Brexit transition period agreement

I have also read these research findings Maizie and agree with you that the influence of the media can be quite insidious.

Perhaps the Cambridge Analytica scandal will open people's eyes to the dangers. The whole question of politics, the media, influence and advertising probably needs a thread of its own.

posters

This is because the media generally, ........ have given that impression.

I got my information from the Guardian and the Independent initially. In fact the G ran stories highlighting the sale of boats + quotas to the European fishing industry a long time ago. I just lost the will to find them...

The problem is that the belief that the wicked EU destroyed our fishing industry is so deeply entrenched that the truth fails to penetrate at all.

Simon Wren Lewis (Economist) posted a blog on this theme quite recently

I was struck by this passage:

The idea that the media can heavily influence popular opinion is not new. It has been widely acknowledged that people think crime is always rising, and overestimate the number of immigrants in the UK, the extent of benefit fraud and so on. These mistakes are almost always in the direction you would expect if people were far too influenced by newspaper headlines. We also now have published papers that demonstrate that the media influences rather than just reflects voters views. (See here for Fox News, and here for the UK press. Here is another study that also finds the Murdoch switch to Labour had large effects. Here is a study about how the media influenced attitudes to welfare after the 2011 riots.)

(The original passage has live links embedded)

mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/beliefs-about-brexit.html

I always find it ironic that poster on Gnet steadfastly declare that they are not influenced by the MSM when studies consistently prove that people are influenced by it. We must have a set of highly exceptional people on these forums!

MaizieD some things need repeating.

I did read your previous post Maizie but I also think that this fishing quota saga needs to be set out again and again.

The public perception of the situation is so far from the truth that I think there are folk who are otherwise pro-EU who actually blame the EU for this situation.

This is because the media generally, and not just the usual suspects - Express, DM and Sun, have given that impression.

I am glad that my understanding of the situation is correct and I won't mind at all if someone else comes along and says the same thing. It needs to be repeated.

As I understand it this is the explanation (I'm sure someone will come along and tell me if I've got it wrong.)

Considering that I had given just about the same explanation about 3 posts before yours I'm not likely to take issue with it..

So ironic that the fishermen were taken completely for a ride and voted 'out' in protest against something their own governments inflicted on them.

It was the same with EU workers; initially it was Thatcher who insisted on them coming straight away because the country needed the EU workers. It was our governments who didn't apply the EU 'rules' to control workers staying here without jobs..

( Doesn't anybody read the thread before commenting ? )

Did anyone else hear Teresa May state in the house today that Corbyn wanted to trigger article 50 the day after the referendum.

She's a bit late with that bit of news, isn't she, petra? Those of us who took any interest beyond putting a cross in a box knew about it when it happened nearly 2 years ago...

Sorry, correction. In my last post I should have said "successive UK governments have been particularly inept.."

Many Leavers in the “left behind” areas were doubtless voting to end austerity, they are going to be disappointed if they think Brexit will achieve some political and economic miracle.

I think you are right, Petra, when you say that a lot of leave voters were not actually protesting against the EU but against our own government.

Successive EU governments have been particularily inept at dealing with matters related to the EU. For instance immigration, an incendiary issue for many brexiters. We did not need to allow all Eastern European immigrants free passage at the time their countries joined. Other EU countries phased these rights, as we were able to do but did not do.

It also concerns me that there is a huge amount of ignorance about politics and governance in this country. A lot of folk seem to know nothing about which tier of government is responsible for what. For instance, I have been told by folk about to vote in a District Council election that they are upset about the council because of education, potholes, social services, etc, all of which are the responsibility of the County Council. In our area the District Council and County Council are run by two different parties, and so the wrong lot get the blame.

I am convinced that a lot of folk in deprived areas voted leave because they didn't like the government - absolutely nothing to do with the EU. Yet the future of my grandchildren could be blighted by this ignorance.

varian
You are perfectly correct. Myself and many of my leaver friends weren't just protesting against the eu because we understand that the eu will always do what they want to do.
But, a big protest was against any government who just bent over and took it. Our/my protest was: not in my name you wont

Brexit transitional period
Did anyone else hear Teresa May state in the house today that Corbyn wanted to trigger article 50 the day after the referendum.
That's going to hurt a lot of remainers.

It is true that a large number of foreign-owned fishing boats are allowed to fish in UK waters. The fishermen don't like this and the brexiteers protest a great deal. As I understand it this is the explanation (I'm sure someone will come along and tell me if I've got it wrong.)

The EU fishing nations firstly jointly decided on national quotas designed to conserve stocks of endangered species, like cod, which had been overfished, and at the same time allow the fishing industry to have a fair catch and supply overall demand.

In other EU countries, the government allocated a quota to a boat, but crucially retained control (in effect ownership) of the quota.

However in the UK, our government allocated a quota to a boat, giving the owners of that fishing boat ownership of the quota. Over time foreign buyers bought British fishing boats and the quota was included in the sale. Those foreign fisherman now own that quota and can fish in our waters, and the total UK quota is diminished. There must be retired fishermen who accepted an offer for a boat (which might have been an old boat, needing to be replaced) because the offer was just too good to refuse. In effect they were profiting by selling the quota.

Farmers wanting to get out of dairying are able to sell their milk quota, but only to other British farmers.

If I am right, this fishy tail is yet another example of our government (of whichever party) not doing what other EU governments did to protect the interests of their citizens. Yet again we see brexiters blaming the EU for mismanagement which should be laid at the door of the UK government.

They continually since the first meeting with the uk requested us to come up with our plan. We haven’t . The consequence is that the EU have come up with one instead. The stuff not yet agreed is because there is no plan.

