Brexit matters

[AlterEgo]

Where do they pick up from though? A close vicinity or over a wide area? The latter would be required especially for silly o'clock starts.

You often see small minibuses full of workers at silly o clock. My guess is a lot of the employees house share and the number of pickups is therefore quite small. Often, the employees will be instructed where to live or have the accommodation provided by the employer.

 

[alex397]

Where do they pick up from though? A close vicinity or over a wide area? The latter would be required especially for silly o'clock starts.

I’m not sure exactly.

I do know that some of the farms have on-site accommodation with static caravans, so presumably a lot of the transport is just between accommodation and the various different fields belonging to the company. One company has fields spread out across east Kent for example.

 

[edwin_m]

You often see small minibuses full of workers at silly o clock. My guess is a lot of the employees house share and the number of pickups is therefore quite small. Often, the employees will be instructed where to live or have the accommodation provided by the employer.

I’m not sure exactly.

I do know that some of the farms have on-site accommodation with static caravans, so presumably a lot of the transport is just between accommodation and the various different fields belonging to the company. One company has fields spread out across east Kent for example.

This probably only works for foreign workers who come over and stay in this accommodation during the season. UK employees would probably want to stay at their own homes, which would be scattered over a much wider area.

 

[DelW]

A large fruit farm near me not only has a big site of static caravans (over a hundred as a guess), but also usually has a couple of full size coaches and half a dozen minibuses parked in the yard.
I regularly walk along the two footpaths that run through it, and I'd say that most of the workers I meet are eastern Europeans, though that's based mainly on hearing them talking, or their accents when they reply to me.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Is anyone else completely bewildered as to how two big global powers are letting some fishing licenses become a major issue? I just can't wrap my head around how this has escalated so much so quickly. Or are there serious issues which both countries are using this as a flag waving exercise to distract from?

Has there been some bad brexit news I have missed?

 

[ainsworth74]

Is anyone else completely bewildered as to how two big global powers are letting some fishing licenses become a major issue? I just can't wrap my head around how this has escalated so much so quickly. Or are there serious issues which both countries are using this as a flag waving exercise to distract from?

Has there been some bad brexit news I have missed?

Macron is playing to the domestic audience because he's got a nervy re-election campaign to wage over the next four/five months. I would imagine Boris and Co are happy to have something which plays well in Tory leaning press, plays well with their base and acts as at least partially a distraction from what shaping up to be a damp squib at COP26.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Macron is up against a host of election opponents, mostly ranging from centre right to the more right wing; set against major public concerns about the economy, immigration, extreme Islamism and national identity.
He’s attempting to play to the electorate on all these fronts, because he’s a dead man walking if he doesn’t.
Playing the tough guy against a “national foe” is all part of the act.

He’s put the EU in a spot, because he’s acting outside of the terms of the TCA treaty and is threatening actions that are also contrary to other long standing EU treaties.
While the EU won’t want to be seen to publicly clamp down on these actions by the French, by all accounts there seems to be pressure being brought to bear behind the scenes to reign in the French position.

The UK government are trying to (and have to) play with a straight bat, because they are in the right and sticking to the letter of the agreement.
The EU won’t want this to go to court, if it results in a member state being found guilty and being punished or humiliated in some way.



.

 

[davetheguard]

The UK government are trying to (and have to) play with a straight bat, because they are in the right and sticking to the letter of the agreement.

Are you sure about that? This Government playing with a straight bat? I suppose there has to be a first time for everything.

 

[BananaRepublic]

It might be more by accident than design.
i.e. the departments involved in issuing the licences have simply been following the terms of the treaty agreement, since it came into effect.

 

[edwin_m]

Macron is playing to the domestic audience because he's got a nervy re-election campaign to wage over the next four/five months. I would imagine Boris and Co are happy to have something which plays well in Tory leaning press, plays well with their base and acts as at least partially a distraction from what shaping up to be a damp squib at COP26.

Not to mention the many other problems that can be attributed to Brexit and the numerous other failings of this government. It seems we now need a distraction to distract from the previous distraction.

 

[REVUpminster]

Not to mention the many other problems that can be attributed to Brexit and the numerous other failings of this government. It seems we now need a distraction to distract from the previous distraction.

Not to mention the many other problems that can be attributed to Brexit and the numerous other failings of this French government.

I think you got that wrong.

