece.An EU biased view from someone living in France. Says it all to me.
If you read what was put on here you would think that most in the UK want to stay in the EU. And that the EU is great.
Bollocks.
Try the truth for once. Luxembourg would take a million or two instead of billions. We have to charge more tax because the EU says. We have to charge VAT on certain items because the EU says.
But you know this.
We could cut VAT by a quarter tomorrow under EU rules and always could. It’s another Red Herring.
Name.them.
Especially by amount of posts. Just you, Mart and Tony must do more than half of the full total of posts. And most of them are twisting the truth.
Ah so trying to keep up with 3 if you twisting the truth at the same time is easy to keep up with?
Ok the EU doesn't need our fish. We get our tuna and Prawns from the EU. And we don't need our water back to become self sufficient.
Just carry on twisting the truth between yourselves. I will read and have a laugh later.
An EU biased view from someone living in France. Says it all to me.
If you read what was put on here you would think that most in the UK want to stay in the EU. And that the EU is great.
Yes, usual pollocks. He’s fallen hook line and sinker for UKIP bullshit.
Although we have whittled away a bit at the original agreement from the EU. The fisheries policy was based upon 1970s fishing catches in EU waters. Until mid-70s most British fleets fished Icelandic waters...so we got the shitty end of the stick & are still trying to wipe it off!it is due to most popular fish coming from non-UK waters.
The fact that in 2017 we imported £3.21bn & exported £1.89bn tells us all we need to know. Parity based upon demand for catches & subsequent local processing is all we want/need rather than some madcap scheme based deliberately upon catches in EU waters in a decade where half of the UK fleet's activity was outside of EU waters.You are able to your own research. Do you genuinely believe that the UK''s tastes in fish are reflective of the fish in its local waters?
Funnily enough (linking to another topic of the moment) I read somewhere that EU countries are themselves responsible for monitoring compliance on catches with occasional EU inspections...& it is estimated 1/3-1/2 of catches are illegal in member states (in fairness that may include our own) which suggests to me that locally a blind eye approach is applied. As-in, the EU is great at making rules. Which is about where the EU stops being great because it doesn't have the inclination/means/resource(?) to enforce the buggers!So why is that?
Reducing tax payable is not dodging tax. We have to keep to EU rules....Even though the EU itself doesn't keep to them.....to protect EU producers. This isn't tax avoidance like what Juncker designed and is heavily defended on here for.
But let's twist the truth to try and make a point that doesn't exist.
I might be wrong, but that 9% I think applies only to Cod in the English Channel...still scandalous thoughPoint it out then. So us only being able to catch 9% of fish in our water confirmed what to you?
Compare imports to exportsThe demand doesn't exist. Even on the coast the most ubiquitous fish is cod or haddock
Funnily enough I know someone who was involved in the Global & EU discussions on fishing policy during that spell. Globally...all was plain sailing (pardon the pun). There was much EU bullying tactics employed on voting after hours & hours of what was described as petty bickering & ego-tripping.Ukip is wrong: British fishing answers to Westminster not Brussels | John Lichfield
Interesting article from someone who understands it very well and been involved in it for decades. Through the Cod wars and the birth of the CFP. Again shows a leave lie.
What he is failing to accept (still) is that Luxembourg broke the EU Corporation Tax rules, as he highlights in his post. If post-Brexit as a non-EU member the UK decides to do likewise it is choosing to do so of it's own accord & not being dictated to by Brussels.Bollocks.
Try the truth for once. Luxembourg would take a million or two instead of billions. We have to charge more tax because the EU says. We have to charge VAT on certain items because the EU says.
But you know this.
Fact: the majority of people who could be arsed/felt sufficiently compelled to vote voted to leave the EU.We’ve all been saying the same thing. All you have to do is reply to one of us with some facts and it’s game over. Fact is the U.K. fleet lost more water to the Cod wars than any other factor. Because of this 90% of all Cod eaten in the U.K. is imported from non-EU sources. The sovereign government divy outs the fishing quotas for the U.K. and the largest recipients of that are ships registered in the U.K. but owned by other EU and Non EU countries, that’s our government letting down our fishing industry. The smaller independent, family owned, locally owned trawlers are divied out only 4% of the British quotas by the British government. A lot of the so called solutions that Brexit is going to deliver are already there should our government wish to do it.