I see UK agreeing to allow immigration to continue the same during transition period, and allowing EU to fish in UK waters. Does anyone know what compromise EU are making? I can't see one. They seem to have it all their own way.
.

'our governments'? Our past governments that should be...

Try this from 2015:

Small scale fishermen in England are struggling to retain their livelihood, while multi-million pound companies buy up the majority of fishing right, according to a new investigation by Greenpeace.

The investigation revealed that just three companies own nearly two-thirds of England’s fishing quota while some fishermen hoard quota on vessels which never cast a net.

Nearly half of the England and Wales’ quota is held by companies based outside the those countries, despite reforms to the EU’s fisheries policy, which encourage national governments to allocate fishing quota on social and environmental grounds.

unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/05/15/investigation-big-fish-quota-barons-squeeze-out-small-scale-fishermen/

To now be irate that the Staus Quo remains during the 'Implemantation Period' (transition period) is so shallow and yes hypocrisy because they voted to for the Status Quo re the Fishing Industry to remain in place ' in perpetuity'

Who is being 'irate' about the status quo, POGS? I'm not

What I'm 'irate' about is our governments and Nigel Farage selling our fishermen down the river.

POGS The point is that an independent Scotland within the EU would have a seat at the top table and be represented on the committee that decides the quotas. At the moment the UK's representative is Nigel Farage who has only attended 1 out of 42 meeings.

A large minority of the Scottish Fishing communities voted 'leave' in the Brexit Referendum and Tory in last year's GE because of promises that control of the fishing grounds, post Brexit would be returned to the UK. Now it seems (as predicted by the SNP) that power and the divvying out of quotas, will remain with the EU, WITHOUT ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE UK.

The Scottish Fishing Grounds were originally trading to the EU (by Mrs Thatcher) in order to gain other concessions. Now the industry has been betrayed again by Mrs May, in spite of protests from the Scottish Tories and Ruth Davidson.

Who said Brexiter aren’t thick?

I see Rees Mogg was not allowed to board the Brexit fishing boat at Embankment Pier because permission has not been sought

I am confused by the stance of the likes of Nicola Sturgeon and anybody who voted for the UK To remain a member of the European Union over the matter of the UK Fisheries Industry to be honest.

All who voted to Remain in the EU voted for the Status Quo to remain for our Fishing Industry, accept the rules and regulations of the EU . To now be irate that the Staus Quo remains during the 'Implemantation Period' (transition period) is so shallow and yes hypocrisy because they voted to for the Status Quo re the Fishing Industry to remain in place ' in perpetuity '.

What is Nicola Sturgeon offering the Scottish Industry?

What are politicians 'of any colour' who want to remain in the EU and do not accept the EU Referendum result offering the UK fishing industry?

I totally understand the Fishing Industry being upset that they have to continue until 2020 to abide by EU Legislation, quotas and dictates during an 'Implementation Period' . I totally understand the Fishing Industry being concerned their industry could be some sort of 'forfeit' in the final stage of negotiations. I fully understand why the Fishing Industry feels 'let down' by the government negotiations. I totally understand why the Fishing Industry should see through the disingenuous , hypocrisy of the current rhetoric espoused by many politicians who are using the 'Implementation Period/Transition Period ' , something I might add they have been calling for, for nothing other than party politics.

Not only the reasons you give, Geri but also that the UK fish quotas were sold to other European countries by the UK government(s) and UK boat owners. The quota is assigned to a boat. If the boat is sold to a non-UK national the quota goes with the boat. It seems that both UK governments and the UK fishing industry itself has been complicit in the demise of our fishing industry.

Of course, it hasn't helped that the MEP who was a member of the EUP Fisheries committee and who should have represented our interests there was one Nigel Farage, who attended only 1 of 42 meetings and who had absolutely no interest whatsoever in helping the UK fishing industry to assert themselves within the EU. His principle interest has been in destroying the EU, not serving the interests of the UK within it.

How he had the brass neck to portray himself as the UK fishermans' friend and arrange that pre-referendum charade of fishing boats on the Thames is beyond words. And how the fishermen didn't see straight through him will be an eternal mystery.

This, from the Independent,( in happier days pre-referendum, 1996)

This is complex but it is vital to an understanding of quota-hoppers. In the early Eighties, there were a couple of dozen. Their numbers exploded during the decade. Why? Because British trawler owners sold their boats to the Spanish and Dutch. Or in some cases they sold them to British brokers, who sold them to the Spanish and Dutch. Why? Because they were offering the best price.

The main alternative - EU scrapping grants - were not on offer in Britain. Why were the foreign skippers so keen to buy British boats? Because under British, not EU, regulations, if you bought the boat, you also got the licence to fish and a guaranteed share of the national quota.

It is a purely British government policy to break down the national quota boat by boat, and allow the sale of quotas, in this way. Other EU governments have other ways of enforcing (or in some cases failing to enforce) the Common Fisheries Policy.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/britains-fishy-role-in-the-quota-hopping-scandal-1315516.html

The fishing industry blamed the EU when their demise has been the result of overfishing and the Icelandic cod wars of the past. The trouble is you may own national waters but you don’t own the fish who can swim from one national water to another, hence the quota system which shared out the catch. The resentment that EU fishermen were taking “our” fish isn’t accurate they’re not “ours”.

Meanwhile in Scotland...... I am wondering what has been the response from the NE England fishing communities?

www.thenational.scot/news/16100236.Falling_for_the_Tory_lies_hook__line_and_sinker/

Tories. This new iPad is driving me mad?