EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

There's overlap between Brexit and the UK government's handling of Covid. The key issue obstructing any agreement between the EU and the UK is the latter's freedom to subsidise its industries however it sees fit.

The New York Times has put into writing something that's already well known here; the UK government has put a staggering amount of funding into Covid-related businesses that under normal circumstances wouldn't come close to passing scrutiny. 22bn funding for PPE and other Covid-related businesses, 11bn of them in businesses that are run by friends and family of Tory MPs, businesses that have no track record in what they were being paid for, or businesses that have a track record of incompetence, human rights violations, etc.

Brexit is basically a carte blanche for the Tories to enrich friends and family and those who will do them favours.

Andy Wigmore is best known for his work with Brexit, having been director of communications for Leave.EU, and having met with Trump and Russian agents on supposedly diplomatic missions, the former contravening the bounds of his role as Belize's trade ambassador and thus resulting in him being fired as the same. With such a background, he is clearly the right man to run a Covid-testing business in the UK. Despite living in Switzerland. Was this part of the 11bn the New York Times accounted for, I wonder.

Brexit is a way by which UK tax money can be directed to Brexit supporters without the restrictions pesky EU-wide laws impose.

[rory_20_uk]

Brexit is a way by which UK tax money can be directed to Brexit supporters without the restrictions pesky EU-wide laws impose.

Hilarious!

Romania.
Bulgaria.
Hungry.
Greece.

All VASTLY more corrupt than Iceland and Norway for example which somehow survive outside of the EU. Probably both are third world hell holes of course.

Being in the EU doesn't prevent corruption, and leaving it won't cause it - all the corruption you mention has occurred whilst we are in the EU.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Being in the EU doesn't prevent corruption, and leaving it won't cause it - all the corruption you mention has occurred whilst we are in the EU.

Maybe? I read that the EU recently passed a bill that allows the union to suspend agricultural subsidies to members who are undermining the rule of law as a way of reigning in Poland and Hungary.

Also, after the Greek bailouts (I am not an economist) my impression was that Greece has been making progress to a more stable fiscal foundation. 2016-2019 budgets were year over year growing surpluses (2020 will kill that cause of COVID), spending per % of GDP is slowly declining and unemployment has been on the decline since 2013.

Also feels like it needs to be pointed out that the 3 out of 4 countries mentioned were behind the Iron Curtain and Greece had more years of political strife in the 20th century than not. I'm not gonna do alternate history here on 'what if' these countries never had Western European institutions guiding them after the collapse, but intuitively it seems plausible that the EU has promoted good elements over bad.

[Pannonian]

In an exclusive interview with Nigel Farage on LBC, Stanley Johnson declared his support for Brexit.

Stanley Johnson, father of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has declared his support for leaving the European Union after backing Remain in the Referendum campaign.

In an exclusive interview with LBC presenter and Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, Mr Johnson said he believes that his son will be able to deliver his promises on Brexit.

He said: "I'm pretty confident he will, in fact I'm more than confident, I put money on it.

"When he says no ifs and buts, I think he means it. Everything I can see leads me to believe that he is as solid as a rock on his commitment that Britain will come out on the 31st October."

"This message will get across to our European colleagues, snd I think we will see a bit change in their view."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...s-sides-in-br/

The father of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Thursday he was in the process of applying for a French passport to maintain his ties with the European Union after Brexit.

Stanley Johnson, a former member of the European Parliament who voted Remain in Britain’s 2016 referendum, told RTL radio he wanted to become a French citizen because of strong family links to France.

“If I understand it correctly, I am French. My mother was born in France, her mother was totally French as was her grandfather. So for me it is about reclaiming what I already have. And that makes me very happy,” said the 80-year-old Johnson, who was speaking in French.

“I will always be a European, that’s for sure. One cannot tell the British people: you are not Europeans. Having a tie with the European Union is important,” he added.

British PM Johnson's father applying for French citizenship

[rory_20_uk]

Maybe? I read that the EU recently passed a bill that allows the union to suspend agricultural subsidies to members who are undermining the rule of law as a way of reigning in Poland and Hungary.

