The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[TrentVilla]

20 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm no fan of Tories, but I can at least respect David Davis. He certainly stays true to his convictions, even if I think they're mostly wrong, and he seems like a basically honourable person too. 

However, I'm not sure whether he really has the temperament for the endless negotiations he'll be heading into. When I think of 'calmly getting into the fine details of fishing rights' I don't picture David Davis that's for sure. 

Surely fishing rights hasn't got anything to do with trade negotiations?

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

Surely fishing rights hasn't got anything to do with trade negotiations?

I'm assuming 'Minister for Brexit' deals with every aspect of leaving the EU, rather than just trade? Or have I misunderstood the role?

[TrentVilla]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm assuming 'Minister for Brexit' deals with every aspect of leaving the EU, rather than just trade? Or have I misunderstood the role?

I might be wrong but I just assumed our fishermen would post EU membership (I refuse to use that term) the quota's would be gone and they would be free to fish, unless our Government imposes quota's. I can't see this would have anything to do with the EU other than for exports.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

I might be wrong but I just assumed our fishermen would post EU membership (I refuse to use that term) the quota's would be gone and they would be free to fish, unless our Government imposes quota's. I can't see this would have anything to do with the EU other than for exports.

Maritime fishing boundaries have to be decided between nations whether they're in the EU or not. We once fought a 'war' with Iceland over this issue. There may be less regulation, but it won't be a free-for-all. Brexit doesn't put any more fish in the sea, so there are likely to be agreements made about overall volumes as well. 

[TrentVilla]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

Maritime fishing boundaries have to be decided between nations whether they're in the EU or not. We once fought a 'war' with Iceland over this issue. There may be less regulation, but it won't be a free-for-all. Brexit doesn't put any more fish in the sea, so there are likely to be agreements made about overall volumes as well. 

You sound like you know far more about it that me but I just assumed that we would be able to do as we wished in our territorial waters and in international waters as the EU won't have any control. As for Iceland, I'd rather not take them on again so soon!

 

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

You sound like you know far more about it that me but I just assumed that we would be able to do as we wished in our territorial waters and in international waters as the EU won't have any control. As for Iceland, I'd rather not take them on again so soon!

 

Ha! Yes, they won each of those 'wars' too so they've really got the mark over us. 

'Three Cod Wars and One European Championship Second Round' doesn't scan very well as a song, thankfully. 

Edited July 13, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

I thought her speech was impressive stuff,  if  Ihad a list of things she needed to fix then she ticked them all off the list.  Fair play to her.  

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

I thought her speech was impressive stuff,  if  Ihad a list of things she needed to fix then she ticked them all off the list.  Fair play to her.  

Agreed, I thought the same thing, it was an impressive speech and it made me want to give her a fair chance. My wife actually said the same, and she's a hard left mentalist.

My only two slight caveats, the queen's speech a few months ago set out a similar agenda of helping the underdog, the poor and those with mental health issues and they've done absolutely nothing since but have internal political larks. The other thing, is to remember most of them come in with a similar speech. Some have even quoted Francis of Assisi and said they would bring harmony where there was discord. 

Words were good. let's see the actions.

[blandy]

I agree as well. Then I thought, yeah but you've been in a government doing the opposite of that for 6 years and all the ministers are still **** tories. Still, she's unlikely to be worse than Cameron.

[Davkaus]

8 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

You sound like a man with a lot to hide 

Not really. I'd like to be able to crack one off without a man in a windowless room in Cheltenham checking what I was watching at the time, though.  

[Nicho]

8 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

You sound like a man with a lot to hide 

I wish I had a lot to hide

[Nicho]

34 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Agreed, I thought the same thing, it was an impressive speech and it made me want to give her a fair chance. My wife actually said the same, and she's a hard left mentalist.

My only two slight caveats, the queen's speech a few months ago set out a similar agenda of helping the underdog, the poor and those with mental health issues and they've done absolutely nothing since but have internal political larks. The other thing, is to remember most of them come in with a similar speech. Some have even quoted Francis of Assisi and said they would bring harmony where there was discord. 

Words were good. let's see the actions.

Although not limited to the Torres it is a huge problem with them. They often say they are here to look after the working classes and deliver the opposite but because some low brow media outlets shovel it down people throats that Labour especially Corbyn are the idiots it just passes people by. You just need to look at her voting history around the things she said needed to be fixed and she's never had the intention of looking after the working class or poor. 

[Wainy316]

Her speech threw me a bit, she basically reeled off a list of all the problems the Tories have caused (without saying as much) over the last 30 odd years and vowed to fix them.

Not the kind of speech I'd expect from her or anything I'd associate with the Conservatives.  I'll believe it when I see it anyway.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Wainy316

[StefanAVFC]

8 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

You sound like you know far more about it that me but I just assumed that we would be able to do as we wished in our territorial waters and in international waters as the EU won't have any control. As for Iceland, I'd rather not take them on again so soon!

 

I didn't have a clue about this subject so i researched it a few days ago and found this article interesting.

https://infacts.org/uk-fishermen-worse-off-outside-eu/

Quote

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has been one of the more controversial aspects of the UK’s EU membership. Would our fishing interests gain by leaving the EU? Or would they be weaker and worse off?