 

[dosxuk]

Is anyone else completely bewildered as to how two big global powers are letting some fishing licenses become a major issue? I just can't wrap my head around how this has escalated so much so quickly. Or are there serious issues which both countries are using this as a flag waving exercise to distract from?

Has there been some bad brexit news I have missed?

Firstly, a good argument with the French, especially about fishing plays spectacularly well with the Tory faithful and the Brexit fans. Giving Boris the opportunity to stand there and proclaim he's never going to bow down to the French is worth it's weight in unsold fish to the party management.

However, it's also been very handy to get the stories about how, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, Brexit is going to be twice as bad for the UK economy than the pandemic, out of the way and not needing to be dealt with. This story got some coverage last Thursday with the report release, but was quickly knocked off the top story spots by the ongoing spat with the French.

Incidentally, according to the UK, the French deciding to hold off on implementing their restrictions has absolutely nothing to do with the Jersey government offering over 150 additional fishing licences. Nothing at all. We will never bow to the French. Never! (Here, have a licence too)

 

[daodao]

Macron is up against a host of election opponents, mostly ranging from centre right to the more right wing; set against major public concerns about the economy, immigration, extreme Islamism and national identity.
He’s attempting to play to the electorate on all these fronts, because he’s a dead man walking if he doesn’t.
Playing the tough guy against a “national foe” is all part of the act.

He’s put the EU in a spot, because he’s acting outside of the terms of the TCA treaty and is threatening actions that are also contrary to other long standing EU treaties.
While the EU won’t want to be seen to publicly clamp down on these actions by the French, by all accounts there seems to be pressure being brought to bear behind the scenes to reign in the French position.

The UK government are trying to (and have to) play with a straight bat, because they are in the right and sticking to the letter of the agreement.
The EU won’t want this to go to court, if it results in a member state being found guilty and being punished or humiliated in some way.

It is in the EU's interest to back France to the hilt, and if necessary to put pressure on the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to find in favour of France if a legal action is brought by the UK. Perfidious Albion deserves to be treated by the EU in the same way as it treats another European country led by a man whose first name is Alexander. Since when did Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson ever play with a straight bat?

 

[swt_passenger]

French fishermen (and farmers to a similar extent) always appear to have significantly more influence on their government. Hasn’t that been the case for a long time?

 

[jon0844]

Are you sure about that? This Government playing with a straight bat? I suppose there has to be a first time for everything.

Is this the party that was telling Boris they need another 'Falklands moment' (as published in the Daily Express)?

This spat is ideal for both the English and French, allowing a lot of people to get overly upset and suggest totally over the top reactions (as well as showing total disrespect to those who fought and died in a war).

The popularity of those who start these war of words always seem to come out stronger, so I guess it will always be seized upon as a great political win.

 

[BananaRepublic]

It is in the EU's interest to back France to the hilt, and if necessary to put pressure on the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to find in favour of France if a legal action is brought by the UK. …..

So you are suggesting that the EU should corrupt the processes and judgement of its own court?

 

[daodao]

So you are suggesting that the EU should corrupt the processes and judgement of its own court?

Doesn't the EU do that anyway as a matter of course; isn't the ECJ its poodle? Look at the way the EU/ECJ has been treating Poland lately.

 

[edwin_m]

Doesn't the EU do that anyway as a matter of course; isn't the ECJ its poodle? Look at the way the EU/ECJ has been treating Poland lately.

More a case that Poland has been corrupting its court and the EU is trying to uphold democratic standards. And don't forget that our government wants to restrict the powers of the courts too.

 

[jon0844]

More a case that Poland has been corrupting its court and the EU is trying to uphold democratic standards. And don't forget that our government wants to restrict the powers of the courts too.

This Government seems to want to take more control of the media too (from more threats to the BBC, from the likes of Nadine Dorries, to giving Paul Dacre another chance to get his claws into Ofcom).

For people who fought so much to 'take back control' it does strike me as odd that we're so willing to give up control to a party that wants to manipulate things to be able to remain in power for decades to come!

 

[BananaRepublic]

…….and the EU is trying to uphold democratic standards.

Oh the irony!

 

[brad465]

Is anyone else completely bewildered as to how two big global powers are letting some fishing licenses become a major issue? I just can't wrap my head around how this has escalated so much so quickly. Or are there serious issues which both countries are using this as a flag waving exercise to distract from?

Has there been some bad brexit news I have missed?

It's a classic enemy narrative, something both the French and UK Governments need at this point in time, where they stoke up an "enemy" in order to distract from domestic failures the respective Governments are either responsible for and/or haven't dealt with properly.