Also, after the Greek bailouts (I am not an economist) my impression was that Greece has been making progress to a more stable fiscal foundation. 2016-2019 budgets were year over year growing surpluses (2020 will kill that cause of COVID), spending per % of GDP is slowly declining and unemployment has been on the decline since 2013.

Also feels like it needs to be pointed out that the 3 out of 4 countries mentioned were behind the Iron Curtain and Greece had more years of political strife in the 20th century than not. I'm not gonna do alternate history here on 'what if' these countries never had Western European institutions guiding them after the collapse, but intuitively it seems plausible that the EU has promoted good elements over bad.

Greece was let in having used Goldman Sachs to fix their debt. Everyone was aware but they were allowed in having missed every target. And equally missing the spending deficit is more a usual occurance than meeting it.

Given how getting sanctions requires everyone bar one country to vote that Poland and Hungry are together means they can ensure no meaningful censure is applied.

Greece might be doing better - as long as the bar is so low as to what they did on first joining. Which is economic oversight by the EU. Although that wasn't something that the EU was to do until they suddenly had the power to. Probably because there was no mechanism for massive EU debt purchases until they decided they could. Mission creep bit by bit.

[edyzmedieval]

It's over. Finally.

Brexit has finally happened.

*collective sigh of relief from both EU-Remain and UK-Brexiteers*

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's over. Finally.

Brexit has finally happened.

*collective sigh of relief from both EU-Remain and UK-Brexiteers*

A now the thread is tired and in need of a nap maybe?

[Furunculus]

Morning all, what's new?

back three weeks later for a look...

... nothing.

[Furunculus]

Maybe? I read that the EU recently passed a bill that allows the union to suspend agricultural subsidies to members who are undermining the rule of law as a way of reigning in Poland and Hungary.

i can't find the quote - but i read from a central-european political commentator that the reformulation of the rule-of-law/payments bill renders it essentially toothless, in referening such a specific set of activity that it essentially doesn't touch the ambitions of fidesz/pis in any useful way.

[Pannonian]

Bwahahaha. Leave.EU has relocated from the UK to Ireland so as to stay within the EU.

[rory_20_uk]

Bwahahaha. Leave.EU has relocated from the UK to Ireland so as to stay within the EU.

It's the only way to keep the .EU domain since the EU has (in a totally not petty way) revoked all holders who aren't in the EU.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Greece was let in having used Goldman Sachs to fix their debt. Everyone was aware but they were allowed in having missed every target. And equally missing the spending deficit is more a usual occurance than meeting it.

Given how getting sanctions requires everyone bar one country to vote that Poland and Hungry are together means they can ensure no meaningful censure is applied.

Greece might be doing better - as long as the bar is so low as to what they did on first joining. Which is economic oversight by the EU. Although that wasn't something that the EU was to do until they suddenly had the power to. Probably because there was no mechanism for massive EU debt purchases until they decided they could. Mission creep bit by bit.

Rory, if you have the time I would like to get this discussion to get further into the weeds. The timeline from my brief research seems to be contrary to your portrayal. Greece was admitted into the EEC well back in the 1980s when it was still a fledgling, corrupt Democracy just out of the junta, I don't think anyone was looking the other way as far as the near future of Greek financials. When the EU single market was established along with the Euro, Greece was not permitted to join the Euro for exactly those concerns. The question is, from 1999 to 2001 (which is when Greece cooked its books to join the Euro in 2001) can you show me evidence, news articles, that seems to indicate there was skepticism at the time regarding Greece's improving financial reports?

