Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

9 points? For what, on my airmiles account?

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

Try to follow me.
British fishermen land 80% of their catch in the UK, approx. 545,000 ton. All other countries land approx. 150,000 tonnes in the UK. With a total of 700,000 tonnes the landing capacity in the UK is exhausted.

Now we go to 2021.
All british vessels are banned from landing in the EU and other fishing countries. With present day numbers no problem. The 150,000 tonnes (the remaining 20% of their catch) can be landed in the UK. Other countries no longer can, with those 150,000 extra british tonnes the UK's landing capacity is filled.

The result of that is that any increase in quota for british fishers, they cannot land in the UK (no landing capacity) and in other countries they are no longer welcome.
So after one, two weeks british fishers will beg to reinstate the old rules.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

Erm...

That makes no sense at all.

It's a joke right ?

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

Er, how do you know this? You are stating an OPINION as a FACT, which you frequently accuse us of doing, yet you seem to enjoy doing it yourself with impunity just like the bullying EUSSR.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

I don't know why I bother explaining to you. But I'll try.
You see my post starting with a question? That makes for the reader to follow the reasoning. Reasonings are not facts (I know some posters here think otherwise), so my conclusion is to be regarded as an invitation to contradict my opinion.
One of the debating techniques is to start of with a (rethorical) question.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

Nope, try as hard as I might, I still cannot see why you think that "So after one, two weeks British fishers will beg to reinstate the old rules should be treated as a rhetorical question.
Reasonings are not facts. I agree, but decent, solid, reasoning is BASED on pure, indisputable, FACTS and not opinions, which, sadly, were lacking in your post.

so my conclusion is to be regarded as an invitation to contradict my opinion. A conclusion should NEVER be used as an invitation to contradict anything. Oh, and looky there, "My opinion" - you said it - it's there in black and whitee. Get out of that.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

You have to educate, educate https://www.ebsco.com/blog/article/h...ation-literacy

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

Well all I know is that most of our wonderful prawns (what we have always, always called prawns but foodies likes to call langoustines), crabs and lobsters caught from our amazing NI waters end up being exported to France.
Suck on that Frogs!

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

Most prawns sold in Ireland hailed from*Asia*or*South America. While I love the cuisine of both of these parts of the world, these prawns are farmed in awful conditions, with workers being paid $1 a day for their job. I would urge people to avoid these prawns at all costs. This is not to say we don’t import wonderful Spanish prawns or prawns from other places. Just, if you like prawns, do you homework first.
However, nothing quite beats an Irish langoustine. We get ours through Gannet fishmongers who source them from boats fishing off the Aran Islands.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...them-1.3113623

So, nothing will prevent the french to buy their prawns from spain, asia, south america and cut the middle party, ireland. But hey, you can still eat your own prawns.


The irish market for crab exports was china, until the crabs appeared to have a high content of cadmium. https://r.internet.apps.samsung.com/...=2675&fr=popup

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

Perhaps you should read this report. Might give you a better perspective on matters.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...eid=1bd09617ec
Fisheries: UK-EU future relationship negotiations
The UK is in the process of negotiating its future relationship with the EU, including fisheries, following Brexit.
Full report published 19 june 2020.