Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The battle of Brexit!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    The British Government's misunderstanding of this deal they signed is not limited to Cornish shellfish; they seemingly didn't know the implications of the Norther Ireland part of the deal
    If you read carefully through the actual deal they even managed to sign up to having the ECJ decide any dispute in which Union Law or its interpretation is involved (... which factually means all disputes arising from the British side).

    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    Sounds like a load of BS to me. I used to live right by the English Channel and we bought crabs/lobsters straight from the boats when they came in.
    The depuration thing is solely about bivalve molluscs - clams, oysters, mussels and such.

    By nature of being filter feeders they accumulate about every bacteria that swims in those waters, which is why that depuration process was invented in Wales - to remove those bacteria before selling them. The exact process and standards adhered to varies a bit between countries, partially due to the waters in the fishing grounds for these being variably infested with different bacteria and such.
    Last edited by kato; 09 Feb 21,, 17:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Sounds like a load of BS to me. I used to live right by the English Channel and we bought crabs/lobsters straight from the boats when they came in.

    The British Government's misunderstanding of this deal they signed is not limited to Cornish shellfish; they seemingly didn't know the implications of the Norther Ireland part of the deal - or the Scottish fishermen who had originally supported 'Brexit' but who now cannot sell their fish to their customers in Europe and are having to be 'bailed out' by a Conservative UK Government.
    Last edited by snapper; 09 Feb 21,, 16:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    "Meanwhile, the environment secretary George Eustice admitted on Monday that the EU’s ban on the import of live British shellfish because of new Brexit rules is a “devastating blow” for the industry, which was valued at 393m in 2019.".
    The shellfish thing is a bit complicated - because it is not about shellfish for consumption, even if both sides will not say that.

    Since about ten years ago English and Welsh fishermen have been selling "undersized" shellfish (by market demand anyway) - without depuration - to companies in France who further grow them in aquaculture until they become a marketable product. Which obviously is in direct competition with French fishermen, and in recent years has led to some clashes at sea between both sides.

    This switch of business has also gone so far that by now depuration facilities for shellfish in the UK have mostly closed down and there's pretty much only a handful companies remaining - mostly for preparation for domestic consumption. Virtually all depuration for export is done by a single company (Viviers UK) which a few years ago was also convicted for exploiting immature oyster stocks.

    Depuration is a process in which shellfish live in tanks with sterilized seawater for a few weeks to get rid of the gigantic bacterial loads that they've grown in their time in infested waters. It was invented in Wales around WW1 to combat typhoid outbreaks related to shellfish, soon after became an industry standard and has been legally required for any sort of trade in shellfish worldwide since ... uh, probably before WW2. Britain's membership in the EU gave them a temporary avenue to not do it for the above specific trade as it was "not an export".

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    So I read this today on the BBC news website:

    "He [Minister Michael Gove] told MPs an urgent "reset" was needed to the Northern Ireland protocol governing checks on GB-NI trade."

    "Meanwhile, the environment secretary George Eustice admitted on Monday that the EU’s ban on the import of live British shellfish because of new Brexit rules is a “devastating blow” for the industry, which was valued at 393m in 2019."

    It's almost as if the British Government was unaware of the implications of the deal it was signing...

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Stena Line, the largest Irish Sea operator, has doubled its services on the booming Rosslare-Cherbourg route, temporarily cancelling some sailings to Britain after freight volumes fell 60% in the first half of January.
    [...]
    Now its general manager, Glenn Carr, is fending off complaints about the number trucks passing through after freight traffic increased 500% in the first half of January.
    Stabilized numbers: According to the Irish government, trade across the Irish Sea to Britain dropped by 50% in January compared to the previous year, while direct trade between Ireland and France has doubled.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    After Brexit, Ireland and France cut out the middleman - Britain

    CHERBOURG, France/DUBLIN (Reuters) - From his office overlooking Cherbourg docks, general manager Yannick Millet points to trailers destined for Ireland that belong to Amazon and FedEx, new customers and a signal of a potential big shift in post-Brexit trade.

