It's more complicated than that, though. Yes, they were lied to, but also, there was another group of people pointing out that they were being lied to. So they chose to believe the lies, for whatever reason. Perhaps the liars were more convincing, perhaps the lied-to wanted the lies to be true, perhaps they knew they were being lied to but thought the people calling the lies out were also lying.
Whatever: they are at least partly culpable for their own situations.
Yes, I watched several programmes on Cornish fishermen, and they came across as very pumped up, high on anti-EU sentiment, but also vague about Brexit. They could take back British waters, but what about sales in the EU? I don't really understand their position, but there is a lot of emotion, resentment, envy, and hope. God knows where they're at now.
Is there silence in the media from Remainers who are desperate to say "we told you so"? Or have I missed it? Are they saving it all for the future campaign to re-join?
If Remainers started to point to all the warnings given before the stupid referendum, would it release a flood of resentment towards all the public liars who said everything would be better following Brexit, or towards Remainers - becuse nobody likes other people being right (and themselves being shown to be clearly really, really, wrong, mistaken, gullible fools and being poorer, and more constrained in their choices - not freer and living more cheaply. )
It's more complicated than that, though. Yes, they were lied to, but also, there was another group of people pointing out that they were being lied to. So they chose to believe the lies, for whatever reason. Perhaps the liars were more convincing, perhaps the lied-to wanted the lies to be true, perhaps they knew they were being lied to but thought the people calling the lies out were also lying.
Whatever: they are at least partly culpable for their own situations.
Yes, I watched several programmes on Cornish fishermen, and they came across as very pumped up, high on anti-EU sentiment, but also vague about Brexit. They could take back British waters, but what about sales in the EU? I don't really understand their position, but there is a lot of emotion, resentment, envy, and hope. God knows where they're at now.
Alas, they're up Brexshit creek without a paddle. It's hard to see how they (and other affected fisherpeople) can survive.
To comply and get back on thread, has anyone else noticed the story about shellfish? That the shellfish ban is likely to be indefinite BBC story here
The EU has told British fishermen they are indefinitely banned from selling live mussels, oysters, clams, cockles and scallops to its member states.
As the UK is now a separate country, it is not allowed to transport the animals to the EU unless they have already been treated in purification plants.
In answer to @Telford the UK chose to become a third country, with no trade links to the EU, so we could avoid ECJ scrutiny. That means we now have to follow third country rules.
The problem is the lateness of the deal. If Boris hadn't been posturing to the last minute and had agreed this lot in advance, the fishermen would have had time to organise the now required purification tanks.
It's more complicated than that, though. Yes, they were lied to, but also, there was another group of people pointing out that they were being lied to. So they chose to believe the lies, for whatever reason. Perhaps the liars were more convincing, perhaps the lied-to wanted the lies to be true, perhaps they knew they were being lied to but thought the people calling the lies out were also lying.
Whatever: they are at least partly culpable for their own situations.
Around the time of the referendum (back when dinosaurs walked the Earth), a leave-voting colleague of mine said he had more trust in what Nigel Farage said because "he isn't just another politician". My response was that that Farage is most certainly not just another politician, he was (is) a political evil genius who always knows exactly what lies he has to tell, and to whom. However I fear that in my colleague's eyes I was a member of the Remainer Elite and therefore not entitled to have an opinion about anything.
It's more complicated than that, though. Yes, they were lied to, but also, there was another group of people pointing out that they were being lied to. So they chose to believe the lies, for whatever reason. Perhaps the liars were more convincing, perhaps the lied-to wanted the lies to be true, perhaps they knew they were being lied to but thought the people calling the lies out were also lying.
Whatever: they are at least partly culpable for their own situations.
Yes, I watched several programmes on Cornish fishermen, and they came across as very pumped up, high on anti-EU sentiment, but also vague about Brexit. They could take back British waters, but what about sales in the EU? I don't really understand their position, but there is a lot of emotion, resentment, envy, and hope. God knows where they're at now.
