b) the UK govt divied up the quotas & OUR fishermen sold them. Those contracts will still apply post-#Brexit.
/cont.
Why will those contracts still apply? The #RuleOfLaw is a cornerstone of our constitution. Contract law is local, UK law. Without it nobody who trades or transacts business of any kind could have confidence in engaging in any form of commerce in the UK.
/cont.
Furthermore UK will still have to operate fishing quotas to protect the sea from overfishing and the fish from extinction - something our govt has kept v. QUIET about!
/cont.
As to "our waters", we'll still be subject to international law on that - the EU is not the only source of that by a long shot.
The UN oversees the Law of the Sea (rights & duties of States in maritime environments: navigational &mineral rights/ coastal waters)
/cont.
Claims of a 200-mile zone around UK as "our waters" are fanciful.
If you go 200 miles East of Dover, you'll find yourself in the middle of North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). What are we intending to do? Fish in people's duck ponds?
Obviously not.
/cont.
Also, having more extensive waters is not helpful to the vast majority of fishermen who run small, environmentally friendly boats, as the majority don't have a 50-mile range, let alone a 200-mile range.
/cont.
What is important to fishers —and it's something that Leavers almost NEVER mention— is where they sell their fish: their market. 75-80% of the UK's catch is sold to the EU single market.
It's all very well fishing, but if you can't sell your catch, why bother?
/cont.
The fish that suits British tastes tends not to live in UK waters, while the fish we Brits catch (mostly shell-fish) is what mainland Europeans like to eat.
From that perspective, there was a symbiotic relationship with the EU which Brexit puts at risk.
/cont.
That's why during the #EUref the Fishing Association was neutral - while #Brexit benefits the 5 families who dominate UK fishing, it's catastrophic for small-scale fishers. Here, for ex., is a write-up of the challenges faced by fishers in Dorset:
prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/brexi…
I've never understood Leaver obsession with fishing, as it is only abt 0.05% of UK GDP. Meanwhile, the City is 13% and its £73bn tax contribution funds 50% of the #NHS budget, but you're willing to trash that to fix a problem w/fishing that has been misdiagnosed?
/cont.
If you're interested in learning some facts about fishing instead of the fantastic nonsense peddled by the tabloids, here are a few fun threads by other people I've assembled in one place:
/cont.
By the way, in case you're wondering about the discrepancy between 0.05% and 0.07% - the 0.07% includes other economic food-related activities that are not fishing-related. As it's so small, it's not always separated out in statistics.
/cont.
c) Sovereignty. We never lost it. We pooled some with our neighbours to tackle problems that no single nation-state can solve by itself — trade, security, the environment, etc.
It didn't diminish us in any way, but rather amplified our status on the world stage.
/cont.
The areas in which we pooled sovereignty were precisely defined in treaties.
*Pooling Sovereignty* = acting together for the common good, not as some Leavers pretend "being dictated to and enslaved".
/cont.
What #Brexit does is limit PERSONAL sovereignty (e.g. by stripping 66m Brits of the right to study, work, establish a business or retire abroad in 31 EU/EEA countries, while EU/EEA only lose it in 1) to concentrate it in the hands of the PM, risking dictatorship.
/cont.
Which brings me neatly to (d) "stop uncontrolled free movement of people reducing, strain on #NHS education and housing".
Strap in, because this myth needs unpicking.
/cont.
First off, you are confusing #FreedomOfMovement with
-legal immigration
-illegal immigration
-welcoming refugees (or not, in UK's case)
All four of these are different. Only illegal immigration is "uncontrolled".
Try crossing a UK border WITHOUT your passport.
/cont.
#FreedomOfMovement is different from all other kinds of immigration because it is a RECIPROCAL RIGHT.
Also, there are *controls* member states can apply to manage FoM.
That the UK chose not to apply those controls is down to OUR govt, not the EU.
/cont.
Here's another truth the govt has kept hidden from you: we need immigration to keep our economy going.
Steve Baker, Brexiter extraordinaire, said on the Politics Show yesterday, we have experienced "a jobs miracle" in the UK & are near record low unemployment.
/cont.
That's why launching a hostile campaign against EU27 citizens has not brought down UK immigration - it's just changed the make-up of it (from one-third EU citizens to two-thirds rest of the world, to now one-fifth EU citizens to four-fifths rest of the world).
/cont.