It wasn't until 2004 that Athens began admitting the financial troubles. To me, your argument could hold water during the 5 year period between 2004 and 2009 when the EU now had concrete evidence from the 2004 audit that Greece had lied to them, unless you can show otherwise that the financial fraud was an 'open secret' prior to that. However, with that being said you as a European (well, now just British as of Jan 1st) could perhaps shed some insight on the following:

* What was the better option for the EU to react to the Greek 2004 audit: Removal from the Euro, removal from the entire EU apparatus including the single market, both?
* What could the EU have done in 2004 to make course corrections for Greece, keeping in mind that is still pre-Lisbon treaty. Now, I have absolutely no knowledge of the differences between the European Central Bank authority pre and post Lisbon so again you may have to indulge me in what exactly they could have done at the time. To me, Lisbon seemed to be in part influenced by the 2004 audit to give the central bank and the European Commission more centralized power to coordinate monetary and financial relief programs. The fact that the Great Recession began in 2007 right as Lisbon was ratified seems to be the most tragic timing which prevented the EU from doing more before Greece's financials completely fell apart.

i can't find the quote - but i read from a central-european political commentator that the reformulation of the rule-of-law/payments bill renders it essentially toothless, in referening such a specific set of activity that it essentially doesn't touch the ambitions of fidesz/pis in any useful way.

"under the plan, the EU will not be able to implement sanctions nor withhold funding before 2022 and that’s only if the bloc's highest court, the European Court of Justice, also rules against Poland or Hungary."

Wikipedia tells me out of the 27 justices on the ECJ, only three come from either Hungary or Poland. So Poland and Hungary have bought themselves another two years, but after that are you concerned that the ECJ will not be aggressive against their illiberal practices?

It's the only way to keep the .EU domain since the EU has (in a totally not petty way) revoked all holders who aren't in the EU.

Come on Rory, is this fair? I don't quite understand why following the implications of Brexit to the fullest extent of the law is considered 'petty'. If an organization is no longer in the EU, a domain exception would cause market confusion. People might be thinking they are dealing with EU based companies, following EU rules and standards based on the domain of the website they are interacting with. So what is the pettiness here?

[Furunculus]

"under the plan, the EU will not be able to implement sanctions nor withhold funding before 2022 and that’s only if the bloc's highest court, the European Court of Justice, also rules against Poland or Hungary."

Wikipedia tells me out of the 27 justices on the ECJ, only three come from either Hungary or Poland. So Poland and Hungary have bought themselves another two years, but after that are you concerned that the ECJ will not be aggressive against their illiberal practices?

Yes, I found that one too but it was not what i was referring to.

I think I have tracked it down now (from a different source) using enhanced google fu:

Basically - rule of law provision now applies only to the misuse of EU funds and no longer - as people might imagine - to the constitutional 'irregularities' that lead to calls for the rule of law provisions in the first place.

What people think it means:
https://euobserver.com/political/148801

EU justice commissioner Didier Reynders on Monday argued for an "effective" link between respect for rule law and the disbursement of EU funds - as complex negotiations drag on among EU leaders on the bloc's long-term budget and recovery.

https://euobserver.com/institutional/149967

Negotiators from the European Parliament and the German EU presidency on Thursday (5 November) clinched an agreement on a mechanism that for the first time allows suspending or cutting EU funds if a member state breaches the rule of law.

What it actually means:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/...ss-to-eu-funds

Under the new regulation, EU budget payments can be withheld from countries in which established breaches of the rule of law compromise management of the EU funds. At the same time, the EU is ensuring that final beneficiaries do not end up paying the bill.

https://eucrim.eu/news/compromise-ma...e-law-respect/

The deal deletes the Commission’s approach that “generalised deficiencies” as regards the rule of law in a given Member State may trigger preventive measures. Instead, it is now foreseen that appropriate measures can be taken if it is established that breaches of the principles of the rule of law in a Member State affect or seriously risk affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget or the protection of the financial interests of the EU “in a sufficiently direct way”.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/all...law-mechanism/

The MEPs did not manage to convince member state negotiators to instead require a country to have to build a qualified majority coalition to block the Commission’s decision... Moreover, MEPs succeeded in expanding the scope of the mechanism from the previous proposal that applies only where rule of law problems already “affect in a sufficiently direct way the sound financial management of the EU budget” to include breaches that “seriously risk” affecting EU money.

Some eastern european think-tanker I follow highlighted the discrepancy in early December - but it hasn't been reported on in any useful way.

The Polish/Hungarian gov'ts are of course laughing - because they just want to have the money, not misuse it. They're more concerned about interference in their in [domestic] constitutional affairs, and here the teeth have been pulled.

