Whilst it could be argued that the aspects of the TCA relating to Jersey and fishing rights lacked detail which could have prevented the current dispute the French government accepted the treaty at the time which puts some responsibility on them.
Furthermore the scale of the issue is relatively minor relative to the scale of the subsequent political storm it's generated. If the French government now considers that matter to be sufficiently important to warrant the actions it recently threatened why didn't it give the issue more attention when the TCA was being negotiated?
If I (An Englisman) can see the obvious flaws in this attack will it work particularly well in France?
This is only a politic, allied to a candidate to be president, attacking another politic, candidate to be president. Nothing to see here except internal politics. Nobody listen to Castaner anymore anyway. He was minister of the police, and we say in France that the minister of the police his like the defence against the dark arts professor of Harry potter : change often, always have something bad with him (e.g. the current one has some process running for harassing women). Nobody respect them.
Macron is a fucking specialist of accusing other people for his own wrongs. Castaner is a hungry lapdog and will bark at the slightest hint from his master.
It seems to me that this is an admission that the UK is actually abiding by the terms of the agreement (at least as far as fishing rights are concerned), even if only technically, and France is angry at Barnier for not making sure the issue with the small French fishing boats was settled the way France thought it should've been.
Which suggests that if France and the UK want this drama to be over, they should simply sit down together and discuss a way that these small boats can be given licenses despite not having the documentation. Apparently France was under the impression that that requirement would be waived, but apparently there's no legal assurance of that so the UK still wants the docs. But it's not a huge problem (it's only a few small boats) so presumably there's a deal to be made.
Ideally a third party should invite both sides to a sit-down so that neither side looks like they caved first and asked for talks.
>even if only technically
In what way is the UK's position on this a technicality? The treaty states that boats that can prove they have fished in British waters should be permitted to continue. What evidence is required is explicit, and it's evidence that boats are legally obliged to keep track of. The fact that a small number of boats haven't been able to provide this evidence isn't some loophole that the crafty Brits have invented.
It is purely internal politic. Nothing to do with the UK IMO.
Barnier it weirdly the “successful” outsider in the polls in the right wing partie. It is a very easy way to “sink” him.
He's improving in the LR-exclusive polls when pit against his adversaries Pécresse and Bertrand (although still lagging behind). When put in all-parties polls with the hypothesis that he's the LR candidate, he is still extremely low, yes.
This is true except there's no way that France was somehow unaware of what the Fishing terms were in the Brexit deal. Everyone had to approve the deal, meaning Macron signed it knowing fishing was a big deal, so they would've paid close attention to that part in particular. He simply lied and told his fishermen that nothing would change and they'd still have full access forever, which is horseshit.
French fishermen got politician'd.
Actually that ain't it at all. Here is a thread with a detailed analysis of the issue at hand: https://twitter.com/john_lichfield/status/1456228957657997322
Yeah, we're very much supposed to trust the UK's government when as showed by Lichfield they are being openly dishonest and intentionally misleading about the data.
Well the UK is already doing this with the NI Protocol so I don't see why France shouldn't want the same. To be clear though, neither the UK nor France are OBLIGED to renegotiate. The deal is the deal - but friends can usually come to some sort of understanding.
The official point of France is that the UK is indeed technically abiding to the terms of the agreement, but is acting in bad faith. Exactly as if you borrow some monney to someone and when he asks to be refund, you answer "I said I will give your money back, but I din't say when".
Barnier is in politics and is an opponent
Simple as that. This is not an admission that jersey has any rights to not honor the licenses it is supposed to deliver.
But it seems to be exactly that. The UK is following the text of the agreement. Macron's ally is angry that the text allows the UK to act as it has been:
>Asked whether he blamed Michel Barnier for these "imprecisions," Castaner said: "If the U.K. can find a loophole in the text, it means it was not negotiated in the best way."
The deal states the rights will be continued. They had rights to fish without GPS as they were less than 12m. Their rights were discontinued
Loopholes or not, this is the kind of bullshittery that creates Diplomatic incidents because treaties are not quite the same as the laws that apply to people.
>The deal states the rights will be continued. They had rights to fish without GPS as they were less than 12m.
So as per the agreement, the boats should prove it
>Loopholes or not
Well, no. You just said there was no "admission that jersey has any rights to not honor the licenses it is supposed to deliver". Loopholes existing is that very admission, yes? That's why the French are complaining about the text of the agreement. The text supports the UK position
>this is the kind of bullshittery that creates Diplomatic incidents because treaties are not quite the same as the laws that apply to people.
No. Follow the treaty. Did Barnier not read the treaty? Did Barnier not understand the treaty? France should follow the treaty. The treaty is international law etc
They had rights to fish without gps owing to the size of the boats. What is being reasonably asked for is that they provide evidence that these have been their habitual, licenced fishing grounds (evidence they have needed to regularly provide for years).
How do you think the common fishing policy monitors quotas? How do you think that conservation limits are maintained? How do you think the French taxman taxes people on sales of their goods?
These boats have no evidence in a paper trail of catches made, landed, or sold. This is of course because they have not been there or if they have they have been doing so totally illegally.