Compare imports to exports
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Fact: the majority of people who could be arsed/felt sufficiently compelled to vote voted to leave the EU.
GAME OVER!
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Funnily enough I know someone who was involved in the Global & EU discussions on fishing policy during that spell. Globally...all was plain sailing (pardon the pun). There was much EU bullying tactics employed on voting after hours & hours of what was described as petty bickering & ego-tripping.
I imagine in reality that is only the equivalent of the Parliament 'Whips', but helps explain why it is (like so many issues in the EU) so contentious
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
What he is failing to accept (still) is that Luxembourg broke the EU Corporation Tax rules, as he highlights in his post. If post-Brexit as a non-EU member the UK decides to do likewise it is choosing to do so of it's own accord & not being dictated to by Brussels.
Which is kind of the principle what the people of the UK voted for when deciding to leave.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
What he is failing to accept (still) is that Luxembourg broke the EU Corporation Tax rules, as he highlights in his post. If post-Brexit as a non-EU member the UK decides to do likewise it is choosing to do so of it's own accord & not being dictated to by Brussels.
Which is kind of the principle what the people of the UK voted for when deciding to leave.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Although we have whittled away a bit at the original agreement from the EU. The fisheries policy was based upon 1970s fishing catches in EU waters. Until mid-70s most British fleets fished Icelandic waters...so we got the shitty end of the stick & are still trying to wipe it off!
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Fact: the majority of people who could be arsed/felt sufficiently compelled to vote voted to leave the EU.
GAME OVER!
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
They got the shitty end of the stick because the quotas were based on fish caught in EU seas in the 70s...the majority of the UKs fleet fished outside of the EU waters so was simply ignored. Yes Iceland's action was not forseen by the UK or EU...but our quota was impacted by the years fishing outside EU waters from what I understandLike you say originally fishing quotas were set on what was being fished and by who in EU waters in the 70’s. That system is changing ie the quotas are now based on science rather than history and the mental process of discarding is being phased out. Although the change for my liking has happened too late and too slowly so I stand by my mental assessment that the CFP although it is moving in the right direction.
Icelandic waters have never been and still aren’t under EU jurisdiction so not sure how the British fleet got the shitty end of the stick of the CFP because of that. The U.K. fleet was stopped fishing there by the UN, nothing to do with the EU what so ever.
I agree with you about Government...it is the same in every industry. They like small innovative businesses & entrepreneurs- but only because if it appears successful the huge corporations can buy up & cash in. They love large cumbersome beasts where cronies can lose themselves on boards & around the golf course lolStill doesn’t make Astute right. Also a fact. He talking sound bites from the leave campaign on fishing clearly without fact checking. The facts still don’t look good on the CFP but they’re a million miles away from what Astute has taken as gospel and ran with. You don’t need to repeat half truths and blatant lies to make the CFP look inadequate, you just need facts. You also have to acknowledge that it’s our sovereign government who divy out the quotas and it’s our government who doesn’t but the smaller family and locally owned boats first. 4% of the quota to be exact and that’s decimated local fleets as much as anything (although there is clearly more than one factor in play here). Is that likely to change post brexit? It could happen today should the government wish. Why is there going to be a change of government policy post brexit all of a sudden? The brexit effect on historical fishing communities has been wildly overplayed and over exaggerated.
Does this not highlight a potential issue post-Brexit with all sorts of negotiations. We will be negotiating agreement B based on our requirements with having agreement A in place. What if something then happens to agreement A?Yes Iceland's action was not forseen by the UK or EU
They got the shitty end of the stick because the quotas were based on fish caught in EU seas in the 70s...the majority of the UKs fleet fished outside of the EU waters so was simply ignored. Yes Iceland's action was not forseen by the UK or EU...but our quota was impacted by the years fishing outside EU waters from what I understand
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
IMF chief highlights recession risk of no-deal Brexit
Probably another biased loony frenchy but the IMF has just warned of a no deal brexit. Not that a smooth Brexit is going to be a bed of roses either according to the IMF.