UK govt provided “false information” to British seafood & fishing industries based on misunderstanding of how EU 3rd country rules would apply to UK exporters.
Such a situation made it “impossible for industry to adequately prepare” even had they followed govt advice.
2/
It seems that only “this week” did the ministry responsible for fishing - DEFRA - confirm to UK fishing industry that exporting live catch from UK class B waters would now “no longer be possible”.
This was a full 5 weeks after UK left EU single market on 1st January 2021.
3/
The misunderstanding appears to have risen as many in the British fishing industry believed UK govt advice instead of an official EU communication to the UK seafood industry body in December which gained less media traction.
4/
When the UK fishing industry queried EU rules - claiming a ‘ban’ had now been “permanently imposed” - the EU had to send a letter to the UK industry body explaining the existing legal position.
This information ran counter to the information previously provided by UK govt.
5/
This explains the “late reaction” of UK seafood industry - who now believe much of the industry is “no longer viable” under existing EU regulations given UK’s recently acquired 3rd country status.
That’s not just UK trade with EU no longer viable - but the industry itself.
6/
This also explains many fishermen’s initial complacency as they had been informed by their industry body acting on govt advice that “not much would change” once teething issues solved.
It’s only in last 7 days that it’s become clear to many in industry that change permanent.
7/
Normally such “misunderstandings” would be identified during parliamentary readings & select committee meetings...
...but as the deal was agreed only at Christmas and rushed through “without parliamentary scrutiny” the issue remained relatively little discussed publicly.
8/
There’s been a number of media reports that UK govt is taking this issue up with EU but unclear what effect this could have.
Seems unlikely EU will change its regulations soon.
Could EU offer something special for UK - a work-around perhaps?
Or maybe it’s just for show?
9/
Most of this thread is based on reports or facts all freely available in multiple sources over the last 5 days.
But a good place to start is to look at this report and contact/read the industry bodies mentioned.
Another reason why UK perhaps not so well prepared for this is that the fisheries minister didn’t bother to read the trade deal as she was working on her local nativity play at the time.
1. Its aimed at media - its not govt language 2. Its to prepare way to invoke art. 16 3. Gove has never publicly accepted the Good Friday Agreement 4. Ultimate aim is to feed 🇬🇧nationalism - & friction in 🇮🇪 & 🇪🇺
The letter is final comfirmation - if any still needed - that the EU is dealing with a "bad faith actor".
Up till now EU has tried to deal with the UK a bit like an applicant country in reverse. Attempting to grow a strong trade relationship that could lead to closer ties.
I know this is boring as I've been saying this for years now.
Brexit has become a proxy for patriotism. The anti-europeanism is both its point & only reward.
So don't kid yourselves they'll be a 2nd referendum anytime soon.
The way back is only thru alignment & competent govt.
2/
Dealing with remainers who consider such talk traitorous is weary but neccessary.
The faster you get to competence, the quicker you get to alignment - which is the ONLY way back.
The Rejoin campaign thus can't really be - publicly - about Rejoin for the next couple of years.
This thread has engendered some term confusion, so:
“The patriot is proud of his country for what it does, the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first creates a feeling of responsibility, the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.”
EU & US do deal to open up EU financial markets to US banks.
As UK banks have only time limited access to EU financial markets it is likely that without a deal UK clearing banks will lose out to EU & US banks putting at risk London’s role as dominant financial centre.
2/
Understand that the agreement requires US banks to adhere to EU risk management requirements - something that the UK wanted to avoid due to “sovereignty issues”.
3/
EU concerned with avoiding another financial turbulence like the 2007 global crisis and in maintaining EU banks competing advantage - so the EU-US agreement is considered a key part of this plan.
It took me years in academia to realise that many “average Universities” are often actually better than elite Unis.
Elite unis business model is, in many subjects, effectively a “CV branding” process for a specific minority of intelligent children of highly privileged top 5%.
2/
It’s why you see a far greater focus on humanities among this particular cohort at elite unis than elsewhere. It’s also why states which have this elite uni model - US & UK - rely on foreign students in sciences at elite unis than elsewhere.
3/
I can’t be the only academic to notice that at the average uni where I am the privileged students all seem to be ahead of the rest of the class in the 1st year but regress to the mean by the end.
As I understand it the actions of both West Bromwich Albion & West Ham regarding the Snodgrass *should* result in both a fine & points deduction for each team.
It is essentially colluding on team selection to the detriment of others and thus comes under match fixing regulations.
2/
Legally the only get out I can see is if Sam Alladyce claims to have got it wrong and the boards of both clubs back him up.
This will of course be views as obviously a lie but could be enough.
Problem is West Ham won which could enable other clubs to sue.
3/
Effectively a club below West Ham could argue West Ham offered a “bribe” for West Brom to field a weakened team as part of a transfer deal.
As such West Ham, at the very least, should forfeit the 3 points.
The number of Tory held marginals where the combined opposition vote vastly outweighs the Conservative one is both huge given Wales relative size - and easy fruit for an even relatively discreet electoral alliance.
3/
However the conservative vote in Wales is likely to hold up due to the higher number of English - often retired - voters compared with Scotland.
Without an electoral pact a large number of seats would essentially be won by English voters voting for an English centered party.