Theresa May poised for SHOWDOWN as she reveals Plan B to save Brexit.

Don is right though the UK has been extremely crap in handling the fisheries of the UK and DEFRA is a joke especially when it come to the Spanish who just ride roughshod over them when it comes to quota biding. And more importantly in cases of illegal catch actions and ship to shop transfer of illegal catch to support vessels which scoot out of British waters so the trawler can go back to fishing and not declare its original catch; if stopped by our dearly beloved Navy the trawler will have clean catch records and no catch on board. When they do get caught DEFRA and the MMO seems to be speaking from a different script; while the MMO tries for the maximum fine DEFRA just seems to let them off with a stiff talking too! As in the case of the trawler Frank Bonefaas which incidentally is owned by the guy that owns the Cornelis Vrolijk

 

More fake Project Fear news.

"Remain supporters lashed out for his {Sir James Dyson} 'staggering hypocrisy.'

Sir James has claimed his critics have 'missed the point entirely' and that he would continue to invest in Britain.

He said: 'These are not the actions of a hypocrite, but someone wanting to invest more the UK post-Brexit, not less,' he told The Telegraph."

And the nearer it gets to decision day, the more it will be ramped up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...illionaire-James-Dyson-says-no-hypocrite.html

 

We're under orders from Brussels.

 

The usual collection of untruths I see...

The vast majority of fishing quotas (more than 90% of the North Sea quotas for example) were owed by a handful of large trawler fleets when the Common Fisheries Policy was introduced. Those companies either then sold their quotas to other EU companies (most of whom were not British, but not exclusively so) or stayed in the business and have generated good profits.

The ones who lost out were the small fishermen, but they have been losing out since the 1950s and it's a similar pattern for other EU countries - smaller fishermen being pushed out by big business.

 

Utter rubbish - evidence ?

 

[/QUOTE]

I noticed this sentence in the link "Small fishing companies are harmed not by the EU, but by government rules that allow big interests to corner the quotas"

So as I read it, smaller or independent fishermen are ****ed by their own politicians, and big business wins. That's great!

 

Do you really need evidence to know that? The EU tells us to jump and we ask How high?

 

let's not be coy about it.... you mean Dutch and Spanish companies masquerading as UK companies?

They were and not only to the mega-ships but also to the conservationists and the likes of Greenpeace. The good thing is that the likes of the Cornelis Vrolijk and their Spanish amigos are now heading off to ravage the African fisheries because they have bollocksed up the UK fisheries - thanks to DEFRA and the EU Fisheries policy et al

 

I'm not interested in the fishermen of other EU countries, I'm only interested in ours being told what they can and cannot do by bloody foreigners.

 

No, that's the claim repeatedly made by Eurosceptics but it isn't borne out by the facts:

• The UK has supported 95% of EU legislation
• The UK has only voted against 2% of EU legislation
• The UK has extensive opt-outs to avoid having to implement that 2%

The truth of the matter is that successive governments have blamed the EU and EU legislation for unpopular domestic policies whether or not the EU had a hand in it and regardless of whether the UK voted in favour of those policies.

 

...and they're not being told what to do by foreigners. The fishing quotas were assigned in a way approved by the UK government and then a large proportion of those fishing quotas were sold, by their British owners, to companies based in other EU countries. The only way that could have been prevented is if the EU had told the UK not to allow that to happen - which would have been interference of the type you are alleging.

 

In part, but the quotas still in UK hands, and used by UK based fleets, are overwhelmingly in the hands of a few large UK-based companies.

Are you suggesting that conservationists should have been ignored and UK fisherman should have continued to be allowed to overfish ?

Again, Eurosceptic propaganda and nothing more. The quotas were there and instead of using them to catch fish, the large UK-based companies which owned them at the time decided to sell them to operators based elsewhere in the EU and pocket the money.

 

Don't tell me you're running a company, when you spend every morning (and afternoon too for all I know) posting on this forum, day in and day out, because I don't believe you.

 

That seems to be the case, yes.

In the post-Brexit UK that trend is likely to continue and if anything, accelerate. One of the things that the EU can be justifiably criticised about is that, in order to please parts of Southern Europe, its farming and fishing policies are constructed to protect the smaller operators against free market forces which tend towards a smaller number of larger producers.

 

Yes - part of the "benefit" of running your own company is that you're available for large periods of time. Posting here while dialled into a boring teleconference, between meetings and so forth is a nice distraction.

 

Yes, so you keep saying? You know a little too much of the minutiae of the various aspects, and I'm finding it a bit suss.

 

You find it suspicious that I have bothered to take a few moments out of my life (honestly in most cases it's a matter of using a search engine to find the appropriate information) to inform myself about the most important thing to happen to the UK in my lifetime ?

 

Of course it is, and....so what??

we've already done this...they only put a front of being UK companies...they register their vessels here and employ the right number of crew to satisfy union requirements (trade union not EU) and UK regs but they don't land their catch in the UK it goes straight to Spain or Holland.....its a front!

.....bit of a sense of humor failure...?
Anyway its true the large ships are looking at African fisheries as they don't have the same level of oversight or the naval resources to police them...easy pickings I would imagine...anyway have you read about the MMO/DEFRA situation with the Frank Bonefaas?

 

...it was an affirmation of your earlier point..?

 

The suggestion is that it wasn't and instead it's EU owned.

In a small number of cases that it right. Then again there are large companies, based out of places like Peterhead which are UK owned, employ UK crew. Now they may or may not land the catch in the UK but that's a different matter. The UK market for herring is tiny, why would a large UK-based operator take their catch back to the UK when instead they could deliver it to the customer ?

 

Only the brief mentions in the various reports from online sources regarding the general state of the UK fisheries. Contrary to cerberus' assertion, I'm not a Remain campaign plant, my time for both research and posting is limited and as a consequence my knowledge tends to be both shallow and sparse.

 

Bingo...we have a winner!!!

 

You have problem with a UK-owned and UK-operated trawler exporting its catch ?

edited to add....

Instead, we should land fish in the UK we don't want and do what with them ?

 

sorry mate best I can do as the Times is a subscription site unfortunately...

 

You are missing the point. The quota has been taken by the offshore (UK haha) company for the non-UK market. The UK (non-Offshore) smaller fishing boats cannot offer the amount of money for the quotas that the offshore operator is able to bid ergo they get the quota which means that the UK company cannot catch the fish and land said fish to the same customer be it in Holland, Spain or the UK! The quota has been filled by the larger trawlers.