Alas, they're up Brexshit creek without a paddle. It's hard to see how they (and other affected fisherpeople) can survive.
I was reading the website "Cornish Stuff", and they comment, "fishermen used and abused by Brexit". It just seems tragic, really.
To comply and get back on thread, has anyone else noticed the story about shellfish? That the shellfish ban is likely to be indefinite BBC story here
The EU has told British fishermen they are indefinitely banned from selling live mussels, oysters, clams, cockles and scallops to its member states.
As the UK is now a separate country, it is not allowed to transport the animals to the EU unless they have already been treated in purification plants.
That's another industry in dire straits.
Who do I bl;ame for this? The EU of course
The UK is now a third country, thanks to the utter stupidity of Brexshitters. For them to then blame the EU for applying the rules which have always applied to third countries is utter stupidity.
Get your head out of your complacent, self-satisified arse.
To comply and get back on thread, has anyone else noticed the story about shellfish? That the shellfish ban is likely to be indefinite BBC story here
The EU has told British fishermen they are indefinitely banned from selling live mussels, oysters, clams, cockles and scallops to its member states.
As the UK is now a separate country, it is not allowed to transport the animals to the EU unless they have already been treated in purification plants.
That's another industry in dire straits.
Who do I bl;ame for this? The EU of course
The UK is now a third country, thanks to the utter stupidity of Brexshitters. For them to then blame the EU for applying the rules which have always applied to third countries is utter stupidity.
Get your head out of your complacent, self-satisified arse.
Alas, I fear it's too tightly stuck to move now...
Is there silence in the media from Remainers who are desperate to say "we told you so"? Or have I missed it? Are they saving it all for the future campaign to re-join?
If Remainers started to point to all the warnings given before the stupid referendum, would it release a flood of resentment towards all the public liars who said everything would be better following Brexit, or towards Remainers - becuse nobody likes other people being right (and themselves being shown to be clearly really, really, wrong, mistaken, gullible fools and being poorer, and more constrained in their choices - not freer and living more cheaply. )
There was plenty of gloating on Twitter, but the pro-Brexit tabloids will ignore any problems, or say it's teething problems. The Guardian has had a few bits of Schadenfreude, but maybe people are exhausted by it.
"Surely there should be a way of coming to some sort of deal?"
Why, yes there is. The easiest way to come to some sort of deal was not to leave the rather comprehensive deal that we had in the first place. But it is of course possible to negotiate any number of deals. The EU is generally keen to negotiate trade deals that don't compromise the EU's standards or principles.
In the case of shellfish, it would be perfectly possible to negotiate some kind of deal that would allow UK shellfish to be imported in to the EU as before. It would certainly require guarantees on standards and so on of the sort that the UK government seems unwilling to entertain.
But the key to the whole thing is that you'd actually have to negotiate that deal. And that hasn't been done.
Is there silence in the media from Remainers who are desperate to say "we told you so"? Or have I missed it? Are they saving it all for the future campaign to re-join?
If Remainers started to point to all the warnings given before the stupid referendum, would it release a flood of resentment towards all the public liars who said everything would be better following Brexit, or towards Remainers - becuse nobody likes other people being right (and themselves being shown to be clearly really, really, wrong, mistaken, gullible fools and being poorer, and more constrained in their choices - not freer and living more cheaply. )
There was plenty of gloating on Twitter, but the pro-Brexit tabloids will ignore any problems, or say it's teething problems. The Guardian has had a few bits of Schadenfreude, but maybe people are exhausted by it.
Yes, but once the bloody Plague is over (or at least under some sort of control), the Remainers may well be heard more clearly, especially as the phrase *teething problems* continues to be shown up as specious.
Is there silence in the media from Remainers who are desperate to say "we told you so"? Or have I missed it? Are they saving it all for the future campaign to re-join?