    Confronted by red tape and delays after Britain's messy exit from the European Union, Irish traders are shipping goods directly to and from European ports, shunning the once-speedier route through Britain.

    "You see the shift in supply chains right here," he said.

    All five operators connecting Ireland to mainland Europe have increased ferry services in the past nine months, with some bringing forward planned sailings and others moving larger ships away from quieter British routes to meet new demand.

    Millet forecast Cherbourg would handle 9,000 trucks in January, equivalent to almost a quarter of what passed through the French port annually before the COVID-19 crisis.

    For decades, the land bridge offered Irish traders the swiftest, most reliable route to continental Europe. It involves a short sea crossing between Dublin and Holyhead in Wales and then a hop between Dover and Calais. Every year 150,000 lorries would use the route.

    But post-Brexit paperwork and delays in customs clearance are snarling up the process, adding hours or days to journeys and ratcheting up costs. Many companies are switching routes.

    "This is a game-changer," said Chris Smyth, commercial director at Ireland's Perennial Freight. Demand was huge for freight space to ship to Cherbourg, Dunkirk, Rotterdam and Zeebrugge, he added.

    Cherbourg's business before Brexit had been evenly split between Ireland and Britain. Now, the port would orient itself towards Ireland, Millet said.

    "I thought traffic would double but it has tripled," he said. "The question now is whether the traffic volumes we see today will hold in the months to come."

    AVOIDING THE MIDDLEMAN

    Stena Line, the largest Irish Sea operator, has doubled its services on the booming Rosslare-Cherbourg route, temporarily cancelling some sailings to Britain after freight volumes fell 60% in the first half of January.

    Irish Ferries has deployed a larger vessel out of Dublin and planned to add more weekly rotations next month, the Port of Cherbourg said. Brittany Ferries also brought forward a planned sailing linking France and Ireland.

    Danish operator DFDS said the freight ferries plying its new 23-hour crossing from Rosslare to Dunkirk six days a week were "pretty much full". Route director Aidan Coffey said capturing 30% of "land bridge" traffic would make the route viable and DFDS might soon add up to two more sailings per week.

    "We're blown away by the demand," Coffey said.

    No one knows if the shift is permanent.

    The Irish Maritime Development Office, a government shipping promotion body, said a return to pre-Brexit logistic chains would depend on the speed of customs formalities along the land bridge and that ferries linking Ireland and mainland Europe could not replicate its volumes.

    Eddie Burke, a senior official at Ireland's transport department, said the route through Britain would undoubtedly come back into play again.

    Ferry operators were taking decisions on capacity week by week, said Ole Bockmann, Stena's operations chief in Cherbourg. Reverting to land bridge routes was simple, he said. "We just take the ships off and go back to the old system."

    RENAISSANCE

    It gives ports like Cherbourg and Ireland's Rosslare a narrow window to persuade traders that the longer sea crossing between Ireland and mainland Europe is commercially viable for just-in-time logistics.

    Eighteen months ago, Rosslare on the southeastern tip of Ireland was struggling. Its traffic volumes were stagnant while rivals were enjoying a 10-year run of growth.

    Now its general manager, Glenn Carr, is fending off complaints about the number trucks passing through after freight traffic increased 500% in the first half of January.

    Carr said the old perception that direct crossings from Ireland were too long for fresh food and just-in-time supply chains was changing. Many of the companies that had switched from the land bridge would remain, he forecast.

    "I was talking to some multinationals only this week and the question they asked me was, 'Glenn, are you putting on more services?'"

    An 18-hour ferry ride away, Cherbourg port's Millet said his immediate priority was responding to shipping companies demands for better restaurants and washrooms for truckers and ironing out quayside glitches in the loading of extra vessels.

    "Brexit has for us been an opportunity to rethink our port," he said.
    __________

    I'm sure it'll be fine....