[Pannonian]

The Polish/Hungarian gov'ts are of course laughing - because they just want to have the money, not misuse it. They're more concerned about interference in their in [domestic] constitutional affairs, and here the teeth have been pulled.

Why would the EU's teeth being pulled be a bad thing?

[Furunculus]

Is this question ironic?
Not sure if this is intended for me (as I have expressed no value judgement on this statement), or, if perhaps the question is more metaphysical (in that we must presume the collective will of the polish/hungarian populace as evidenced through the action of their gov'ts)...

[rory_20_uk]

Rory, if you have the time I would like to get this discussion to get further into the weeds. The timeline from my brief research seems to be contrary to your portrayal. Greece was admitted into the EEC well back in the 1980s when it was still a fledgling, corrupt Democracy just out of the junta, I don't think anyone was looking the other way as far as the near future of Greek financials. When the EU single market was established along with the Euro, Greece was not permitted to join the Euro for exactly those concerns. The question is, from 1999 to 2001 (which is when Greece cooked its books to join the Euro in 2001) can you show me evidence, news articles, that seems to indicate there was skepticism at the time regarding Greece's improving financial reports?

It wasn't until 2004 that Athens began admitting the financial troubles. To me, your argument could hold water during the 5 year period between 2004 and 2009 when the EU now had concrete evidence from the 2004 audit that Greece had lied to them, unless you can show otherwise that the financial fraud was an 'open secret' prior to that. However, with that being said you as a European (well, now just British as of Jan 1st) could perhaps shed some insight on the following:

* What was the better option for the EU to react to the Greek 2004 audit: Removal from the Euro, removal from the entire EU apparatus including the single market, both?
* What could the EU have done in 2004 to make course corrections for Greece, keeping in mind that is still pre-Lisbon treaty. Now, I have absolutely no knowledge of the differences between the European Central Bank authority pre and post Lisbon so again you may have to indulge me in what exactly they could have done at the time. To me, Lisbon seemed to be in part influenced by the 2004 audit to give the central bank and the European Commission more centralized power to coordinate monetary and financial relief programs. The fact that the Great Recession began in 2007 right as Lisbon was ratified seems to be the most tragic timing which prevented the EU from doing more before Greece's financials completely fell apart.

I'll do my best.

First off the EEC. A pure trading block. In the same way a shop is not at risk from potential customers, admitting countries with poor credit history is not itself an issue. So let them in by all means... But perhaps don't let them pay on credit.
The EU is like two companies merging. You need to know them inside out.

Let's start with Greece's history of their currency... they've had many, many, MANY issues before. Almost to the degree one could say it was wilful ignorance to let them in, and a political decision rather than one based on economics... although no one seemed to view asking the citizens of the EU what they thought.



Regarding "open secret". Apart from the word "secret" I'd agree with you - Link - with ministers loudly decrying the mess things were in with government owned industries. The only redeeming thing is that everyone was sinning.

The key facet here is how there was a large difference in borrowing costs in the drachma compared to the Euro / Deuchmark. Greece had tried for years to join the EU to help stabilise the mess their economy had been in throughout the 80's Link- so even if the numbers look OK, this should have been thoroughly audited how this turnaround happened.

Greece's financials had been falling apart since they left the Ottoman Empire. It was one catastrophe after another fuelled by mismanagement and tax evasion on a grand scale. They sort of managed by devaluing their currency from time to time and everyone knew they were a basket case - hence why borrowing costs were so high.

What was the EU to do after they wilfully believed what was an obvious lie? If we pretend for a second that the EU is based on sound economics they'd remove them from the EU. If it is a political construct then this is an opportunity! Another reason for more EU institutions, oversight of countries and another small step to being a supra state. So no real surprises there then. And soon afterwards another treaty that was created to ensure that no voters need be bothered with their opinion.

Come on Rory, is this fair? I don't quite understand why following the implications of Brexit to the fullest extent of the law is considered 'petty'. If an organization is no longer in the EU, a domain exception would cause market confusion. People might be thinking they are dealing with EU based companies, following EU rules and standards based on the domain of the website they are interacting with. So what is the pettiness here?