If Remainers started to point to all the warnings given before the stupid referendum, would it release a flood of resentment towards all the public liars who said everything would be better following Brexit, or towards Remainers - becuse nobody likes other people being right (and themselves being shown to be clearly really, really, wrong, mistaken, gullible fools and being poorer, and more constrained in their choices - not freer and living more cheaply. )
Chris Grey has some thoughts on this, his blog posts tend to be long and somewhat technical but well worth a read:
The Brexiters are trying to make our relationship with the EU as antagonistic as possible in order to distract attention from the consequences of Brexit, and blame them on the EU.
Richard North's blog (EUReferendum.com) is the only Brexiter blog I can tolerate reading. He is currently harping on a little tediously about the negative consequences of Brexit being predictable and inevitable ever since Theresa May's foolish decision to leave the single market as well as the EU. (He is very much of the "Brexit was done wrong" school.)
Richard North's blog (EUReferendum.com) is the only Brexiter blog I can tolerate reading. He is currently harping on a little tediously about the negative consequences of Brexit being predictable and inevitable ever since Theresa May's foolish decision to leave the single market as well as the EU. (He is very much of the "Brexit was done wrong" school.)
The Norgroves (senior and minor) appear to have fallen out with all their Brexiter chums. In fairness North did produce the 'Flexcit' pamphlet which set out a gradualist approach to leaving the EU, that said they chose to ride the Brexit tiger and knew the nature of the beast. They are also very touchy if you point out to them that they were part of a campaign which literally ran on a 'The Turks are coming !1111!!!!' ticket.
Is there silence in the media from Remainers who are desperate to say "we told you so"? Or have I missed it? Are they saving it all for the future campaign to re-join?
If Remainers started to point to all the warnings given before the stupid referendum, would it release a flood of resentment towards all the public liars who said everything would be better following Brexit, or towards Remainers - becuse nobody likes other people being right (and themselves being shown to be clearly really, really, wrong, mistaken, gullible fools and being poorer, and more constrained in their choices - not freer and living more cheaply. )
There was plenty of gloating on Twitter, but the pro-Brexit tabloids will ignore any problems, or say it's teething problems. The Guardian has had a few bits of Schadenfreude, but maybe people are exhausted by it.
Yes, but once the bloody Plague is over (or at least under some sort of control), the Remainers may well be heard more clearly, especially as the phrase *teething problems* continues to be shown up as specious.
Oh, I fully expect the "teething problems" to subside... as the affected firms go out of business.
A Guardian reader quoted a possibly apocryphal remark, attributed to a Peterhead fisherman, to the effect that he (the fisherman) had always wanted to be a ballet dancer, and now was his chance...
No, not all go out of business, many are setting up European divisions and transferring the business and workers across the Channel, on Government advice. (No link as on phone)
Yes - on *government* advice! And therein lies yet more irony..
You really couldn't make it up.
I reckon if you put Terry Gilliam, Franz Kafka and Armando Iannucci in a room for a week with a barrel of whisky and a typewriter they could give it a damn good try.
Effectively the UK government has refused to guarantee shellfish exported to the EU will be safe to eat.
Would you buy shellfish if you didn't trust the supplier to make sure they were safe to eat?
AIUI EU rules are that shellfish imported from outside the EU have to be cleaned/purified first. Absent a specific trade deal on that, under World Trade rules they can’t make an exception for British shellfish etc. without granting an exemption for shellfish etc. from the rest of the world. I can understand why they are unwilling to do that.
If you follow various threads, you will see - for example - shopping in person at least weekly in preference to ordering online, because substitutions are annoying. This seems to me to make no sense whatsoever, why would you go to an indoor space full of strangers if you don’t actually need to ?
That would be because when you're dealing with anaphylaxis levels of allergy, substitutions can either mean allergic reactions that require the use of an EpiPen then calling out an ambulance, or no food. And I prefer the risk of the supermarket over that of A&E or not eating, having a sad preference for keeping my offspring alive. TBH, it usually means no food.
But then you are not doing that because substitutions are annoying, you are doing it because they are life threatening. Which is explicitly not the position I was critiquing.
