The Schadenfreude of seeing this predominantly Brexit crowd getting stuffed is tinged with sadness that the price of cod & chips will soon be through the roof.
It shouldn't affect prices that much. The cost of fishing something in Norwegian waters, landing it and transporting it from the port to Bristol/Leicester/Inverness doesn't really depend on whether it's a Norwegian or British trawler and port.
I want to digress, though. For several decades, Britain's approach to negotiations was to let the EU do it, and sometimes get an excetption that the Germans pay for. That's been a lot simpler than "real" negotiations between states, and it sounds as if they're really out of practice.
As was also visible last week, when an Australian minister was to be put "on an uncomfortable chair" and made to sign a deal. Of course the Australian arrived with a ready offer and willing to sign at once, and of course the British signed what the Australian wanted.
Experienced negotiators do not signal being in a hurry.
As an EU citizen, I hate to say this but I think Johnson and his bunch did really well for UK in the Brexit negotiations. They basically got everything that they wanted (free trade, state aid, control over immigration) while EU bascially lost on all fronts and is now weaker than ever. Only place where EU managed to get a concession was extending the deadline until the French fishermen have to quit fishing in British waters. The EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier was of course a Frenchman, so good old eurocronyism at work once again.
They only got 20% of what they wanted on free trade, there is nothing on services which make up most of the UK economy. Goods is only 20% and we are a net importer.
I don't understand the issues about state aid, we were already at the bottom of the league table interns of doling out aid to business. We had plenty of room to expand that already if we wanted.
Right now the most likely outcome of the whole thing is the break up of the United Kingdom. The whole thing was a mess from beginning to end (not that it has ended yet).
Scotland, and NI. Which are 2/3 of the constituent "kingdoms" that were united to form the "United Kingdom".
Of course, it might not happen, but odds are rather better, in both cases, than they were pre Brexit.
Ninja Edit: This isn't to try and minimise the importance of Wales, just a recognition that at the time of the creation of the UK, the famous Encyclopaedia Britannica entry (For Wales, see England) wouldn't have been controversial in most of the UK. But even in Wales, Plaid have done very well, and become much more radical, as a result of Brexit.
I'm not sure, but given it came off the back of a war of independence (and became a civil war) it seems relative. I think the UK is in the better negotiation position, so I doubt there would be many concessions.
I think the biggest question mark is whether Westminster will allow an independence referendum. I don't think they will no matter what the results in the coming election are. However if they do, recall that questions over whether we'd be admitted to the EU was one of the big issues that tipped the balance in favour of "No" - the fact that this is now a non-issue could be pretty huge coupled with the fact that many feel deceived over the issue.
I honestly think I will see a united Ireland and an independent Scotland within my lifetime.
Even if that was true, remember that UK had for years been the main cause of fights within EU.
The British approach to making a deal was "this is a disaster, we should have be given at least twice that". After 30 years of that, a divorce was for the best solution for both sides.
Well they got what Boris/Tory wanted. "Freeish" trade (more like facilitated trade, not free and outside the customs union - which, to be fair, is markedly better than No Deal)
- The City of London risks losing clearance/passporting rights
- The Ireland/Northern Ireland issues are on fire again
- Yes they got control of "immigration" (that they always had) and to the shock of some UK retirees in Spain that is reciprocal
- Anyone that exports/imports from the EU (especially more regulated stuff like food, etc) is having to work around the bureaucracy (which shouldn't have surprised anyone that knows a bit about how exports/imports work) https://www.politico.eu/article/a-brexit-lesson-eus-benefits...
- I've been seeing more job offers from the UK listed as remote (hah so you mean no more EU developers in place without visas? Good luck then)
That may all be true, but the EU has not been beneficial for the middle and working classes. It exists to drive down wages, import cheap labor, facilitate business transactions and drive up the stock market.
So I guess the voters thought it couldn't get any worse. Perhaps people will be able to afford a house again in 20 years.
Firstly they didn't get free trade - there are tariffs, rules of origin, and a lack of equivalence for SPS & product safety rules. The last one is especially egregious currently, because the UK still has exactly the same agricultural rules it did when it was a member.
Secondly, there is now a customs border in the UK. That's a fairly gigantic offensive ask for the E.U., which they largely succeeded in.
Thirdly, the UK got significantly less freedom on state aid than it wanted (which is of course, not surprising, given that the freedom they wanted was "We do whatever we want").
They got control over immigration. Of course, as a consequence of this, so did we, and if you read the UK press, they're currently finding out that that's a thing that cuts both ways (and they're not massively happy about this).
How badly the UK did in the negotiations can be seen in the concessions won by the EU with the NI protocol. The actual trade deal covers goods where the UK has a large trade deficit and does not cover services at all.