First off, owning an .eu website does not in any way imply EU standards any more than any other domain implies standards - by these rules it would be fine to have the website hosted there and the businesses elsewhere. And what other places on the planet enforce this? I can't find any - certainly not .com or .co.uk - here I do know that companies need to have their address and incorporation number on the website, regardless of the domain. It is not that enforcing the law that is petty, is that they've got this law in the first place.

[Pannonian]

Is this question ironic?
Not sure if this is intended for me (as I have expressed no value judgement on this statement), or, if perhaps the question is more metaphysical (in that we must presume the collective will of the polish/hungarian populace as evidenced through the action of their gov'ts)...

I've seen the argument posted that any infringement of sovereignty is a bad thing, even if it's overwhelmingly in our favour, and that the theoretical restoration of complete sovereignty was why we left the EU. Then you are arguing here that the EU is in a bad state because it does not override Polish and Hungarian sovereignty sufficiently with enforceable rules.

[Furunculus]

I've seen the argument posted that any infringement of sovereignty is a bad thing, even if it's overwhelmingly in our favour, and that the theoretical restoration of complete sovereignty was why we left the EU. Then you are arguing here that the EU is in a bad state because it does not override Polish and Hungarian sovereignty sufficiently with enforceable rules.

That is in fact not an argument I made - as my detailed and meticulous expansion on the limitations of the rule-of-law provision (that it no longer does what people think it does), included zero value judgements on matter itself.

[Montmorency]

Under .us nexus requirements, .us domains may be registered only by the following qualified entities:

Any United States citizen or resident,
Any United States entity, such as organizations or corporations,
Any foreign entity or organization with a bona fide presence in the United States
To ensure that these requirements are met, GoDaddy frequently conducts "spot checks" on registrant information.

To prevent anonymous registrations that do not meet these requirements, in 2005 the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ruled that registrants of .us domains may not secure private domain name registration via anonymizing proxies, and that their contact information must be made public.[23] Registrants are required to provide complete contact information without omissions.[24]

According to .EU registry policy, the following persons are eligible to register .EU domain names:

A Union citizen, independently of their place of residence
A natural person who is not a Union citizen and who is a resident of a Member State
An undertaking that is established in the Union
An organization that is established in the Union, without prejudice to the application of national law

I'll never understand these emotional hangups about the EU.



EDIT: Unrelatedly, here's a document that I haven't looked at but might be of interest: "Mind the values gap: The social and economic values of MPs, party members and voters"

[Crandar]

That was very interesting! It pretty much destroyed the myth that Labour lost the last elections, because Corbyn too left-wing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'll do my best.

First off the EEC. A pure trading block. In the same way a shop is not at risk from potential customers, admitting countries with poor credit history is not itself an issue. So let them in by all means... But perhaps don't let them pay on credit.
The EU is like two companies merging. You need to know them inside out.

Let's start with Greece's history of their currency... they've had many, many, MANY issues before. Almost to the degree one could say it was wilful ignorance to let them in, and a political decision rather than one based on economics... although no one seemed to view asking the citizens of the EU what they thought.



Regarding "open secret". Apart from the word "secret" I'd agree with you - Link - with ministers loudly decrying the mess things were in with government owned industries. The only redeeming thing is that everyone was sinning.

The key facet here is how there was a large difference in borrowing costs in the drachma compared to the Euro / Deuchmark. Greece had tried for years to join the EU to help stabilise the mess their economy had been in throughout the 80's Link- so even if the numbers look OK, this should have been thoroughly audited how this turnaround happened.

Greece's financials had been falling apart since they left the Ottoman Empire. It was one catastrophe after another fuelled by mismanagement and tax evasion on a grand scale. They sort of managed by devaluing their currency from time to time and everyone knew they were a basket case - hence why borrowing costs were so high.

What was the EU to do after they wilfully believed what was an obvious lie? If we pretend for a second that the EU is based on sound economics they'd remove them from the EU. If it is a political construct then this is an opportunity! Another reason for more EU institutions, oversight of countries and another small step to being a supra state. So no real surprises there then. And soon afterwards another treaty that was created to ensure that no voters need be bothered with their opinion.

