your misrepresentation is very silly oafk.

You may think the tories will do their best for the fishing communities but I expect the tories will continue to not care very much about them and that the EU will negotiate a far better deal for their fisherman.

I merely give the non OAFKThatcherite perspective

It's already clear how weak OAFK's economic argument is. I'm not claiming anything beyond that economically except the very bold claim that fish are valuable.

What's disturbing is using such weak economic arguments to justify the political reality of how the tories will behave in these negotiations. If OAFK thinks understanding that about the tories is a special characteristic of farage than lol him.

Ha Ha in bed with farage and now Lecktor.

Its easy to claim economic realities as weak, but its pure unsubstantiated unicorns from you in every post.

You are now backing away from the devaluation argument because the penny has dropped that this contributes so much to fishing costs and are trying to hang your whole argument on fish being valuable.

That is weak. Its a absolute abstraction that completely glosses over all the complexities of the commodity value of fish in relation to landed supply and hundreds of other factors.

Its just an absurd reduction. Every thing that comes out of a British factory has value, so just by having value its good to know those factory products cant be negatively effected by tariffs according to Chezfarage economics.

You have no argument and have been left out to dry by your rush to accept farage narratives as gospel.

You need to post a link btw, as according to a quick google, those waters are not going to contribute enough to move the dial much.

The EEZ of French Polynesia is larger than the land area of the entire EU and makes up a quarter of the total EU EEZ.

You posted 13% - why don't you post what figures you consider to be relevant (in the context of the 30% of catch figure) for the EEZ of the EU and the EEZ of the UK giving 13%?

The thing you linked to was just pre-referendum disinformation.

He genuinely believes in stuff like the price of UK fish (in euros assuming a constant dollar-euro rate) being higher if the pound is lower as we have to pay more pounds to get the same fuel on the world market. That's why he thinks a weak pound would harm exports. He also believed it before the referendum in the context of whether a weaker pound would harm manufacturing exports.

We do have to pay more pounds to get the same fuel as oil is denominated in dollars.

If this is not true as I genuinely asked you at the time, show some work.

I asked this several times and it has never been forthcoming.

I also dont think a weak pound will hurt exports, a weaker pound+ tariffs will. It will hurt the UK economy for all sorts of reasons and its not a free ride for exports due to higher input costs and its not as simple as we can sell it for less as costs dont cascade as easily as that.

I do remember how the economist you cited through that whole debate turned out to think a weaker pound/free markets would destroy manufacturing, which was the industry we were discussing.

Not trusting the tories in the negotiations requires a very large bed, I'm surprised you're not in it. The fisherman are very justifed in believeing the tories will easily exchnage their interests for gains in financial services (or other areas). The EU know it too - they are very good at negotiations

I'm not backing away from anything. Your weak economic case requires maximum tarrifs when there may not even be any trarrifs, minimum devaluation when nobody really knows and mysteriously being unable to sell their fish anywhere. It's possible but very very thin. You are also ignoring your point below

You're the one glossing over complexitities to reach a very strong unsupported conclusion. All I'm saying is that your conclusion has a weak justification.

The economics of fishing, and brexit in general are very complex and the fishing communities need the UK to be batting hard for them. Wgatw e desperately dont need is more thatcherite 'not giving a toss' about much of our industry and country - this is true irrespective of brexit.

Not trusting the tories in the negotiations requires a very large bed, I'm surprised you're not in it. The fisherman are very justifed in believeing the tories will easily exchnage their interests for gains in financial services (or other areas)

I'm not backing away from anything. Your weak economic case requires maximum tarrifs when there may not even be any trarrifs, minimum devaluation when nobody really knows, mysteriously being unable to sell their fish anywhere and ignoring the other complexities (which you finally notice below). It's possible but very very thin.

You're the one glossing over complexitities to reach a very strong unsupported conclusion. All I'm saying is that your conclusion has a weak justification.

The economics of fishing and brexit in general are very complex. The fishing communities need the UK to be batting hard for them. What they and we imo desperately dont need is more thatcherite 'not giving a toss' about much of our industry and country - this is true irrespective of brexit.

I think it's the standard problem that pointing out the weakness of economic claims is seen as claiming the opposing view which is simply not the case. Just about all the economic claims are very weak because as OAFK actually realises it's incredibly complex with a myriad of factors. It's made much more complex by being reflexive.

The export benefits of devaluation is hurt by the costs of any imports. This is true but it's not a revelation. It's also the not revelatory case that the export disadvantage of tarrifs is mitigated to some extent by the competitive advantage in home markets.

Another bod calling for a 2nd referendum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43513287

Chezfarage, you are simply calling black white and then accusing the person of saying nah white is white of having a weak argument without showing any real work.

You are also modulating your argument each time the weakness of your last argument gets nuked from orbit.

