Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

FUCK YES LET'S LEAVE GET HYPE YEY

Casual yes, let's leave and get independence done with

Meh, probably just scribble all over my vote ballot to spite tryhards

Casual no, let's remain and get integration done with

FUCK NO LET'S REMAIN GET CALM YEY

[Sheb]

Belgium's Bureau of the Plan (That sounds communist as fuck, but it's the agency charged with making economic predictions for the government) said that Brexit could cost Belgium 12,000 jobs and 0.5% of GDP. Apparently we have a 10 billions euros trade surplus with Britain.

[Loud Whispers]

I really hope that Remain wins, so that I can see LW's no-doubt hilarious response to that event. Also, because UK's relative independence must be squashed and its unique national culture - destroyed and replaced with EU one. For reasons. Totally not related to EU culture being much less resistant to outside influences from Eastern direction. Nope. No siree.

My reaction would be rather mundane, in response the UK would just have to become more of the globalist monster the French fear we are. Like how London is this titanic hydra of economic, cultural, political, enriched capital - and then multiply that across the entire UK, leveraging Europe onto itself. Support faster integration, faster expansion, more sovereignty of European nations turned over. The unique cultures of the UK, plural, and of Europe, plural - of them would emerge something fresh.
Maybe with a bit of socialism, I'm surprised by how Corbyn presents a viable threat of socialist usurpation of the European Union liberals - neat guy, I have found myself agreeing with him more than I expected to. I imagine most people on Bay12 will agree with my positions but find I am adopting them for the wrong reasons, but such is life.
I particularly like it when he answered one of the audience's questions in his most recent Qtime; they asked him how he planned to fulfill his pledges to the UK since EU regulation would make it illegal, classing his attempts at saving the NHS or British industry as illegal state intervention. His response can be paraphrased as have a spine and ignore the EU whilst working with the socialists across the channel. Strange world we live in where the pacifist has more spine than the jellyfish of Libya.

>and then we come for Russia

Brexit and Brexin will both cause me some hurt, but I will be patient and content with either outcome, though Brexin fills me with more trepidation of the future. It is more the notion of a poisoned Brexit that would make me truly as salty as the saltiest pillar; it would be all the costs with no gains.

Okay, LW, the EU is hindering British efforts for sustainable fishing. Fair enough.
One question, though: How exactly is Brexit going to hinder the anti-sustainability efforts of powerful domestic fishing lobbyists such as the NFFO?

"Domestic" lobbyists. Goodness gracious me.

Nonetheless, with both the left and right agreeing that overfishing benefits no one on any metric (bloody hell, not even the Spanish trawlers in the long run), we should be able to get everyone livid over salty fish. The greens and libdems will be livid over our environment being despoiled, labour over the loss of British jobs, Tories over the collapse of future fishing revenue and the UKIP successor over wealthy foreigners killing our waters.

[SirQuiamus]

Okay, LW, the EU is hindering British efforts for sustainable fishing. Fair enough.
One question, though: How exactly is Brexit going to hinder the anti-sustainability efforts of powerful domestic fishing lobbyists such as the NFFO?

"Domestic" lobbyists. Goodness gracious me.

Ahahah, now you're thinking like a Russian: all corrupt organizations in your country are foreign agents. :-D

Seriously, you should watch out for these guys – they're just as hard after your fish as the EU bureaucrats:

The UK is one of those member states which have already progressed quite far towards a system of rights-based management, not dissimilar to the system described in the Commission Proposal. Other countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark have also moved successfully in a similar direction.

For the vessels to which it applies, most commentators would agree that the UK quota management system based on Fixed Quota Allocations has been successful in terms of:

Adjusting available fishing opportunities to capacity.

Using UK quotas more efficiently.

Encouraging a high degree of compliance.

It is those parts of the UK (fleet, principally the under-10 metre sector) that have not been part of the mainstream quota management system (and the associated decommissioning schemes that facilitated the adjustment) which now are subject to quota management problems.

Some bretty good euphemisms there.

[Loud Whispers]

Okay, LW, the EU is hindering British efforts for sustainable fishing. Fair enough.
One question, though: How exactly is Brexit going to hinder the anti-sustainability efforts of powerful domestic fishing lobbyists such as the NFFO?

"Domestic" lobbyists. Goodness gracious me.

Ahahah, now you're thinking like a Russian: all corrupt organizations in your country are foreign agents. :-D

It's literally in the second sentence

Our latest investigation into one of the most powerful and influential fishing industry bodies in the UK has exposed a clique of foreign fishing barons, including companies linked to illegal and destructive fishing.

More into the article:

Over half of the NFFOs fleet is controlled by foreign fishing interests. This means that, whilst these boats sail under the Union Jack, they are ultimately controlled by companies or individuals from other countries. This means they use the UK's fishing quota, and will often fish in UK waters; however, they probably contribute next to nothing to the UK economy. The kicker here is that these boats are some of the largest and most powerful in the fleet. 

The NFFO is working against the interests of small-scale fishermen. In a letter leaked to our investigators, we discovered that the NFFO is trying to deny small-scale fishermen wider representation on key political forums in Europe. This is really significant at a time when the overarching rules governing fishing in Europe are being reformed.