The CFP aims to regulate fishing in Europe’s seas so that fish stocks can replenish for future fishermen. It does this primarily by placing limits called Total Allowable Catches (TACs) on the amount of each fish stock that can be caught, to ensure annual yields are consistent with conservation of the stock.

There are also measures to prevent catches of immature and undersized fish. A major reform, which the UK championed in 2013 following a campaign by celebrity chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, banned wasteful discarding of fish at sea and required future TACs to be in line with strict scientific criteria.

While the UK fishing industry is not big – employing just under 12,000 in 2014 – it does have political weight. The antipathy of many UK fishermen to the CFP stems from the EU’s decision, taken before UK accession, to allow EU fishermen access to all EU seas. Many UK fishermen saw this as provocative because countries’ national fishing limits were being extended from 12 to 200 miles, and UK seas were more extensive than those of other EU members.

But the CFP adopted in 1983 largely restored British fishermen’s sole right to fish in the UK’s 6 and 12 mile zones. It also divided TACs into quotas for every country with a tradition of fishing the stocks concerned. The quota shares are based on historic fishing patterns and are fixed. The system has prevented conflicts over quotas and made TAC shares stable and predictable. It has also ensured that countries with no tradition of fishing in a particular area – such as Spain in the North Sea – cannot access TACs in that area.

So would British fishing interests be better off if the UK left the EU? Some fishermen believe so. They argue that the UK has Europe’s second-largest fishing fleet by gross tonnage and that if the UK controlled its own waters it could restrict fishing there to British vessels. Is this realistic?

If Brexit occurs, the Westminster and devolved governments would need to devise a fisheries policy. There has been little discussion of what this might look like but its major elements would probably closely mirror the CFP. The key question would be on what basis TACs and quotas were decided. The assertion is that the Westminster and devolved governments could decide. In reality, there would have to be agreement with the EU.

The reason is that most fish stocks in UK waters also swim in the waters of other EU member states and/or Norway. Those countries would be able to fish on these “shared stocks” without regard to UK interests. So, to prevent a free for all and consequent overfishing, the UK, EU and Norway would need to agree on TACs, quotas and reciprocal access, just as Norway and the EU do now for their shared stocks.

Would the UK then be able to secure a “better” allocation of fishing rights or reciprocal access? It is difficult to see how. The original settlement on quotas and access rights has lasted 30 years and was itself based on historic fishing patterns. No other country would readily give up its long held rights. Nor would the UK have leverage to force a change. It would need a deal to prevent overfishing as much as other countries.

British fishermen would face considerably worsened prospects outside the EU. First, the UK would lose or have to pay for fishing rights in North Norwegian waters that are largely acquired by transfers to Norway from other EU states’ fishing allocations. Second, tariff free access for fish exports to the EU market (worth £950 million in 2015) would be at risk. Finally, the UK’s absence from EU policy making could result in weaker conservation policy, which would harm stocks shared with the UK. The better course would be to continue fighting to improve the CFP from inside the EU, building on the government’s success in the reforms of 2013.

The last 3 paragraphs were interesting I felt.

[TrentVilla]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

I agree as well. Then I thought, yeah but you've been in a government doing the opposite of that for 6 years and all the ministers are still **** tories. Still, she's unlikely to be worse than Cameron.

I do love it when politicians vow to fix problems they've had a hand in creating without a hint of irony or seemingly self awareness.

Its like when my three year old breaks a toy then tells me it's broken but doesn't know how it happened, although at least he admits he can't fix it.

[snowychap]

 

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

The other thing, is to remember most of them come in with a similar speech. Some have even quoted Francis of Assisi and said they would bring harmony where there was discord.

Indeed. That quote was what went through my mind when I was listening to her.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

 

Indeed. That quote was what went through my mind when I was listening to her.

She is the only one I have ever believed though.  It might be the case that there is some realisation that they are losing the majority of the electorate and things need to change.

I think the Leave vote shocked them to the core and I don't believe they ever thought losing was even a possibility.  We are not at pitch forks just yet but things can spiral out of control very quickly.  She knows from recent events (Riots) that if she gets to a situation where you have 200 k - 300k of people protesting it is past control,  if that happens in multiple cities then she has a real problem.  

It's not that difficult,  I suspect people just want a fair society where work is paid properly and where there is a small chance that people can have a few quid left over at the end of the month.  Even if you do the right thing and try your very best,  the owning your own home and have some long term security is a dream for most.

[snowychap]

23 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

She is the only one I have ever believed though.

I really can't see any reason to support believing the new PM's Downing Street speech above any of the others especially when some/a lot of the things she opined about have most certainly not been helped by the policies of the governments of which she has been an integral part for the past 6 years.

Also when one considers that she is in charge of a government with a slim majority and will find the same issues as her predecessor in terms of keeping awkward squads in check (she may find herself with one or two more awkward squads, too), I think skepticism about how much of this supposed wishlist she would be able to deliver is very much the order of the day. That doesn't discount the possibility that she might surprise.

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

 

 

 

[snowychap]

So that's Osborne, Gove and Morgan* given the boot.

Was Gove unable to get hold of Boris on the Monday morning because he was on the 'phone to May doing a deal for the Foreign Office?

 

*Edit: And Whittingdale.

Edited July 14, 2016 by snowychap