Also the EU is starting to impose tariffs and checks on goods coming out of the UK, while the UK won't do the same for some time as their border control systems aren't ready and they're missing some 40 000 customs agents. So even as exporters are feeling the pain, the actual mangling of supply chains for british importers is still to come.
While the best case scenario for the EU would've been the UK staying in the customs union, with that option closed this is as good as it gets. There are no winners in Brexit, only relative losers.
What NI concessions are those? AFAICT Britain conceded nothing that it wasn't already required to do by the Good Friday agreement.
BTW, I don't agree about those checks. Skipping those would not be doable for the EU. Dozens of countries have MFN treaties with the EU. If the EU were to offer Britain anything that those countries aren't offered (such as not checking imports/exports) then all of those trade treaties would need to be renegotiated, because those countries would no longer be most favoured.
IIRC some sixty countries' parliaments would have to vote on the resulting treaty changes. That's too much to be doable.
The Northern Ireland situation was simply resolved the only way it could be. If there was some better outcome for the UK that would have not spoiled the entire integrity of the EU, I am sure it would have been allowed. But no matter how good Johnson's team was in extracting concessions from the EU, even they can not move mountains nor islands, or otherwise change hard geographical realities.
As a EU citizen I think UK lost on all fronts - food industry, financial sector, manufacturing, trade, foreign policy, and others. The losses in some of those fields are already visible, in others not yet.
Britain had an outsized influence in the EU, so in fact the strategy was to extract EU-internal horsetrading on the 'negotiating mandate' strong demands for their own position which then became the EU position backed by the EU's entire weight.
Also the last time UK had to negotiate on their own it's economy was still bigger than China's. The world has changed and Brexiteers hadn't noticed that their lack of influence was not the EU's fault but rather a general shift of power to Asia.
Something which large parts of the British public and reportedly even of the politicians didn't really realize or appreciate, because Brussels was always a derided side-show, to a higher degree than for most other countries.
More precisely the British were allowed to take point on a number of laissez-faire positions when it was politically or diplomatically awkward for others like the Dutch or Germans to do so. Playing bad cop, essentially.
I'm getting sick of people talking on behalf of brexiters, or what they know/think/believe - this colonial reference is just another "little Englander" smear.
The other half was that if anything proved controversial at home, blame the EU for it. This method of getting controversial regulations through was known as "policy laundering".
With Farage, the phrase "empty vessels make the most noise" comes to mind.
Apparently he was a loud mouthed joker at school too, who just wanted to say something that would grab people's attention. I'm somewhat thankful for him highlighting the racist, xenophobic streak in certain parts of the UK - it just happened to be the topic that got him the most attention.
Honestly, if he thought supporting immigrants would get him the most controversy/support/attention, he'd be doing that in a hurry.
I agree. He was a symptomatic of the underlying problems rather than being the problem himself.
Nonetheless, despite him being skewered by the UK Tory party successfully cosplaying as UKIP, he's a sure sign that a competent populist fascist could command a dangerous level of support - especially among military personnel.
I imagine you're now filled with self satisfaction after using some German word I had to google. Yes; you are certainly smarter than Brexit voters, where shall I send your golden star?
Seeing the Tories confidently declare they will negotiate a series of treaties that will be in the UK's favour, only to be shoved around by anyone and everyone and generally being made to look like incompetent oafs is a pretty textbook example of schadenfreude no?
They were the party most loudly in support of Brexit, voting for it in the largest numbers, and they were also the ones who made it happen. If that doesn't make them "natural Brexiters" then the phrase "natural Brexiters" is meaningless. They are the Brexiters, more than anyone else.
Pedantry: what you describe is just "comeuppance". To be schadenfreude, you have to be taking joy in it.
You can have schadenfreude without comeuppance, though that can verge into just plain sadism or gloating. Schadenfreude usually has a connotation that the misfortune is deserved.
So yes, Remain voters (and those who sympathize with them) may definitely be experiencing some schadenfreude watching the Tories hoist by their own petard.
Yeah it wasn’t explicitly stated but I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume the person who used the term in this thread is enjoying it slightly, given the statement that followed it
> Should people only vote out of short-term self interest, and to be sneered at if they don't?
All people who voted in their long-term interest voted remain. There is no realistic scenario where a Brexit is better long-term for anyone.
Whether the others deluded themselves into thinking that Brexit is better in the long-term or voted out of their own short-term self interest doesn't matter very much.
That's just your opinion. I'll "delude" myself into thinking sovereignty, and resistance to continental divide-and-conqueror is better long-term (see how trade deals are usually weaponised: [0]; then tell me the same "political power coerced by economic lock-in" isn't at play) is better than short term economic benefits.
The "everyone will be worse off out of the EU" argument sounds a lot like the flip-side of trickle-down economics; Some may be worse off, but more equal given the spoils of remain are certainly not equally distributed.
