3 ms·

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

by moksly 5y ago

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.

dsomers 5y ago
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.
- BartekG 5y ago
  What are the benefits for UK banks? As far as I know they are moving jobs to EU. How is that a benefit for them and not a cost and complication?
  - eptcyka 5y ago
    Moving some jobs to deal with the complication is far better than losing out on dirty money.
  - miohtama 5y ago
    We can get back to the good old business without disruptions, as pro-business MPs can make the UK regulators teethless https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/25/how-britain-let-russia-hide-its-dirty-money https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/25/how-britain-let...
- pharmakom 5y ago
  Not banks. Hedge funds.
317070 5y ago
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. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/ https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk...
- fmajid 5y ago
  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: https://www.bbc.com/news/52420116 https://www.bbc.com/news/52420116
csomar 5y ago
> 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.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
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.
- newdude116 5y ago
  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.
- eptcyka 5y ago
  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.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
newdude116 5y ago
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. One of the real reasons of Brexit: https://alastaircampbell.org/2018/08/the-book-that-helps-you-better-understand-brexit-and-rees-mogg-part-2/ 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".
gambiting 5y ago
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.
FriedrichN 5y ago
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!
alfiedotwtf 5y ago
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
oliwarner 5y ago
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. > who the hell benefitted from all this The fish.

by moksly 5y ago

dsomers 5y ago

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.

BartekG 5y ago
What are the benefits for UK banks? As far as I know they are moving jobs to EU. How is that a benefit for them and not a cost and complication?
- eptcyka 5y ago
  Moving some jobs to deal with the complication is far better than losing out on dirty money.
- miohtama 5y ago
  We can get back to the good old business without disruptions, as pro-business MPs can make the UK regulators teethless https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/25/how-britain-let-russia-hide-its-dirty-money https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/25/how-britain-let...
pharmakom 5y ago
Not banks. Hedge funds.

317070 5y ago

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. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/ https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk...

fmajid 5y ago
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: https://www.bbc.com/news/52420116 https://www.bbc.com/news/52420116

csomar 5y ago

> 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.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

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.

newdude116 5y ago
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.
eptcyka 5y ago
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.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  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.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

newdude116 5y ago

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. One of the real reasons of Brexit: https://alastaircampbell.org/2018/08/the-book-that-helps-you-better-understand-brexit-and-rees-mogg-part-2/ 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".

gambiting 5y ago

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.

FriedrichN 5y ago

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!

alfiedotwtf 5y ago

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

oliwarner 5y ago

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. > who the hell benefitted from all this The fish.