Very interesting and definitely something to make me think twice on EU's legacy. Quick question on the bold section. In the same manner that Greece's financial future was known, how could the UK not see the EU as anything but a supra-national political organization at its very outset in 1992? Many of the arguments I see from the anti position (against EU policies/orgs) are phrased as "well if the EU was truly an economic union and not a political union..." Was it not clear what the EU was going to be in 1992? In 2007? Now we are 13 years from Lisbon and the separation has finally happened with much anguish over separating the tangled mess of interwoven economic and political treaties. If sovereignty is valued above else (and it clearly is to the frustration of Pann), why the fuck did you all stay so long in it or even join to begin with?

[Pannonian]

Very interesting and definitely something to make me think twice on EU's legacy. Quick question on the bold section. In the same manner that Greece's financial future was known, how could the UK not see the EU as anything but a supra-national political organization at its very outset in 1992? Many of the arguments I see from the anti position (against EU policies/orgs) are phrased as "well if the EU was truly an economic union and not a political union..." Was it not clear what the EU was going to be in 1992? In 2007? Now we are 13 years from Lisbon and the separation has finally happened with much anguish over separating the tangled mess of interwoven economic and political treaties. If sovereignty is valued above else (and it clearly is to the frustration of Pann), why the fuck did you all stay so long in it or even join to begin with?

Not all those who voted Leave voted for sovereignty above all else. Fishermen voted for a bigger share of the catch in British waters, but the deal which Boris Johnson has been praised for getting threw that away to get it across the finishing line, and now they're complaining that the government sold them out. Also, our leaving the economic union has made it practically impossible to sell the catch that they do have, resulting in the last catches rotting in the docks instead of being sold. The cases being highlighted so far have pointed to the increased paperwork making it impractical to get the extremely perishable goods to the desired market in time (one Leave-voting woman, boasting beforehand that she'd spent 40k to prepare her company for Brexit, complained that her 50k load had to be written off for this reason). On top of that, EU-based hauliers who form a large proportion of our logistics system, have decided that the UK leg is not worth the hassle (due to our leaving the economic union and incurring huge amounts of paperwork and other bureaucracy).

Our ports are currently operating at something like 20% of their normal capacity. Is this due to covid? Not necessarily, as the traffic on the Ireland-France direct route have doubled or tripled. There is traffic, but it's bypassing Britain. Supermarkets have expressed concern that their stockpiles, made in preparation for Brexit, are emptying at an unsustainable rate (NB. in contrast they were clear last year that there were adequate stocks). Newspapers have been showing empty shelves again, but this time it's not due to user panic, but due to decreasing stocks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not all those who voted Leave voted for sovereignty above all else.

This is your first sentence but your following example about fish is about the desire of British fisherman to gain full control of British fish stock and the harvesting thereof. You phrase it as a economic desire, but the means to achieve it is clearly through sovereignty and breaking away from EU agreements. I think there is confusion regarding the arguments, as it seems many of these economic situations you talk about are primarily in relation to the removal of checks or limitations imposed by EU rules. So it is still a sovereignty issue at its core, but people always phrase things in the immediate economic benefit. 'I get to catch more fish' is really, 'EU can't tell me where and how much to fish'.

[Pannonian]

This is your first sentence but your following example about fish is about the desire of British fisherman to gain full control of British fish stock and the harvesting thereof. You phrase it as a economic desire, but the means to achieve it is clearly through sovereignty and breaking away from EU agreements. I think there is confusion regarding the arguments, as it seems many of these economic situations you talk about are primarily in relation to the removal of checks or limitations imposed by EU rules. So it is still a sovereignty issue at its core, but people always phrase things in the immediate economic benefit. 'I get to catch more fish' is really, 'EU can't tell me where and how much to fish'.

They want more money. That it's economic can be seen in their complaining about being unable to sell the catches that they are making. If it's purely about sovereignty, then as Jacob Rees Mogg calls it, we now have happier fish due to our now uncompromised sovereignty. Except they can't get the catch to the buyers in the EU, and people in the UK aren't interested in what they catch.