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    So in July ago the long awaited Intelligence and Security Committee report (written last year by the previous Committee before the General Election) was finally published. (The full report is here; https://www.scribd.com/document/4698...oad&from_embed). This was not before the Government had tried to plan a chosen Chairman to head the committee who would presumably have downplayed the findings of the report but the Committee 'rebelled' and elected their own Chairman, a Tory (Conservative) of a more independent type who was subsequently 'rewarded' by having the whip removed . Basically the report alleges 'willful negligence' on the UK Government's part because nobody - no single Government department or service - had been actively given an agenda to look into 'Muscovite Interference' in any occasion where it was suspected. The Government acknowledged before the Committee report was published that some Muscovite interference occurred in the election last year that re-elected Johnson with a larger majority; how they know, or who told them or on who's side the Muscovites interfered they mentioned not. Considering the Committees report that the Government 'willfully' did not go looking the whole corrupt dirt pile which many of us are aware continues to this day it is a very good question as to who told the Government about interference in the last UK election. There was a deliberate avoidance of looking into the same in the Scottish referendum and and the EU vote (which besides broke the law).

    Well now the truth is slowly coming out: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54228079 (This involves Boris Johnson's occasional tennis partner)

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...d-billionaire/

    One would have thought it would now be incumbent on this completely feckless British Government to react by tasking MI5/GCHQ and the relevant Police units to look into the whole business but I am not holding my breath. This is after all not only an incompetent shower of Ministers but one without shame for breaking the law domestic (the proroguing Parliament turned out to be illegal) or international. No wonder the current Conservative Party in the UK is so chummy with Muscovite thieves.

    By the way the whole FinCen files (of transactions between banks 2000-2017 that were noted as 'suspicious') from which these UK relevant insights come is here: https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/
    Last edited by snapper; 21 Sep 20,, 15:13.

    Leave a comment:


  • kato
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Germany's Brexit rapporteur declared that "Britain is joining the ranks of despots" like North Korea.
    Germany does not have a "Brexit rapporteur".

    The statement was made by Detlef Seif, UK rapporteur for the CDU/CSU faction within the European Union Parliamentary Commission jointly composed of members of the German Federal Parliament and German members of the European Parliament; each of the parties represented in that commission have a rapporteur for the UK (and for any other European country). The role is somewhat fluent, although Seif has been holding it for a while now.

    Seif opposes continuing any sorts of Brexit treaty negotiation with the UK due to their intention to break international law.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Brexit threatens to become a constitutional crisis

    The Brexit omnishambles threatens to become a full-blown constitutional crisis, now that Boris Johnson's government has declared its intention to violate international law by breaking the very withdrawal treaty that Johnson negotiated, signed, declared a triumph, and ran on as the basis of his party's reelection.

    For the record: Five former prime ministers have come out against Johnson's Internal Market Bill, which has already caused a slew of resignations from the government. The bill would allow the U.K. to unilaterally override the EU in a manner that explicitly violates Britain's treaty obligations.
    • European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen quoted another former PM, Margaret Thatcher, saying that "Britain does not break treaties"; Germany's Brexit rapporteur declared that "Britain is joining the ranks of despots" like North Korea.
    • American politicians of both parties, including Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, have said that if the bill is passed there is no chance of Britain signing a free trade deal with the U.S.
    Context: The current crisis is an entirely foreseeable (and foreseen) consequence of the fact that Brexit is fundamentally impossible.
    • Peace on the island of Ireland requires that there be no hard border between the Republic of Ireland, which is part of the EU, and Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K.
    • National unity means that there can be no customs or border controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K.
    • The border between the U.K. and the EU has to go somewhere, however.
    What's next: Johnson claims that his bill fulfills a manifesto commitment and that it must therefore be passed by the upper chamber of Parliament, the House of Lords. The Lords are likely to think otherwise.
    ____________