Now, we could talk about the quality of jobs UK is creating (zero-hours contracts not being suitable for those supporting families), and the fact that #Brexit is prompting the export of high quality jobs elsewhere, but it's untrue to say migration = lower wages.
/cont.
Also, #Brexit discourages the migrants who contribute the most to our society - not that fiscal contribution is the only way to contribute, but the idea that EU27/EEA4 citizens were coming over here, stealing our jobs AND taking our benefits is a despicable lie.
/cont.
To the 2nd half of your charge, that migration is the cause of strain on our #NHS, education and housing - that's not true either. The main causes are budget cuts, aging population and family break-down (creating more households).
/cont.
You are far more likely to be treated by an EU/EEA national in the #NHS than to find yourself queuing behind one in A&E. At least that was true. We are losing many of our valued EU/EEA highly skilled healthcare professionals due to Tory #HostileEnvironment 2.0.
/cont.
Our schools are suffering because of massive budget cuts by the Tories. Don't expect this situation to get better any time soon, as #Brexit will by design reduce economic activity, which means a lower tax take and less funds available for public services.
/cont.
And as to housing, in 2015 the Tories pledged to build 200,000 affordable housing units.
Guess how many they've built?
0!
That's right. A big fat ZERO.
/cont.
This article from Harvard University academics explains some of the common misconceptions about #Immigration.
scholar.harvard.edu/files/stantche…
/cont.
This article from Prof. Jonathan Portes of King's College London debunks the myth of immigrants depressing wages (amongst other things), which he himself found surprising.
See also the work of Nobel-prize winning economist Esther Duflo.
voxeu.org/article/econom…
/cont.
e) Being EU members did not stop us from being "self-governing". We CHOSE to pool some of our sovereignty because it's the best way to tackle cross-border issues that no single country can solve alone.
We participated fully & democratically in all law-making.
/cont.
EU laws are considered to be best practice. They are used as the *gold standard* by countries around the world, precisely because they've had the input from the best minds across 28 countries.
/cont.
Brexiters and tabloids branded them as "red-tape", but an examination of the specific laws they meant revealed they were gunning for workers' rights, environmental protections and consumer standards - all things 95% of the population wants.
/cont.
Getting rid of EU laws wld reduce the quality of YOUR life, but reap extra profits for the richest 5%.
Irony: if we want a trading partnership with EU that compensates as much as poss for #Brexit losses, then we'll have to comply w/EU rules®s, but w/o a say!
/cont.
Which brings us (finally) to (f) ability to do FTAs with the rest of the world on our terms.
The 1st problem with this one is glaringly obvious. FTAs are a negotiation between parties. Usually the bigger party dominates, but there's give & take. (EU-UK=$15.8tn)
/cont.
Trade negotiations are 100% unsentimental. No country, least of all the USA (#AmericaFirst) is going to give us a good trade deal because *but... but we're Great Britain!*
It's all about market size & access, and a market of 66m (UK) ≠ a market of 440m (EU-UK).
/cont.
At this point, people usually say, ah well, the EU may be bigger, but other smaller countries are growing faster.
Yes they are, but from a very low base.
Which would you rather: 1% of a CEO's salary or 10% of their 10 year-old's pocket money?
/cont.
This is why, if you bother to dig into parliamentary select committees, you will discover that
1. We were nowhere near close to having the much vaunted Brexiter boast *40 deals ready to go at midnight on 29Mar2019*
/cont.
2. Deals rolled over so far have not been on the exact same advantageous terms as EU obtained (see Liam Fox's admission on this to the Lords in Nov2018)
3. The UK-EU trade deal (66m vs 440m) ≠ a partnership of equals & won't be the easiest trade deal in history
/cont.
4. New FTAs with other countries won't even come close to compensating #BrexitLosses, as the govt itself admitted. The US trade deal, for ex., was only expected to add 0.2% to GDP, as 20% of our trade is already transacted with them.
/cont.
It's for these reasons the Govt wants to reduce our parliament's scrutiny of trade deals (unlike parliaments in other countries) and wants to keep the public in the dark about them.
At one point Tories proposed keeping them secret for 4yrs!
/cont.
CONCLUSION: none of the items *ThePenry* lists are benefits. #Brexit has no benefits for the public at large. Surges of nationalist-populist sentiment rarely do. It's about making the powerful more powerful & the rich richer, at the expense of the *little people*.
/END