Whatever is going on, it's worth remembering that UK and French citizens have more in common with each other than either group of citizens has with its respective Governments.

 

[REVUpminster]

Courts have to uphold the laws it's legislator votes for. So if a country legislates for capital punishment should an independent court such as the European Court be allowed to overrule. I don't think the US supreme court can overrule state legislation or there would be no capital punishment in the US.

In a nutshell Boris can pass any law he likes if he can get a majority in parliament.

 

[edwin_m]

Courts have to uphold the laws it's legislator votes for. So if a country legislates for capital punishment should an independent court such as the European Court be allowed to overrule. I don't think the US supreme court can overrule state legislation or there would be no capital punishment in the US.

In a nutshell Boris can pass any law he likes if he can get a majority in parliament.

Most countries, including the US, have a constitution. If laws are declared unconstitutional then the constitution has to be changed before they can be passed. This is much more difficult than passing a normal law. In the US, the constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, overrides both Federal and State law.

The UK has an "unwritten constitution", so it's pretty vague what is and isn't allowed. Thus a UK government with a majority in Parliament does indeed have more power to do what it wants than the government in most other countries, and moreover we have an unfair electoral system that returns majorities to governments that pander to their own base and can get that majority with well under half the vote. The US has similar problems, but tempered by the constitution and the fact many laws are made at state level. Thus we have Trump and Johnson. In most other countries there is a proportional system where there are more than two parties, they have to compromise with each other to put together a coalition, and a much larger part of the population supports part at least of the government's programme.

It's a condition of EU membership that countries adhere to a set of norms typical of western democracies. If Poland wants to do something different they can always leave - which they don't want to do because they get a lot of funding out of the EU. In a sense the EU is paying Eastern European countries to adopt western values, thereby keeping them out of the orbit of Russia.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's a condition of EU membership that countries adhere to a set of norms typical of western democracies. If Poland wants to do something different they can always leave - which they don't want to do because they get a lot of funding out of the EU. In a sense the EU is paying Eastern European countries to adopt western values, thereby keeping them out of the orbit of Russia.

The EU doesn't want Poland to leave at all; having a Russia-orbit state border Germany would be anathema. Poland will be allowed to stray a fair bit before they are asked to leave.

 

[brad465]

The irony meter has exploded again:

Staff shortages see UK meat carcasses sent to EU for butchering

Beef and pork producers are exporting their meat to Europe and importing them back again once cut.

www.bbc.co.uk

UK meat producers have started sending carcasses to the EU for butchering before re-importing them as they continue to combat a labour shortage.
The British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) say producers are sending beef to the Republic of Ireland amid local shortages of butchers.
Meanwhile, pork producers are set to begin sending pigs to the Netherlands for butchering and packing.
Meat exported in this way cannot be labelled as British pork for UK sale.
According to the BMPA, the move will cost an additional £1,500 for each lorry load of carcasses. This includes transport fees, as well as Brexit customs requirements, such as an export health certificate for each consignment.
"It is what needs to be done to counteract the problem," a spokesperson for BMPA told the BBC.

• Labour shortage human disaster for pig farms - NFU
• PM not taking pig cull threat seriously, says vet
• Abattoir labour shortage sees farmer kill piglets

It comes after post-Brexit staff shortages, and a lack of capacity at abattoirs, have led to the culling of more than 10,000 healthy pigs so far.
A shortage of skilled workers, as well as exporting issues, Covid-19, and reduced demand from China, has left the sector with a growing backlog of pork, of which the UK is a significant exporter.
Staffing levels are reported to be at least 15% below the normal level.
The BMPA said: "Immigration rules need to be relaxed so we can get experienced people without having to train them to help solve the immediate short-term problem.
"Then we need to be attracting, recruiting, and training people in the UK. This is not an instant fix, however, as we are looking at 18 months or longer to train these people.
"The government also needs to add key level courses to the support they have already given. As far as we can see there are no food related courses, or they are not the ones we need."

 

[ainsworth74]

Courts have to uphold the laws it's legislator votes for. So if a country legislates for capital punishment should an independent court such as the European Court be allowed to overrule. I don't think the US supreme court can overrule state legislation or there would be no capital punishment in the US.