Effectively the UK government has refused to guarantee shellfish exported to the EU will be safe to eat.
Would you buy shellfish if you didn't trust the supplier to make sure they were safe to eat?
If I understand this BBC article correctly, it's not quite as principled as that. The EU does not allow imports of live molluscs from non-member states unless they come from seawater that is rated class A (i.e., highest quality). Most UK seawater is not of that quality.
However, they were presumably willing to accept molluscs from substandard UK waters when the UK was a member state. So it isn't really about safety - if it was about safety, UK molluscs would (mostly) be banned even if the UK remained a member. It seems more like protectionism.
Of course, anyone whose concept of Brexit is based on the idea that the EU would not act in a protectionist manner is chasing unicorns, so I'm not exculpating the Brexiteers here.
Yes - on *government* advice! And therein lies yet more irony..
You really couldn't make it up.
I reckon if you put Terry Gilliam, Franz Kafka and Armando Iannucci in a room for a week with a barrel of whisky and a typewriter they could give it a damn good try.
Effectively the UK government has refused to guarantee shellfish exported to the EU will be safe to eat.
Would you buy shellfish if you didn't trust the supplier to make sure they were safe to eat?
If I understand this BBC article correctly, it's not quite as principled as that. The EU does not allow imports of live molluscs from non-member states unless they come from seawater that is rated class A (i.e., highest quality). Most UK seawater is not of that quality.
However, they were presumably willing to accept molluscs from substandard UK waters when the UK was a member state. So it isn't really about safety - if it was about safety, UK molluscs would (mostly) be banned even if the UK remained a member. It seems more like protectionism.
Of course, anyone whose concept of Brexit is based on the idea that the EU would not act in a protectionist manner is chasing unicorns, so I'm not exculpating the Brexiteers here.
It's not quite that either. Because our seawater is full of crap (literally, due to the UK government permitting private water companies to discharge raw sewage into the rivers and sea), shellfish caught in UK waters were accepted for sale in the EU only after they'd been purified.
The importing nation used to do the purification for us. But because of the live export ban, we now have to do the purification. So, yes, red tape, and yes, being unprepared for that same red tape. None of which would have existed if we'd retained membership of the single market.
Yes - on *government* advice! And therein lies yet more irony..
You really couldn't make it up.
I reckon if you put Terry Gilliam, Franz Kafka and Armando Iannucci in a room for a week with a barrel of whisky and a typewriter they could give it a damn good try.
And, presumably, a ouija board...
I presupposed a being who had access to all three.
Because the EU is a union, members can sort things out between them. When one is not a member, things change. What the ever-loving fuck is wrong, suspicioius or even slightly unexpected about that? Things have to be fit for sale on crossing the border. Makes one think seriously about the consumption of UK shellfish.....
Apparently it is better for their shelf life to do the purification at the destination rather than at source, hence the previous practice of exporting before cleaning. I would expect that shellfish consumed in the UK have also been cleaned, but as far more is exported than eaten here, we probably don't have the capacity to suddenly switch to the other way around.
In answer to @Telford the UK chose to become a third country, with no trade links to the EU, so we could avoid ECJ scrutiny. That means we now have to follow third country rules.
The problem is the lateness of the deal. If Boris hadn't been posturing to the last minute and had agreed this lot in advance, the fishermen would have had time to organise the now required purification tanks.
So no, not the EU, entirely of our own making.
The Seafood was perfectly safe in December but now it's not. I blame the EU
The Seafood was perfectly safe in December but now it's not. I blame the EU.
This is, of course, a false statement. The safety of the seafood has not changed in the slightest, and is also not affected by EU rules.
As has been pointed out already, the EU can have whatever rules it likes about its internal production of seafood. It can apply different rules to seafood whose origin is outwith the EU, but unless the EU has a trade treaty with some non-EU country covering seafood, it must, under WTO rules, treat all non-EU countries on the same basis.
