Brexit confusion - Scottish fishermen

ok I might be missing something here but the report from this Scottish fishing village on the news tonight has left be dumbfounded.

1, the fisherman voted leave
2. 70% of their catch goes to Spain Italy and France
3. They don’t want a deal which allows more access to other Europeans to the waters they currently fish in.
4. They want continued borderless access to their markets as the catch has to be fresh.

In summary they voted leave but want nothing to change for them.
Is it just me or are these people thick as mince?

 

Sums up most leave voters

 

No they're not as thick as mince, I think thats unfair, you are missing the fact that their catch is only a fraction of what is taken out of their own waters...EU boats take much more. I think they just want a fairer allocation of the catch.

 

Your penultimate sentence sums up exactly why we're having to endure this schitt-show.

 

You realise the U.K. sold the catch allocation...

 

Perhaps if the Briish MEP on the fisheries committee ever bothered to turn up and speak/vote on their behalf they may not have wanted to leave in the first place......step forward (if you can be bothered) Mr N Farage.....the MEP with the worst attendance record in the EU and darling to the leavers

 

If they don't show up, there's more chance of policy not benefitting the UK, thus convincing more people to vote leave.

 

Most fish sold in the UK (Cod, Haddock) is from Norway, Iceland or China (not British waters). Most fish caught by British fishermen (Herring, Mackerel) is sold in the EU. IIRC he majority of the Scottish fishing quota is held by 4 families.

They will lose access to the areas with the fish we buy, and lose access to the market for the fish we catch.

BTW More people work in Poundland (18,000) than are UK fishermen (15,000) and Harrods is worth more to the UK economy (£2bn).

 

They want something more equitable - but unfortunately as with everything, the untangling of things like the CFP will be difficult, especially if we want unfettered access to the single market - so 'fishing rights' then become a bargaining chip. Unfortunately we have raging incompetents and frauds running the show in Parliament so expect carnage.

 

Yes, that was the fault of Blair who created the conditions for the big companies to rule the roost in UK waters...effectively privatisation of a national resource for no obvious reasons.

An interesting article below by Austin Mitchell.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20180309/281835759212109

 

Listen to this: https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2018/nov/26/why-did-the-fishing-industry-vote-for-brexit

 

I'd sooner have some control of something rather than complete control of nothing which is where we are headed.

 

We're an island nation, what's our biggest asset? The sea! Absolutely nothing should be privatised and sold for any amount within our waters.
The UK acts like Gareth from the Office and does business like Barnsley FC of old.

 

Control? I've never had any control in my entire life. My world has been run by people elsewhere; whether that be Brussels, Westminster, or Barnsley Town Hall. "Getting back control" is meaningless to me. Regardless of the deal (or no deal), control will continue to sit beyond my sphere of influence, other than the occasional general/local election.

Luckily, I'm a goat and don't have to worry about such things...

 

If you really think the sea is our biggest asset you're deluded.

 

Glad we agree it was nowt to do with the EU. Being In or out of it won’t protect or improve the lives of fishermen it was always a duplicitous argument. Blair was a Thatcherite neoliberal that’s the obvious reason.

 

For me, it was all about a pure trading relationship with no tariffs across goods and services.

Free movement of people -Workwise, freedom to the point of short term work to fill the gaps eg seasonal markets etc. If someone wants to settle here on a permanent basis then they should have to apply regardless of where they reside beit EU nation or Outside the EU and the government can then maintain some control over the general population levels in order to maintain infrastructure. It seems that feedom of movement however in most EU countries seems to be flaunted somewhat with the introduction of these tourist taxes, surely that is something we should also adopt but allow complete freedom of movement for tourism. Electronic passports should collect the information of who arrives and who leaves, surely that is simple.

No single currency, each nation within the EU is so unique on an economic standing it doesn't work efficiently. One the one had you have powerhouse Germany who the Euro really suits, then on the other hand the likes of Portugal who just can't work on a like for like footing. A single currency for me would only work for a fully unified single EU nation similar to the USA, but personally I'd never want that.

Political union, one of my biggest gripes. this is always going to be something of personal preference to people, but essentially we as a standalone nation can elect the entire government rather than just a few MEP's representing us in a huge block. As we know single nations will soon no longer be able to use these VETOS and the EU will be moving more towards deciding issues purely by a majority decision, this is where for me we seriously lose the sense of control. Mainland Europe seem to have much more in common than we do with them, I think this is because of the geographic location of the UK. With us being an Island nation, certain issues will always be more important to us than to nations who purely share land borders. If we remained within the EU, when we lose our VETOS what chance do we have of preserving our own priorities as an Island nation when our EU partners see things differently due to this issue. So this moves me on to trade within the EU. There is nothing wrong with having a committee (not a parliament) of representatives setting trade standards to ensure quality, that is how simple it should be...

But as we have seen, the EU are unwilling to consider modernising their blinkered single path vision, one of the main reasons we ended up voting to leave. If they had any intention of listening to a growing number of people across the entire EU, they would clearly hear discontent and should look to change and modernisation of their vision. Just pressing on with more integration is not the answer.

Our government has not been without blame, the first thing that should have happened post vote leave is a cross party group formed to provide our national stance, negotiating amongst themselves what is best for the UK away from the press and public. Once they have that pathway worked out, then was the time to take it to parliament, again behind closed doors and vote on our SINGLE national stance. Once it has been thrashed out in parliament and agreed, then inform the public of what we intend to go negotiate. Put this out to a second referendum with two options, .. 1. Accept the deal our government seeks, 2. Remain in the EU. If we then voted to accept the deal, we then trigger Article 50, go to the EU with the people and parliament behind our single stance. Yes, we have to expect a bit of give and take but we would have none of this absolute nonsense of political point scoring in the commons. We would have had a very, very powerful argument. I blame the government / parliament completely for the joke the negotiations have become. We ended up handing every advantage to the EU in these negotiations through muddled visions, constant bickering in the commons and with the general public created this new breed of political hatred.

I obviously voted leave and would do again for the reasons above. I'll argue my personal thoughts on the matter and respect that people voted remain or leave for many reasons. We are all unique, we all think differently.

Surely we would be in a different place if we had worked together for a unified vision. Kept things out of the media and public eye until parliament have done things behind closed doors first. Anything else just weakened any argument.

It is with regret that I see no other opportunity to leave now because of the circus it has become. We now have to remain, any benefits we could have gained through a sensible approach have been smashed away by extremists from both sides......

I'm never one to say to people afterwards, I told you so, but I have genuine concerns where this ever uniting EU is headed without any appetite for change..

 

Compared to other countries. Especially for renewable energy

 

You can't come on here spouting complete common sense!! Many who voted leave, did not do so based on what the existing or short term relationship within the EU is, but on how they felt the relationship was headed medium to long term, and they did not like what they believe is coming. Of corse the reaction of many is to accuse leave voters of being 'thick' or voting on single issues like immigration, sovereignty (whatever that is) and the economy rather than a balanced view weighing up the pros and cons of future membership on many levels. I totally agree the potential benefits particularly were exaggerated in the extreme and due to incompetence, have been lost, at least in the short term.

HOWEVER; I Still believe though that we cannot accept the current deal May is insisting on, but have to leave, be it the extreme no-deal and WTO even though the UK will take a hit) as will the EU. I completely reject the ludicrous claims of Carney, and 'experts' come in two flavours. Those who are impartial and those with agendas, bias and ulterior motives. Too many, (on both sides) fall into the latter category. Too much bias confirmation on both sides has also decimated reasonable debate and reasoning.