You have dropped devaluation for example, no mention of it from you anymore, you have quickly had to back down from yea but deh fish is teh valuable because only a simpleton would not realise how vacuous and empty that observation is, and are now moving the goal posts on to yea its complicated and there might not even be any tariffs.

This is a big move from your original position of even if there are tariffs still cheaper. Your known forum wide for your lack of intellectual honesty but this is bad even for you.

Yea maybe there might not be tariffs who the **** knows, no **** sherlock, but a hard brexit is the brexit that makes tariffs most likely.

Also fwiw Lecktor disputes than higher imports has any effect on exports/manufacturing etc.

Also along with there might not be any tariffs, there might not be any more quota allowance or any real opportunity to land more fish.

This is why you are farage, because you assume that if we are let entirely free from the fcp fishing will suddenly have this golden age, where as its not at all certain how much extra fish we can land as a consequence and given that the UK government already controls quota to type/size of fishermen, its no way certain the fishing communities that are currently struggling the hardest will be helped in anyway.

Also Lecktor.

Show your work is a standard internet meme for if you are going to make an outrageous claim that flies in the face of orthodoxy, you have to show some work to back it up.

Its nothing to do with me being "teacherish" loool.

Its just me using a meme.

Chezfarage. if you had replied to my hard brexit is worse for fisherman because tarffifs with well there might not be tarrifs, then its entirely different reasonable debate.

However you went full on tariffs dont matter coz devaluation. We can land teh more cod, hurrah. Hard Brexit ftw.

lol nice attempt at a backtrack

When you equate looking after the interests of the fishing communities with a faragian brexit then you're the one in bed with farage. I assume you're not really and are just trying to score points

I also just assume you are well aware that both devaluation and tariffs have some doubled edgedness. Of course tariffs matter but so does devaluation and a myriad of other factors and complexities.

My view is that the tories will be happy to throw the interests of the fishing communities under the bus in return for gains in other areas and that the EU negotiators know this and will exploit it. On that I agree with farage and I strongly suspect you as well.

well this is what the whole negotiation is about. Hard/soft brexit are such catchall soundbites that it depends what you mean. Plenty that might come under hard brexit does not mean tariff but yes obviously they're more likely than under a softer brexit - we might well think that if there are tariff then its not a soft brexit.

So there is a theory going round at the moment about the US election that everyone laid into Hiliary Clinton as she was seen as an unbeatable candidate and separate groups could make themselves more appealable by laying into her - except they went too far and the world ended up with Donald Trump.

There definitely seems to be some parallels with the brexit vote and the EU and more importantly the results of said thought coming to fruition. Brexiteers are getting quieter by the day and I keep thinking about something I thought on a lot last year. Where do they go from here? It's fascinating to watch.

I think if you offered Gove, Boris, Davis et al the chance to be tar and feathered and marched though he centre of London to make all forgiven - they would snap take it.

Umm, the remain campaign was really terrible.

U R SAKED

Yeah and in exactly the same way clintons campaign was terrible. It's amazing when you think you can't lose it all ends up catching up with you. I think it's because the ultra confidence seeps and people stop really thinking about things - if it's not close it's never really that interesting.

You've been notably absent from this thread. An update of how you think this is all going would be interesting. I'm guessing blah, blah, blah long term benefit (no dates / no metrics) - but would love to be proved wrong.

Worth remembering that the Daily Stormer is a massive fan of Corbyn. Seriously. You can't post links to the Daily Stormer here (at least I doubt it), but the Daily Stormer's support for Corbyn is so massive it's visible from space. The Daily Stormer is also, of course, a massive fan of Corbyn's idol Putin. And Marine Le Pen. And so on.

The reason fishing fleets have declined is they overfished for about five decades and there aren't any more fish.

That seems unnecessary. Still momentum is building slowly and I don't know how much it matters whether he is in the cabinet or not. Interesting comment from Keir Starmer who strikes me as someone who chooses his words carefully.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43521321

No it's pretty much a solid long term goal to wrestle democracy back from an unaccountable ideologically-motivated bureaucracy still

H Clinton was a disaster but not enough blame is laid at Obama and too much at the awful personality of Clinton. Trump was the logical answer to the failure of Obama, Trump posing and to some extent actually being, an outsider and garnering an anti-establishment vote. He had some appealing ideas about regeneration, america first and so on, and he was the anti-war candidate between the 2 of them, not any more ofc but still Trump continues to be attacked from the right because he isnt perceived hawkish enough on foreign policy.
Yes Brexit is parallel imo, the collapse of centrism manifesting as the growth of the populist right, it's an over simplification to say politics is moving rightward but there are dangerous developments for sure. 40 years of the same economic and political doctrine is unravelling. Even the IMF itself is waking up (a bit) to the reality that you cant keep taking money out of peoples pockets and expect economies to grow:

However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:

•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.*

•The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.*

•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.*

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...6/06/ostry.htm

Of course the ex Director of Public Prosecutions chooses his words carefully.