The EU has not decided to treat UK seafood differently from before. The UK left the EU, so moved itself from the category "internal EU rules apply" to the category "rules about external countries apply". The UK has not negotiated a trade treaty about seafood with the EU.
What is the choice that you seem to think the EU has made?
The Seafood was perfectly safe in December but now it's not. I blame the EU.
This is, of course, a false statement. The safety of the seafood has not changed in the slightest, and is also not affected by EU rules.
As has been pointed out already, the EU can have whatever rules it likes about its internal production of seafood. It can apply different rules to seafood whose origin is outwith the EU, but unless the EU has a trade treaty with some non-EU country covering seafood, it must, under WTO rules, treat all non-EU countries on the same basis.
The EU has not decided to treat UK seafood differently from before. The UK left the EU, so moved itself from the category "internal EU rules apply" to the category "rules about external countries apply". The UK has not negotiated a trade treaty about seafood with the EU.
What is the choice that you seem to think the EU has made?
The choice to be awkward. The arrangements that applied last year could have continued
The arrangements that applied last year could have continued
Yes, they could have. If the UK government had negotiated for a different deal. Or, if the UK government hadn't taken a public vote to leave the EU but remain in the single market and custom union (as promised by the Vote Leave people) to mean leaving the EU and the single market and customs union.
The EU are simply applying the rules that everyone knew would apply given the choices that the UK government made, when other choices could have been made.
What is the choice that you seem to think the EU has made?
The choice to be awkward. The arrangements that applied last year could have continued
Can you explain how that would be compatible with WTO rules? You could make a case for extending the transitional period if there was any kind of imminent prospect of a trade deal governing shellfish. But the UK has chosen not to pursue that.
<snip> The choice to be awkward. The arrangements that applied last year could have continued.
The arrangements that applied last year do continue. Shellfish etc. imported from outside the EU have to be purified first.
The change that has happened is that Britain is now outside the EU. Under World Trade rules Britain cannot be treated differently from any other non-EU country.
The permitted exceptions to the equal treatment provisions allow for preferential treatment of developing countries, regional free trade areas and customs unions. Britain is not the first of those three, and chose not to be in either of the other two.
Whether the government carelessly overlooked the situation, or went into it with open eyes but neglected to inform the affected businesses is unclear.
So as I understand it:
We left the EU with no agreement on seafood.
As we are now a third country with no agreement the EU is obliged by WTO rules to treat us the same as other third countries.
This means seafood has to cleaned this side which was not the case when we were in the EU.
So the EU will not take our seafood
That seems clear enough to me.
I think the point is though that there's a difference between 'The EU will apply these rules because of safety considerations xyz', and 'The EU will apply those rules because those are the rules'.
In both cases the application of the rules is a consequence of Brexit, but the second case leaves unanswered the question of whether the EU's rules are reasonable or not.
Well, in the case of shellfish the rules exist for safety considerations, reducing the incidence of food poisoning among those who eat them. I doubt anyone sensible person disagrees with that aim.
The rules specifying that shellfish need to be cleaned prior to shipping to the EU reflect the simple fact that documenting and checking the status of imported goods is relatively simple at the point of import, once goods are inside the border then things become much harder.
Which leaves the question being why long distance movement within the EU is permitted prior to cleaning shellfish. Maybe the EU rules would be better that shellfish need to be cleaned at point of landing, and that they should be clean and safe to eat from the moment they leave the quayside. That isn't how the system was set up (and, there may be good technical reasons for that, but maybe it's simply cheaper to have a few large facilities for cleaning shellfish rather than lots of small facilities, one in every fishing village).
Comments
Yes, I watched several programmes on Cornish fishermen, and they came across as very pumped up, high on anti-EU sentiment, but also vague about Brexit. They could take back British waters, but what about sales in the EU? I don't really understand their position, but there is a lot of emotion, resentment, envy, and hope. God knows where they're at now.