Quite. How Brexit became the promised land of milk, honey and fishing rights is really something that I don't understand: it's quite clearly a Mayor Quimby-style scapegoat for lots of other things wrong with British society. My greatest regret is that none of the two major political parties are brave enough to say 'come on – this is a shit show guys'.
when I stumbled upon a vast fraud involving the highest reaches of political power I was imprisoned for a order the final judge declared "this order does not exist. in fact this order never existed " neither did the very power exist to arrest me. I was mocked in court by a senior judge for merely seeking to point out that very lack of power. I won't go on but I will happily substantiate the facts that are material. the heart of the UK has been usurped and subordinated. the man who threatened me over this was the first port of call for the Japanese Prime Minister who went straight to this man ignoring Tony Blair and anyone else on I think it was the first such state visit since the war and the papers erupted the following day explaining how Japanese protocol always paid respect to the back room power as priority, before falling deathly silent.
from the beginning I was convinced that Cameron was playing to lose, however it now is conceivable that our then Prime Minister was merely gullible enough to be manipulated into failing to present his case, by using the oldest trick for conning Old Estonian schoolboys: telling them that they are perfectly correct and everything is just how it ought to be with the world with them in charge nothing can go wrong. Seriously I have some experience with bailing out of financial doom a Old Etonian's online business no less than three times in as many years. And I went to the school which Pitt the Younger declared "there shall be no peace in this country until that place is no more ". The death blow was dealt when the working capital was squandered on crack and prostitutes and alcohol. In itself that wasn't unpleasant but you have to imagine the atmosphere of ugliness created by a impetulant man child discovering impotence upon finding so many incredibly rare edge cases when the application of social privilege failed to magically resuscitate his fortunes. Apparently all my fault for not doing the job I wasn't even hired to do longer than the original times I never got paid for. People wouldn't believe me if I told stories. People usually don't. I grew up surrounded by some incredibly privileged kids none of whom were a millionth part of a millionth of this man's odorous malificence.
Well, the British used to be great negotiators... when their naval muscle was unmatched, so the other party was basically negotiating under constant threat for their lives. After the rest of the world caught up, their record is indeed more checkered.
> If anything characterizes the country, it's the fact that they've been great seafarers and traders...
> I'd agree however that exalting this past or viewing it with rose-tinted glasses is wrong, but saying that they are historically bad negotiators? How?
Gunboat diplomacy isn't what one would call good negotiation
It’s really silly to see how there fishing industry was used in the Brexit ordeal. This is bad of course, and it’s exactly what they were told would happen, but it’s also just 32 million pounds. Compare that to the 300 billion worth of exports and wonder why fishing was ever a part of the debate at all.
I mean, I know why it was. It’s a nice mom-and-pop-family is suffering from the evil EU sort of image, but man it’s just wild how manipulative the anti-EU campaigns were and how successful it turned out to be for them.
The fishers are of course a magical sort of people. I mean, how could you not realise that leaving the EU would be stupid when you’re catching all your fish in Norwegian waters? Or when your entire export goes to Southern Europe because your own population mostly eats salmon and cod?
Also begs to question who the hell benefitted from all this.
Who benefits from this are UK banks and ultra wealthy that don’t want to follow incoming EU regulations on money laundering and tax avoidance that were a reaction the The Panama Papers leak.
UK fishing rights are owned by a handful of people anyway. I never understood where people came to think that these rights mattered on the bigger scale of things.
Half of UK fishing rights are owned by foreign companies, because English and Welsh fishing is run by companies with short-term outlook, and in the 90s cod quotas were all but eliminated due to overfishing, to allow stocks to recover. Scottish and Northern Irish fishing is family-owned and they did not sell away their quotas:
> This is bad of course, and it’s exactly what they were told would happen, but it’s also just 32 million pounds. Compare that to the 300 billion worth of exports and wonder why fishing was ever a part of the debate at all.
Part of these 300bn are made of small $30m industries. Some exports are valuable to other countries (can't produce themselves) and thus wouldn't require negotiations. Some exports or deals can affect a large number of people who can't change jobs easily and now become a liability. You don't want to have a bunch of angry fishermen.
EU-UK negotiations didn't revolve around the fisheries only, that's part of why it took them long time and still haven't resolved all of the issues. It'd be good if someone pull up all negotiations and all industries that are going to be affected and make a interactive site/report out of it.
I have always had a hard time understanding the British fishing industry's position on Brexit.
It seems to be summed up as such: (1) Industry decline is due to foreign fishing boats in British water (2) solution is thus to get rid of foreign fishing boats in British waters.