    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    The EU have given the UK until the end of this month to drop this "Internal Market Bill" that would break international law or threatened court.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Seems the British Government is determined to take the UK to hell. So now they have apparently made noises about passing new legislation in the Commons that would break the EU 'Leaving Agreement' they made with the EU last year. The new legislation would re-assert British customs control over Northern Ireland as opposed to Northern Ireland remaining in the EU customs are to prevent a 'hard border' between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic (which is a key part of the 'Good Friday Agreement' which brought peace (or at least far more of it) to Northern Ireland). As such the new legislation if passed as it is said to be may also breach the Good Friday Agreement to which the UK and the Republic of Ireland are signatories. (See; https://www.theguardian.com/politics...overnment-told ). The Northern Ireland Minister has publicly admitted in the House that legislation of this nature "does break International Law"; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836

    It is absolutely Gobsmacking if this is true. A Government proposes to break an international agreement it itself entered into willingly a year ago! What will that say regarding the Government's commitments to any other future agreements regarding trade with say Australia or Canada? That they may re-neg on it a year later? At a time when it seems likely they will be unable to get a trade deal with the EU (which has to be done realistically by mid/late next month to leave time for the Europeans and the UK to 'ratify' any trade deal by December) one would have thought it may appear important to the UK Government to retain some vestige of trust regarding any commitments they might make regarding free trade with other nations but this it seems worries them not.

    It is literally lunatics running an asylum Government.

    Leave a comment:


  • redadare
    replied
    They are all being paid 10k each to work from home , via skype or some such like medium and I believe a 3 day session has or is going on

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    How are they going to do that when Parliament is not sitting?

    Leave a comment:


  • redadare
    replied
    Here snapper , just for you to get your teeth into, the NWO Scam ....

    So here it is in black and white the Coronavirus bill pushed through parliament right under your noses while you were all out panic buying toilet paper!!!
    Get ready for a shit life ahead. Do as you are told or else!!!
    WAKE UP STAND UP TAKE BACK ��✊✌️"Pay attention, 007"...

    TODAY The emergency Coronavirus Bill will be rushed through as law. Today sees the 2nd reading, if passed it will immediately proceed to 3rd and on. It contains the most draconian powers ever proposed in peace-time Britain. It will be rushed through Parliament and the powers will last two years. The powers will affect your freedom and take away your rights, such as:

    • Forced detention and isolation can be of anyone, including children, and for any amount of time.

    • Authorities can FORCEABLY take biological samples from your body.

    • There’s no clear access to legal rights from as-yet unidentified isolation facilities.

    • Powers last up to 2.5 years.

    • Lockdown powers could prevent protests against measures.

    • State surveillance safeguards weakened.

    • Protections from forced detainment and treatment under Mental Health Act lowered.

    • Cremations can be enforced against personal and religious wishes.

    • Changes to the court system. Registration of deaths.

    • No inquests into suspicious deaths!

    • No requirement for any medical certification for burials or cremations!

    • Also indemnifies the health service should they fail for whatever reason to provide care.

    • The most frightening part, ONLY one medical 'officer' is required to sign off COMPULSORY TREATMENT ORDERS which means, you can be *FORCED* to accept medication. Or held down and injected with whatever is seen fit. THAT is the *BIGGEST* and worst threat to your own freedoms. (Schedule 8 Pt1).

    • Local Authorities will now be exempted from compliance with their duties under The Care Act 2014. Schedule 11.

    So if someone dies in police custody or any type of custody they can simply dispose of the body without ANY paperwork, medical exam or certification or inquest!

    These are facts that are about to be passed as laws!

    This is a terrible day for freedoms and rights.

    Below is the full text of the bill.
    https://publications.parliament.uk/p...10122_en_1.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    I understand that the rapid tests are not a proof of immunity. Nobody is saying they are.

    Those rapid tests are used to gauge the extent of infection in a hotspot. Depending on what they find then the decision to quarantine the area or not is made.

    Or to refer people to get the regular tests and then treat as applicable.

    That is all rapid tests are good for. Because they are fast and you can test more people in a given time period.

    The point is whether once recovered whether there is resistance to a second round.

    Right now that question is open.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X