If Remainers started to point to all the warnings given before the stupid referendum, would it release a flood of resentment towards all the public liars who said everything would be better following Brexit, or towards Remainers - becuse nobody likes other people being right (and themselves being shown to be clearly really, really, wrong, mistaken, gullible fools and being poorer, and more constrained in their choices - not freer and living more cheaply. )
Alas, they're up Brexshit creek without a paddle. It's hard to see how they (and other affected fisherpeople) can survive.
Who do I bl;ame for this? The EU of course
Surely it's down to The Will Of The People™...
The People being the EU Commision.
Any blame for adverse effects is therefore down to The Will Of The [English]People™...
The problem is the lateness of the deal. If Boris hadn't been posturing to the last minute and had agreed this lot in advance, the fishermen would have had time to organise the now required purification tanks.
So no, not the EU, entirely of our own making.
Around the time of the referendum (back when dinosaurs walked the Earth), a leave-voting colleague of mine said he had more trust in what Nigel Farage said because "he isn't just another politician". My response was that that Farage is most certainly not just another politician, he was (is) a political evil genius who always knows exactly what lies he has to tell, and to whom. However I fear that in my colleague's eyes I was a member of the Remainer Elite and therefore not entitled to have an opinion about anything.
I was reading the website "Cornish Stuff", and they comment, "fishermen used and abused by Brexit". It just seems tragic, really.
The UK is now a third country, thanks to the utter stupidity of Brexshitters. For them to then blame the EU for applying the rules which have always applied to third countries is utter stupidity.
Get your head out of your complacent, self-satisified arse.
Alas, I fear it's too tightly stuck to move now...
There was plenty of gloating on Twitter, but the pro-Brexit tabloids will ignore any problems, or say it's teething problems. The Guardian has had a few bits of Schadenfreude, but maybe people are exhausted by it.
"Teething problems"?
"Surely there should be a way of coming to some sort of deal?"
Why, yes there is. The easiest way to come to some sort of deal was not to leave the rather comprehensive deal that we had in the first place. But it is of course possible to negotiate any number of deals. The EU is generally keen to negotiate trade deals that don't compromise the EU's standards or principles.
In the case of shellfish, it would be perfectly possible to negotiate some kind of deal that would allow UK shellfish to be imported in to the EU as before. It would certainly require guarantees on standards and so on of the sort that the UK government seems unwilling to entertain.
But the key to the whole thing is that you'd actually have to negotiate that deal. And that hasn't been done.
Yes, but once the bloody Plague is over (or at least under some sort of control), the Remainers may well be heard more clearly, especially as the phrase *teething problems* continues to be shown up as specious.
Chris Grey has some thoughts on this, his blog posts tend to be long and somewhat technical but well worth a read:
https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/
The Brexiters are trying to make our relationship with the EU as antagonistic as possible in order to distract attention from the consequences of Brexit, and blame them on the EU.
Richard North's blog (EUReferendum.com) is the only Brexiter blog I can tolerate reading. He is currently harping on a little tediously about the negative consequences of Brexit being predictable and inevitable ever since Theresa May's foolish decision to leave the single market as well as the EU. (He is very much of the "Brexit was done wrong" school.)
The Norgroves (senior and minor) appear to have fallen out with all their Brexiter chums. In fairness North did produce the 'Flexcit' pamphlet which set out a gradualist approach to leaving the EU, that said they chose to ride the Brexit tiger and knew the nature of the beast. They are also very touchy if you point out to them that they were part of a campaign which literally ran on a 'The Turks are coming !1111!!!!' ticket.
Oh, I fully expect the "teething problems" to subside... as the affected firms go out of business.
You really couldn't make it up.
I reckon if you put Terry Gilliam, Franz Kafka and Armando Iannucci in a room for a week with a barrel of whisky and a typewriter they could give it a damn good try.
Would you buy shellfish if you didn't trust the supplier to make sure they were safe to eat?
But then you are not doing that because substitutions are annoying, you are doing it because they are life threatening. Which is explicitly not the position I was critiquing.