I don't know if (1) is a correct premise but in any case it ignores important points: First, British fishing boats also fish in foreign waters. Tit-for-tat suggests these countries will retaliate if you ban their fishing boats in your waters (can't have your cake and eating it, too).
Second, most fish caught in British waters are exported (and in majority to the EU) and most fish consumed in the UK are imported. So, again, it would seem in their interest to be able to continue export to the EU as painlessly as possible.
My take is that emotions and symbolism of sovereignty over national waters in an island nation that used to "rule the waves" have clouded judgements to the point where people do not think rationally anymore.
I don't know either but to my understanding, the fishing industry has declined in many countries, based on the number of people employed.
1. Many things get automated.
2. Pricing. Labor may be too expensive in some countries.
Maybe many other industries had the same fate (textiles, shoes) but these industries were located in cities, where other opportunities materialized. On the coast, no other opportunities materialized.
It's worse still - without access to the EU markets, the UK fishing industry is dead in the water. The UK specifically lobbied for EU regulations that would necessitate seafood sold in the EU to be held in water that's sourced in the EU during transportation, or something to that effect. This meant that there was less competition from outside the EU for the UK fishing industry. Low and behold, now that the UK has brexited, the same regulations have come back to bite.
What I have always found odd, and a bit sad, living in the UK is that people do not really eat fish/seafood beyond fishfingers for children and the occasional fish and chips for adults.
Even just comparing the seafood stalls in supermarkets in England vs. France or Spain is striking.
I have noticed the same for most food stuff and I feel that the UK has a big potential that goes unexploited because people simply do not care much about their food.
For a maritime island nation the British are surprisingly unadventurous about seafood. Most British fish and seafood is exported to the EU, specially France, and most British seafood consumption is a limited variety of fish species, mostly cod, pollock, salmon, and mostly imported.
I'm French-American, not British, even if I live in London, so no offense taken...
The odd thing is that they used to be much more adventurous in the past. Samuel Pepys was exceedingly fond of oysters, which means there was a ready supply in Charles I's time, and nowadays they are mostly exported to the EU, as are scallops and lobster. The standard of British food has improved markedly since the 90s, with the rediscovery of classic English fare by a new generation of chefs, if they can rediscover samphires, you'd think they could also rediscover shellfish.
Fishermen, like people who thought that they would have 350mm more per week for the NHS, were useful idiots and served theirs purpose. It was clear what the remainers voted for, but the pro Brexit voters were a very heterogeneous bunch. So it was always clear that the majority will be disappointed in the end.
The other one were declining oil revenues in my opinion. It is intriguing, how the oil production (and decline) correlates with the rise of the UK as the "sick man of Europe".
From what I can see the government could have literally given every fisherman in the UK a lifetime salary, told them to stop fishing altogether, and it would still be cheaper than the amount of money spent/lost on this whole endevour. And yes, the whole idea that 300 billion worth of trade was hinging on what is ultimately a completely insignificant industry in the UK is just crazy. And I mean it with the deepest respect for the fishermen, their jobs are crazy hard. But government could have helped them in some other way.
The aim of every populist is to further the cause of the wealthy while appealing to the common folk. It's funny how 'the man' can point to someone else and say that is 'the man' that's keeping you down. It's like those Americans who think taxes for corporations and the rich are bad because they'll surely be the ones benefiting once they make it!
Britain has a long history of protectionism while trading with countries advocating free trade. And with so many examples of erecting tariffs hurting the importing country, it's amazing to keep seeing ideas like Brexit have legs
Next to coal mining, the fishing industry is about as working class as it gets. Claiming to punch up for the fishermen plays well, especially when you're a load of Etonian toffs. Despite scandal after scandal, the party is polling well.
Its worth noting that the UK fishing industry is dominated by a handful of mega-trawlers that are under largely international ownership, and therefore its not clear that the UK _should_ be using its diplomatic power to seek concessions on behalf of these interests.
Tangent on the stock photo in the article: Some of the cod fish on that conveyor in the first photo look very young, maybe young enough to never have spawned once. Look at the one being held, a hand can almost grip around the entire fish at the mid of its body.
I grew up on the east coast of the uk. When I was a kid in the 70’s my brother and I would catch huge cod right off the beach with beachcaster rods. Now he tells me there are no big fish left, only small ones, and few of those come in. He doesn’t bother fishing anymore. IMO the time for taking fish is done - we need to leave the ocean alone and let it heal. Also, we clearly have a population boom based on over exploitation of natural resources. Fish - depleted, topsoil - in bad shape, bees - in bad shape. Typical natural world bubble of a species that ate all of the available prey.
>£160m worth of England's fishing quota is in the hands of vessels owned by companies based in Iceland, Spain and the Netherlands, according to BBC research.
>That amounts to 130,000 tonnes of fish a year and 55% of the quota's annual value in 2019.