The US Supreme Court did in fact provide a moratorium on executions in the United States between 1972 (in Furman vs Georgia) and 1976 (following Gregg vs Georgia). Broadly the first case held that the death penalty schemes of the various states and federal government were arbitrary and inconsistent in their imposition of the death penalty and violated the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution (issues around cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection under the law, due process, etc). States and Congress were able to submit schemes to bring them into compliance with the new legal position (which many did). In 1976 the second case clarified the position some more and broadly set out that a death penalty scheme would be constitutional as long as standards are furnished giving sentencing guidelines, there is the option for appeals and the sentence is not automatic and has regard for the context of the offender.

In any event the point that the US Supreme Court is certainly capable of overruling legislation where it is incompatible with the US Constitution and has indeed done so in the case you suggest regarding capital punishment.

As for a "European Court" the UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights as part of our membership of the Council of Europe which predates even the forerunner of the EU the European Coal and Steel Community (Council of Europe founded in 1949, ECSC founded 1953) The ultimate arbiter of the ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Neither the Council, nor the Convention nor indeed the Court is an EU matter (as can be seen from the membership being far larger than the EU). So let's be clear that Brexit, that is the UK leaving the European Union should have nothing to do with the UKs continued membership of the Council of Europe and the ECHR. Indeed leaving it would make us, I believe, the only other European country besides Belarus to be outside, even Russia (though they of course pay only lip service to the concept of Human Rights of course) is a signatory to the ECHR! I'm not sure we want to join a club whose only membership is Belarus...

Anyway, moving on. As a signatory to the ECHR the UK has ratified Protocol 6 (restricting use of the death penalty to times of war or imminent war) and Protocol 13 (abolishing the death penalty in all cases). Therefore were a UK government to bring forth legislation which reinstituted a death penalty scheme someone would take the matter through first the UKs own court system (worth recalling you have to exhaust the judicial process in your own country before going to the ECHR) where no doubt at each stage it would be found to be incompatible with with UKs commitments under the ECHR. Before finally the European Court of Human Rights would no doubt rule that the UKs new law as indeed illegal. That being said of course the UK could just ignore the Court as it doesn't actually have enforcement powers.

In any event as a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the ECHR it seems perfectly reasonable that we are bound by the judicial process to which we signed up. No-one forced us to join the Council of Europe indeed we were instrumental to setting it up along with its institutions and the ECHR itself. Churchill of course being a major player in the setting of it up. I could at least buy that the EU has morphed out of all recognition to what we originally joined back in the 1970s. But by comparison the ECHR, the court in Strasbourg and the Council of Europe have basically remained unchanged (other than an expanded membership).

In a nutshell Boris can pass any law he likes if he can get a majority in parliament.

Indeed but only if they are compatible with the UKs unwritten constitution and any international agreements to which we have signed up will they not be at risk of being struck down or declared incompatible with those commitments

 

[Senex]

Indeed but only if they are compatible with the UKs unwritten constitution ....

How would you define an "unwritten constitution". Is it any more than a group of gentlemen's agreements which can be broken at any time if those on one side decide they no longer wish to be gentlemen? Likewise if we say it's a set of non-codified conventions, as here too someone can walk away at any time. And isn't judicial review a protection only in so far as it's concerned to see that change followed conventional rules — again somewhat weak. The powers of a mediaeval absolute monarchy still lurk no very far below the surface in English governance, ready to be called upon at any time by an overweening executive.

 

[Annetts key]

How would you define an "unwritten constitution". Is it any more than a group of gentlemen's agreements which can be broken at any time if those on one side decide they no longer wish to be gentlemen? Likewise if we say it's a set of non-codified conventions, as here too someone can walk away at any time. And isn't judicial review a protection only in so far as it's concerned to see that change followed conventional rules — again somewhat weak. The powers of a mediaeval absolute monarchy still lurk no very far below the surface in English governance, ready to be called upon at any time by an overweening executive.

There is no formal written constitution document. Instead our "unwritten constitution" appears to be based on precedent.

 

[AlterEgo]

The UK doesn’t have a single written constitution but instead its constitution comprises disparate documents, laws, and codified legal precedent.

There is no need to have a written one and the continuing fetish to have one is bizarre, because I’ve no idea who you’d all trust to write it.

 

[jon0844]

Sounds like the sort of thing Nigel Farage would campaign for, and likely get enough people behind the idea (I mean it sounds fantastic - all patriots would surely back the idea or else they should leave the country?) to make it happen - written by someone featured in the Panama papers or something.

A referendum would make this a sure victory because how could you not want this? It'll be written on a union flag and draped around a British bulldog!