'I voted out for my grandchildren!' Businesswoman says £40,000 Brexit hit is worth it

Family-run business risks losing £50,000 worth of shellfish after Brexit delays at French border

Same person.

Another person in the business.

Brexit red tape could make our export business unviable, says shellfish boss

[a completely inoffensive name]

They want more money. That it's economic can be seen in their complaining about being unable to sell the catches that they are making. If it's purely about sovereignty, then as Jacob Rees Mogg calls it, we now have happier fish due to our now uncompromised sovereignty. Except they can't get the catch to the buyers in the EU, and people in the UK aren't interested in what they catch.

'I voted out for my grandchildren!' Businesswoman says £40,000 Brexit hit is worth it

Family-run business risks losing £50,000 worth of shellfish after Brexit delays at French border

Same person.

Another person in the business.

Brexit red tape could make our export business unviable, says shellfish boss

Pan this is directly from your second link:

She added: “I knew when I voted Leave that it would directly affect my business, both my businesses - the farming and the shellfish.
“But I also believe that I am not the important person here.
“The whole nation is important so for the greater good is why I voted out.
“And for my grandchildren and their future, that’s why I voted out.”

[Pannonian]

Pan this is directly from your second link:

That quote is from 2019. Here are some quotes from 2021.

"The powers that be should have been able to give us guidance," she said.
"We've had no opportunity to practice. Not even a week to practice and implement these new rules.
"I'm exhausted and ready to jack it in. I can't keep up with the stress of this again.
"I can't do this again next week, I need a break."
"We're a tiny little Welsh company, its family run - we're fourth generation running it. We can't afford to take the hit."

Here's another in the fishing industry, regretting voting Leave and losing his market.

"Be careful what you wish for. I thought we were going to get a global market. This is going to be a new opportunity. But it hasn't turned out like this. I would have never voted for Brexit if I knew we were going to lose our job."

[a completely inoffensive name]

That quote is from 2019. Here are some quotes from 2021.

"The powers that be should have been able to give us guidance," she said.
"We've had no opportunity to practice. Not even a week to practice and implement these new rules.
"I'm exhausted and ready to jack it in. I can't keep up with the stress of this again.
"I can't do this again next week, I need a break."
"We're a tiny little Welsh company, its family run - we're fourth generation running it. We can't afford to take the hit."

Here's another in the fishing industry, regretting voting Leave and losing his market.

"Be careful what you wish for. I thought we were going to get a global market. This is going to be a new opportunity. But it hasn't turned out like this. I would have never voted for Brexit if I knew we were going to lose our job."

Well that's just sad. I'm not sure how any business owner could go into Brexit thinking that leaving a common market was going to reduce documentation and obstacles to selling.
Again, I have to ask you the same question I just asked Rory, when you joined the EU in 1992...what did you think you were getting yourself into?

[Furunculus]

We weren't joining, we we're on a rollercoaster with a bunch of other people.
the situation is quite different.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We weren't joining, we we're on a rollercoaster with a bunch of other people.
the situation is quite different.

Not sure I understand.

[Pannonian]

Well that's just sad. I'm not sure how any business owner could go into Brexit thinking that leaving a common market was going to reduce documentation and obstacles to selling.
Again, I have to ask you the same question I just asked Rory, when you joined the EU in 1992...what did you think you were getting yourself into?

It used to be called the EEC (European Economic Community). By the time I was old enough to vote, it was the EC (European Community). There were some additional political and fiscal union measures introduced from 1992 onwards, but the UK was largely excepted from them. During the Labour government, we signed up to some of these measures, largely relating to workers' rights. Most of the additional integration that we experienced in the UK were to do with the common market, which we were one of the principal drivers of. Most of the additional measures like the common currency, Schengen and so on, didn't apply to us. The only additional political union thing that I can think of that we took part in was electing MEPs to the EU parliament. Which we didn't take seriously, as seen in the success of UKIP despite their MEPs doing sweet FA in the EU parliament except vowing to take all the money they were entitled to whilst doing none of the work.