This shows how trivial the fishing industry is in the UK if you compare it to the $2.638 trillion 2020 GDP. It's truly amazing how one of the least important issues of Brexit came to be one of the most spoken of.
My guess is that economics and international politics are just too complex and abstract for just about anyone to understand. So if you take something more tangible like someone literally fishing in your waters it speaks to the imagination more than things like free flow of goods and persons.
Hmm, this article doesn't really spell out the balance. So, why is it a disgrace? because brits like Arctic fish? Also, "UK fleets landed fish worth £32m in Norwegian waters" - how much (£m) in fish where landed in UK waters by foreign boats as part of the quota trade?
The quote about how terrible this is comes from "UK Fisheries chief executive Jane Sandell", but later is reveals Sandell owns a business that "catches around 10% of all the fish sold in the UK's chip shops" which I assume to be those arctic fish - another [1]article reveals:
One trawler, which catches 10% of fish sold in chip shops, will be tied up for a year following the collapse in talks.
That trawler appears to be owned by Sandells company:
her firm having only 40% of the fishing opportunities of previous years
Unless the entire British fishing industry fishes exclusively outside British waters, it seems a pretty big bias to proclaim the opinion of someone with such a massive stake in access to Norwegian fish.
And here's another [2]article revealing a little of the British water side:
£160m worth of England's fishing quota is in the hands of vessels owned by companies based in Iceland, Spain and the Netherlands
Well, maybe we should freely trade our respective fishes, rather than have UK based trawlers travel all the way to the Arctic? There might even be a reduced emissions benefit somewhere in there.
I was unsatisfied to the answer about why cod fishing isn't done locally, so here's an interesting [3]article:
In 2019, 70% of the UK’s seafood was exported to Europe and Asia with an end value of over $2bn. .. over 90% of the cod consumed by the UK’s domestic market is imported
cod from Iceland, the largest importer into the UK, is 38% more expensive than cod exported from the UK.
the UK is exporting an unsustainable cod catch because British waters have been overfished for decades
So, why not fix this by matching tariff on imported cod with tariffs on exported seafood (if necessary), and then learn to either fish sustainably, or learn how to trade with Norway and live with the price of (good) fish.
What I do find strange, is how Britain apparently lacks the fishing industry capable of fishing their own waters, but cod is overfished in them, very selective. But again, why isn't this fixed in trade rather than quotas?
The UK thinks its fishing industry is important but Norway knows its fishing industry is important.
This is not a surprise. The influence of the industry is not to be underestimated in either country but in the UK it's a small industry with a lot of emotional baggage, especially for those supporting Brexit as it's linked to the idea of territory, even though much fishing is outside of UK waters. In Norway it's a major industry, they're one of the biggest exporters in the world and it forms a large part of the country's income. There was no way that Norwegian politicians were ever going to do anything that upset the industry. Brexit was a big win for Norwegian fisheries in a zero sum game.
As much emotional baggage fishing has for the UK, I believe there are much deeper cultural roots in Norway tied to fishing. I always remember a Norwegian ad, the 200 kr banknote displays a picture of a cod and Norges Bank made a really funny music video for its introduction [0].
The cultural roots in a much smaller population than the UK makes fishing not only a major industry but a big part of Norway's history and culture, I'm very sure the UK being an island has the same long history on fishing, I just don't feel it's so deeply rooted into the British national identity as it is in Norway.
Yes, indeed. Having lived in both countries, the fishing & farming industries are much more protected & respected in Norway than the UK. To me it seems that part of Norwegians' story about themselves is that not so long ago they were a country of farmers & fishermen, then they found oil. They're reveling in the oil wealth but still protect the farmers & fishermen.
This does not even seem to have reached the Norwegian media. Although an article fromladt year mention Norwegian vessel fishing 20% of their catch in Uk water
The Norwegian fishing industry has commented a bit on the failed talks.
It seems the UK negotiators wanted to modify the long running agreement on joint zone access.
Some quotes:
"Unfriendly action from the British"
"Norway's entry into the negotiations has been the maintenance of the traditional and historical fishing patterns Norwegian fishermen have had in British waters.
- The British have responded with a number of demands and conditions that are not in line with this, and which it was impossible for Norway to accept. "
"- The lack of concessions on zone access came as a bit of a surprise to us"
The cynic in me might almost believe that the current UK government would prefer to fail to get a deal in loud public spectacle with a foreign government that gets them lots of newspaper coverage over quietly coming to a deal that is good for its citizens. But surely no politician would ever be that cynical.
I think Boris wins either way. If the Norwegians make concessions, great it’s something to brag about. If they don’t, well it’s just another EU-ish country stabbing the UK in the back.
At least the cod get a break from the UK. We've been hearing about this lovely idea by the british to go it alone since 2016?