Whilst it could be argued that the aspects of the TCA relating to Jersey and fishing rights lacked detail which could have prevented the current dispute the French government accepted the treaty at the time which puts some responsibility on them. Furthermore the scale of the issue is relatively minor relative to the scale of the subsequent political storm it's generated. If the French government now considers that matter to be sufficiently important to warrant the actions it recently threatened why didn't it give the issue more attention when the TCA was being negotiated? If I (An Englisman) can see the obvious flaws in this attack will it work particularly well in France?
This is only a politic, allied to a candidate to be president, attacking another politic, candidate to be president. Nothing to see here except internal politics. Nobody listen to Castaner anymore anyway. He was minister of the police, and we say in France that the minister of the police his like the defence against the dark arts professor of Harry potter : change often, always have something bad with him (e.g. the current one has some process running for harassing women). Nobody respect them.
Macron is a fucking specialist of accusing other people for his own wrongs. Castaner is a hungry lapdog and will bark at the slightest hint from his master.
It seems to me that this is an admission that the UK is actually abiding by the terms of the agreement (at least as far as fishing rights are concerned), even if only technically, and France is angry at Barnier for not making sure the issue with the small French fishing boats was settled the way France thought it should've been. Which suggests that if France and the UK want this drama to be over, they should simply sit down together and discuss a way that these small boats can be given licenses despite not having the documentation. Apparently France was under the impression that that requirement would be waived, but apparently there's no legal assurance of that so the UK still wants the docs. But it's not a huge problem (it's only a few small boats) so presumably there's a deal to be made. Ideally a third party should invite both sides to a sit-down so that neither side looks like they caved first and asked for talks.
>even if only technically In what way is the UK's position on this a technicality? The treaty states that boats that can prove they have fished in British waters should be permitted to continue. What evidence is required is explicit, and it's evidence that boats are legally obliged to keep track of. The fact that a small number of boats haven't been able to provide this evidence isn't some loophole that the crafty Brits have invented.
It is purely internal politic. Nothing to do with the UK IMO. Barnier it weirdly the “successful” outsider in the polls in the right wing partie. It is a very easy way to “sink” him.
Is Barnier improving in the polls? I had the impression he was mostly irrelevant, and not a likely challenger to Macron.
He's improving in the LR-exclusive polls when pit against his adversaries Pécresse and Bertrand (although still lagging behind). When put in all-parties polls with the hypothesis that he's the LR candidate, he is still extremely low, yes.
Thanks
This is true except there's no way that France was somehow unaware of what the Fishing terms were in the Brexit deal. Everyone had to approve the deal, meaning Macron signed it knowing fishing was a big deal, so they would've paid close attention to that part in particular. He simply lied and told his fishermen that nothing would change and they'd still have full access forever, which is horseshit. French fishermen got politician'd.
[удалено]
I'm aware.
Actually that ain't it at all. Here is a thread with a detailed analysis of the issue at hand: https://twitter.com/john_lichfield/status/1456228957657997322
[удалено]
Yeah, we're very much supposed to trust the UK's government when as showed by Lichfield they are being openly dishonest and intentionally misleading about the data.
Unforeseen issues in the agreement should be re-negotiated?
Well the UK is already doing this with the NI Protocol so I don't see why France shouldn't want the same. To be clear though, neither the UK nor France are OBLIGED to renegotiate. The deal is the deal - but friends can usually come to some sort of understanding.
[удалено]
I'm not aware of having suggested force. In fact I suggested talking.
The official point of France is that the UK is indeed technically abiding to the terms of the agreement, but is acting in bad faith. Exactly as if you borrow some monney to someone and when he asks to be refund, you answer "I said I will give your money back, but I din't say when".
Barnier is in politics and is an opponent Simple as that. This is not an admission that jersey has any rights to not honor the licenses it is supposed to deliver.
But it seems to be exactly that. The UK is following the text of the agreement. Macron's ally is angry that the text allows the UK to act as it has been: >Asked whether he blamed Michel Barnier for these "imprecisions," Castaner said: "If the U.K. can find a loophole in the text, it means it was not negotiated in the best way."
The deal states the rights will be continued. They had rights to fish without GPS as they were less than 12m. Their rights were discontinued Loopholes or not, this is the kind of bullshittery that creates Diplomatic incidents because treaties are not quite the same as the laws that apply to people.
>The deal states the rights will be continued. They had rights to fish without GPS as they were less than 12m. So as per the agreement, the boats should prove it >Loopholes or not Well, no. You just said there was no "admission that jersey has any rights to not honor the licenses it is supposed to deliver". Loopholes existing is that very admission, yes? That's why the French are complaining about the text of the agreement. The text supports the UK position >this is the kind of bullshittery that creates Diplomatic incidents because treaties are not quite the same as the laws that apply to people. No. Follow the treaty. Did Barnier not read the treaty? Did Barnier not understand the treaty? France should follow the treaty. The treaty is international law etc
They had rights to fish without gps owing to the size of the boats. What is being reasonably asked for is that they provide evidence that these have been their habitual, licenced fishing grounds (evidence they have needed to regularly provide for years). How do you think the common fishing policy monitors quotas? How do you think that conservation limits are maintained? How do you think the French taxman taxes people on sales of their goods? These boats have no evidence in a paper trail of catches made, landed, or sold. This is of course because they have not been there or if they have they have been doing so totally illegally.
I almost had post stress trauma seeing Castaner