If I understand this BBC article correctly, it's not quite as principled as that. The EU does not allow imports of live molluscs from non-member states unless they come from seawater that is rated class A (i.e., highest quality). Most UK seawater is not of that quality.
However, they were presumably willing to accept molluscs from substandard UK waters when the UK was a member state. So it isn't really about safety - if it was about safety, UK molluscs would (mostly) be banned even if the UK remained a member. It seems more like protectionism.
Of course, anyone whose concept of Brexit is based on the idea that the EU would not act in a protectionist manner is chasing unicorns, so I'm not exculpating the Brexiteers here.
And, presumably, a ouija board...
It's not quite that either. Because our seawater is full of crap (literally, due to the UK government permitting private water companies to discharge raw sewage into the rivers and sea), shellfish caught in UK waters were accepted for sale in the EU only after they'd been purified.
The importing nation used to do the purification for us. But because of the live export ban, we now have to do the purification. So, yes, red tape, and yes, being unprepared for that same red tape. None of which would have existed if we'd retained membership of the single market.
I presupposed a being who had access to all three.
https://theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/03/second-hand-clothing-mountain-piles-up-as-brexit-halts-exports-to-eu
Who knew? Still, it's only Horrid Brown People Not Like Us who will have to suffer, so that's all right.
The Seafood was perfectly safe in December but now it's not. I blame the EU
Yes, it's the EU's fault, for agreeing to Brexshit...
This is, of course, a false statement. The safety of the seafood has not changed in the slightest, and is also not affected by EU rules.
As has been pointed out already, the EU can have whatever rules it likes about its internal production of seafood. It can apply different rules to seafood whose origin is outwith the EU, but unless the EU has a trade treaty with some non-EU country covering seafood, it must, under WTO rules, treat all non-EU countries on the same basis.
The EU has not decided to treat UK seafood differently from before. The UK left the EU, so moved itself from the category "internal EU rules apply" to the category "rules about external countries apply". The UK has not negotiated a trade treaty about seafood with the EU.
What is the choice that you seem to think the EU has made?
Telford is a) I suspect enjoying this game, but b) is also demonstrating how the duping works.
I was not aware that this was a game. People's jobs are at stake.
The EU are simply applying the rules that everyone knew would apply given the choices that the UK government made, when other choices could have been made.
Can you explain how that would be compatible with WTO rules? You could make a case for extending the transitional period if there was any kind of imminent prospect of a trade deal governing shellfish. But the UK has chosen not to pursue that.
The arrangements that applied last year do continue. Shellfish etc. imported from outside the EU have to be purified first.
The change that has happened is that Britain is now outside the EU. Under World Trade rules Britain cannot be treated differently from any other non-EU country.
The permitted exceptions to the equal treatment provisions allow for preferential treatment of developing countries, regional free trade areas and customs unions. Britain is not the first of those three, and chose not to be in either of the other two.
Whether the government carelessly overlooked the situation, or went into it with open eyes but neglected to inform the affected businesses is unclear.
We left the EU with no agreement on seafood.
As we are now a third country with no agreement the EU is obliged by WTO rules to treat us the same as other third countries.
This means seafood has to cleaned this side which was not the case when we were in the EU.
So the EU will not take our seafood
That seems clear enough to me.
In both cases the application of the rules is a consequence of Brexit, but the second case leaves unanswered the question of whether the EU's rules are reasonable or not.
The rules specifying that shellfish need to be cleaned prior to shipping to the EU reflect the simple fact that documenting and checking the status of imported goods is relatively simple at the point of import, once goods are inside the border then things become much harder.
Which leaves the question being why long distance movement within the EU is permitted prior to cleaning shellfish. Maybe the EU rules would be better that shellfish need to be cleaned at point of landing, and that they should be clean and safe to eat from the moment they leave the quayside. That isn't how the system was set up (and, there may be good technical reasons for that, but maybe it's simply cheaper to have a few large facilities for cleaning shellfish rather than lots of small facilities, one in every fishing village).