Countries should be thinking less about any potential with the UK and more about how to block any dependencies on new trade with them to be able to step out of this time sink of a drama.
Wait until the level below the ultra-elites find out EU countries aren't "quite lovely" anymore for their usual shenanigans.
Some even will very shaken when they learn this isn't India and the 19th century was more than a century ago. :)
On a more serious note, except for some specific ones, UK's problems are problems shared by most western societies, but handled in a comically tragic way. Also the government approved money laundering at cosmic proportions that has been going on for decades now is another big factor for the "inexplicably" low standard of life many people have compared to what they think they would have. Not only those deals with the many devils have a cost but also an opportunity cost in time wasted not doing any meaningful reforms deluding the population into keep doing the rat race and when they get nothing, blame the EU.
Hunting wild animals for food, especially at the incredible industrial scale that we currently do, is not sustainable, and should be banned in any case.
100 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 203 ms ] threadI want to digress, though. For several decades, Britain's approach to negotiations was to let the EU do it, and sometimes get an excetption that the Germans pay for. That's been a lot simpler than "real" negotiations between states, and it sounds as if they're really out of practice.
As was also visible last week, when an Australian minister was to be put "on an uncomfortable chair" and made to sign a deal. Of course the Australian arrived with a ready offer and willing to sign at once, and of course the British signed what the Australian wanted.
Experienced negotiators do not signal being in a hurry.
I don't understand the issues about state aid, we were already at the bottom of the league table interns of doling out aid to business. We had plenty of room to expand that already if we wanted.
Right now the most likely outcome of the whole thing is the break up of the United Kingdom. The whole thing was a mess from beginning to end (not that it has ended yet).
Wholly? Or just Scotland?
I can't see anyone else leaving, and I'm not sure the scots will either.
Of course, it might not happen, but odds are rather better, in both cases, than they were pre Brexit.
Ninja Edit: This isn't to try and minimise the importance of Wales, just a recognition that at the time of the creation of the UK, the famous Encyclopaedia Britannica entry (For Wales, see England) wouldn't have been controversial in most of the UK. But even in Wales, Plaid have done very well, and become much more radical, as a result of Brexit.
In any case, they'd have to adopt a hefty bill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_fiscal_defici...
I honestly think I will see a united Ireland and an independent Scotland within my lifetime.
The British approach to making a deal was "this is a disaster, we should have be given at least twice that". After 30 years of that, a divorce was for the best solution for both sides.
So whatever the cost, it was worth it.
- The City of London risks losing clearance/passporting rights
- The Ireland/Northern Ireland issues are on fire again
- Yes they got control of "immigration" (that they always had) and to the shock of some UK retirees in Spain that is reciprocal
- Anyone that exports/imports from the EU (especially more regulated stuff like food, etc) is having to work around the bureaucracy (which shouldn't have surprised anyone that knows a bit about how exports/imports work) https://www.politico.eu/article/a-brexit-lesson-eus-benefits...
- I've been seeing more job offers from the UK listed as remote (hah so you mean no more EU developers in place without visas? Good luck then)
So I guess the voters thought it couldn't get any worse. Perhaps people will be able to afford a house again in 20 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-53275733
Firstly they didn't get free trade - there are tariffs, rules of origin, and a lack of equivalence for SPS & product safety rules. The last one is especially egregious currently, because the UK still has exactly the same agricultural rules it did when it was a member.
Secondly, there is now a customs border in the UK. That's a fairly gigantic offensive ask for the E.U., which they largely succeeded in.
Thirdly, the UK got significantly less freedom on state aid than it wanted (which is of course, not surprising, given that the freedom they wanted was "We do whatever we want").
They got control over immigration. Of course, as a consequence of this, so did we, and if you read the UK press, they're currently finding out that that's a thing that cuts both ways (and they're not massively happy about this).
How badly the UK did in the negotiations can be seen in the concessions won by the EU with the NI protocol. The actual trade deal covers goods where the UK has a large trade deficit and does not cover services at all.
Also the EU is starting to impose tariffs and checks on goods coming out of the UK, while the UK won't do the same for some time as their border control systems aren't ready and they're missing some 40 000 customs agents. So even as exporters are feeling the pain, the actual mangling of supply chains for british importers is still to come.
While the best case scenario for the EU would've been the UK staying in the customs union, with that option closed this is as good as it gets. There are no winners in Brexit, only relative losers.
BTW, I don't agree about those checks. Skipping those would not be doable for the EU. Dozens of countries have MFN treaties with the EU. If the EU were to offer Britain anything that those countries aren't offered (such as not checking imports/exports) then all of those trade treaties would need to be renegotiated, because those countries would no longer be most favoured.
IIRC some sixty countries' parliaments would have to vote on the resulting treaty changes. That's too much to be doable.
Also the last time UK had to negotiate on their own it's economy was still bigger than China's. The world has changed and Brexiteers hadn't noticed that their lack of influence was not the EU's fault but rather a general shift of power to Asia.
Something which large parts of the British public and reportedly even of the politicians didn't really realize or appreciate, because Brussels was always a derided side-show, to a higher degree than for most other countries.
I'm getting sick of people talking on behalf of brexiters, or what they know/think/believe - this colonial reference is just another "little Englander" smear.
Which again, is worse. Or do you have insight into what could be "motivating" enough to negate the aforementioned downside?
We got a taste of what's inside that Pandora's box with Farage.
Apparently he was a loud mouthed joker at school too, who just wanted to say something that would grab people's attention. I'm somewhat thankful for him highlighting the racist, xenophobic streak in certain parts of the UK - it just happened to be the topic that got him the most attention.
Honestly, if he thought supporting immigrants would get him the most controversy/support/attention, he'd be doing that in a hurry.
Nonetheless, despite him being skewered by the UK Tory party successfully cosplaying as UKIP, he's a sure sign that a competent populist fascist could command a dangerous level of support - especially among military personnel.
This doesn't bode well for British democracy.
[0] = https://xkcd.com/1053/
Also, why is this Schadenfreude? Should people only vote out of short-term self interest, and to be sneered at if they don't?
Not the brexit party? Arguing which of the established parties was "most supportive" is like arguing who is the tallest hobbit.
> they were also the ones who made it happen
barely. It was the electorate that made it happen.
> They are the Brexiters, more than anyone else
That "anyone else" are the people that voted for it.
Don't worry... Australia came to its rescue last week, ready for us to be shoved around by the mother country in "uncomfortable chairs".
You can have schadenfreude without comeuppance, though that can verge into just plain sadism or gloating. Schadenfreude usually has a connotation that the misfortune is deserved.
So yes, Remain voters (and those who sympathize with them) may definitely be experiencing some schadenfreude watching the Tories hoist by their own petard.
All people who voted in their long-term interest voted remain. There is no realistic scenario where a Brexit is better long-term for anyone.
Whether the others deluded themselves into thinking that Brexit is better in the long-term or voted out of their own short-term self interest doesn't matter very much.
The "everyone will be worse off out of the EU" argument sounds a lot like the flip-side of trickle-down economics; Some may be worse off, but more equal given the spoils of remain are certainly not equally distributed.
[0] https://stallman.org/business-supremacy-treaties.html
That's exactly what Lord Buckethead said.[1]
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eQ0s4SBefU
lol
Historically bad negotiatiors? Have we read different histories of Britain?
If anything characterizes the country, it's the fact that they've been great seafarers and traders...
I'd agree however that exalting this past or viewing it with rose-tinted glasses is wrong, but saying that they are historically bad negotiators? How?
> I'd agree however that exalting this past or viewing it with rose-tinted glasses is wrong, but saying that they are historically bad negotiators? How?
Gunboat diplomacy isn't what one would call good negotiation
I mean, I know why it was. It’s a nice mom-and-pop-family is suffering from the evil EU sort of image, but man it’s just wild how manipulative the anti-EU campaigns were and how successful it turned out to be for them.
The fishers are of course a magical sort of people. I mean, how could you not realise that leaving the EU would be stupid when you’re catching all your fish in Norwegian waters? Or when your entire export goes to Southern Europe because your own population mostly eats salmon and cod?
Also begs to question who the hell benefitted from all this.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/25/how-britain-let...
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk...
https://www.bbc.com/news/52420116
Part of these 300bn are made of small $30m industries. Some exports are valuable to other countries (can't produce themselves) and thus wouldn't require negotiations. Some exports or deals can affect a large number of people who can't change jobs easily and now become a liability. You don't want to have a bunch of angry fishermen.
EU-UK negotiations didn't revolve around the fisheries only, that's part of why it took them long time and still haven't resolved all of the issues. It'd be good if someone pull up all negotiations and all industries that are going to be affected and make a interactive site/report out of it.
It seems to be summed up as such: (1) Industry decline is due to foreign fishing boats in British water (2) solution is thus to get rid of foreign fishing boats in British waters.
I don't know if (1) is a correct premise but in any case it ignores important points: First, British fishing boats also fish in foreign waters. Tit-for-tat suggests these countries will retaliate if you ban their fishing boats in your waters (can't have your cake and eating it, too). Second, most fish caught in British waters are exported (and in majority to the EU) and most fish consumed in the UK are imported. So, again, it would seem in their interest to be able to continue export to the EU as painlessly as possible.
My take is that emotions and symbolism of sovereignty over national waters in an island nation that used to "rule the waves" have clouded judgements to the point where people do not think rationally anymore.
1. Many things get automated.
2. Pricing. Labor may be too expensive in some countries.
Maybe many other industries had the same fate (textiles, shoes) but these industries were located in cities, where other opportunities materialized. On the coast, no other opportunities materialized.
Even just comparing the seafood stalls in supermarkets in England vs. France or Spain is striking.
I have noticed the same for most food stuff and I feel that the UK has a big potential that goes unexploited because people simply do not care much about their food.
The odd thing is that they used to be much more adventurous in the past. Samuel Pepys was exceedingly fond of oysters, which means there was a ready supply in Charles I's time, and nowadays they are mostly exported to the EU, as are scallops and lobster. The standard of British food has improved markedly since the 90s, with the rediscovery of classic English fare by a new generation of chefs, if they can rediscover samphires, you'd think they could also rediscover shellfish.
One of the real reasons of Brexit: https://alastaircampbell.org/2018/08/the-book-that-helps-you...
The other one were declining oil revenues in my opinion. It is intriguing, how the oil production (and decline) correlates with the rise of the UK as the "sick man of Europe".
> who the hell benefitted from all this
The fish.
See also "Brexit trade deal: Who really owns UK fishing quotas?" -> https://www.bbc.com/news/52420116
>That amounts to 130,000 tonnes of fish a year and 55% of the quota's annual value in 2019.
This shows how trivial the fishing industry is in the UK if you compare it to the $2.638 trillion 2020 GDP. It's truly amazing how one of the least important issues of Brexit came to be one of the most spoken of.
My guess is that economics and international politics are just too complex and abstract for just about anyone to understand. So if you take something more tangible like someone literally fishing in your waters it speaks to the imagination more than things like free flow of goods and persons.
The quote about how terrible this is comes from "UK Fisheries chief executive Jane Sandell", but later is reveals Sandell owns a business that "catches around 10% of all the fish sold in the UK's chip shops" which I assume to be those arctic fish - another [1]article reveals:
That trawler appears to be owned by Sandells company: Unless the entire British fishing industry fishes exclusively outside British waters, it seems a pretty big bias to proclaim the opinion of someone with such a massive stake in access to Norwegian fish.And here's another [2]article revealing a little of the British water side:
Well, maybe we should freely trade our respective fishes, rather than have UK based trawlers travel all the way to the Arctic? There might even be a reduced emissions benefit somewhere in there.Edit:
Here's a site some more answers:
https://ukfisheries.net/about-distant-fishing/qsas
I was unsatisfied to the answer about why cod fishing isn't done locally, so here's an interesting [3]article:
So, why not fix this by matching tariff on imported cod with tariffs on exported seafood (if necessary), and then learn to either fish sustainably, or learn how to trade with Norway and live with the price of (good) fish.What I do find strange, is how Britain apparently lacks the fishing industry capable of fishing their own waters, but cod is overfished in them, very selective. But again, why isn't this fixed in trade rather than quotas?
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56940914
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/52420116
[3] https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2020/11/16/Fishy-busin...
This is not a surprise. The influence of the industry is not to be underestimated in either country but in the UK it's a small industry with a lot of emotional baggage, especially for those supporting Brexit as it's linked to the idea of territory, even though much fishing is outside of UK waters. In Norway it's a major industry, they're one of the biggest exporters in the world and it forms a large part of the country's income. There was no way that Norwegian politicians were ever going to do anything that upset the industry. Brexit was a big win for Norwegian fisheries in a zero sum game.
The cultural roots in a much smaller population than the UK makes fishing not only a major industry but a big part of Norway's history and culture, I'm very sure the UK being an island has the same long history on fishing, I just don't feel it's so deeply rooted into the British national identity as it is in Norway.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2CKHH_KKGE
Some quotes: "Unfriendly action from the British"
"Norway's entry into the negotiations has been the maintenance of the traditional and historical fishing patterns Norwegian fishermen have had in British waters.
- The British have responded with a number of demands and conditions that are not in line with this, and which it was impossible for Norway to accept. "
"- The lack of concessions on zone access came as a bit of a surprise to us"
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
Countries should be thinking less about any potential with the UK and more about how to block any dependencies on new trade with them to be able to step out of this time sink of a drama.
Some even will very shaken when they learn this isn't India and the 19th century was more than a century ago. :)
On a more serious note, except for some specific ones, UK's problems are problems shared by most western societies, but handled in a comically tragic way. Also the government approved money laundering at cosmic proportions that has been going on for decades now is another big factor for the "inexplicably" low standard of life many people have compared to what they think they would have. Not only those deals with the many devils have a cost but also an opportunity cost in time wasted not doing any meaningful reforms deluding the population into keep doing the rat race and when they get nothing, blame the EU.