The NFFO represents vessels involved in illegal fishing on a large scale. For example, the O Genita and its Spanish Vidal family owners – who we exposed in another investigation last year – is an NFFO member and was central to the largest illegal fishing case in British maritime history with penalties of £1.62m.

The Spaniards strike again

Seriously, you should watch out for these guys – they're just as hard after your fish as the EU bureaucrats:

They're the ones paying the EU bureaucrats, prolly got or had Brit MPs in their pocket too

[SirQuiamus]

I'm saying you won't get rid of the foreign fishing barons until you get rid of the NFFO, and the NFFO is staffed with well-connected British (not foreign) lads who are very good friends with the local MPs. I'm afraid Brexit will not help you here.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm saying you won't get rid of the foreign fishing barons until you get rid of the NFFO, and the NFFO is staffed with well-connected British (not foreign) lads who are very good friends with the local MPs. I'm afraid Brexit will not help you here.

Everyone is very good friends with the local MPs if the local MPs are worth their salt, funding on the other hand is an entirely different issue. Get rid of the foreign barons and the local lads have no funding with which to lobby MPs, certainly won't be able to stop a UK media blitz to turn the British public actively hostile to an issue all sides are already in agreement on. Brexit will help there, but that's a bad example because the NFFO are "domestic" and not domestic. In the case of domestic lobbies I don't expect Brexit to help there, as Brexit is not a magic bullet to fix all of life's problem. I don't see how having European lobbies controlling a government I am powerless in in addition to European lobbies within the UK is supposed to be preferable to merely having to deal with domestic lobbies though.

[mainiac]

I'm saying you won't get rid of the foreign fishing barons until you get rid of the NFFO, and the NFFO is staffed with well-connected British (not foreign) lads who are very good friends with the local MPs. I'm afraid Brexit will not help you here.

Everyone is very good friends with the local MPs if the local MPs are worth their salt, funding on the other hand is an entirely different issue. Get rid of the foreign barons and the local lads have no funding with which to lobby MPs, certainly won't be able to stop a UK media blitz to turn the British public actively hostile to an issue all sides are already in agreement on. Brexit will help there, but that's a bad example because the NFFO are "domestic" and not domestic. In the case of domestic lobbies I don't expect Brexit to help there, as Brexit is not a magic bullet to fix all of life's problem. I don't see how having European lobbies controlling a government I am powerless in in addition to European lobbies within the UK is supposed to be preferable to merely having to deal with domestic lobbies though.

Step 1) Brexit
Step 2) Things completely unrelated to Brexit
Step 3) Success!

If Step 2 will inevitably follow step 1, why hasn't it happened yet?  Is the EU censoring the British airways?  EU regulations make bribery legal?

[notquitethere]

So despite all the months of discussions and campaigns I'm still on the fence. Both sides mostly produce arguments that only help you rationalise your decision after the fact. Here are my main concerns:

1. It's fundamentally anti-democratic: the people that propose the laws are unelected, the EU parliament can merely amend laws.

2. Decisions should be made by those that they effect at the level they effect: EU makes many laws at a supra-national level that should be on matters for individual polities to decide (such as standards for goods for internal sale).

3. Many of its policies are onerous (for instance, the requirement for VAT at a specific level when sales taxes are one of the most regressive tax forms, placing a greater burden on the poorest people) but we cannot opt out of them.

4. The Common Agricultural Policy is a flagrant redistribution of money from the poor to the rich, a subsidy that most benefits the big agribusinesses and the landed gentry (who still own 3rd of this country). E.g. The Duke of Westminster (net worth 7bn) got £748K of subsidies in 2011. While subsidies would likely continue in some form post-Brexit, the aristocrats rightly fear it'll lead to a drop in amount.

On basic liberal principles, 1 & 2 are reasons not to be a part of the organisation; 3 is a concrete downside to continued membership; but it's 4 that makes me really seethe. It's bad enough that so much of the country is still held by the descendants of feudal invaders and enclosure act land grabbers, but that we pay them so much for the privilege of holding on to the land just beggars belief.

[Loud Whispers]

Step 1) Brexit
Step 2) Things completely unrelated to Brexit
Step 3) Success!

If Step 2 will inevitably follow step 1, why hasn't it happened yet?  Is the EU censoring the British airways?  EU regulations make bribery legal?

Brexit is not a magic bullet to fix all of life's problem.

Apply yourself

[mainiac]

"Not a magic bullet" isn't an excuse for it doing literally nothing about what you say it will solve.

[Loud Whispers]

"Not a magic bullet" isn't an excuse for it doing literally nothing about what you say it will solve.

Demonstrate it literally

[mainiac]

Show an absence?  Isn't that logically impossible?  How about the fact that you haven't shown a single direct causal link.  You have spent pages and pages spouting innuendo.

[Loud Whispers]

Show an absence?  Isn't that logically impossible?  How about the fact that you haven't shown a single direct causal link.  You have spent pages and pages spouting innuendo.

No, just show that I'm saying what you claim I am. You ignored this this this this this and couldn't even respond to this. Mainiac, please actually put some effort into your posts. You've spent pages showing your affection to me or else just ignoring my posts and saying I've said nothing. I mean I literally said Brexit will not solve domestic lobbies (averse to "domestic" ones) and then you show your affection for Brexit solving domestic lobbies. Even the European Commission apologizing for the destruction caused by the Fishing Commons policy is ignored by you. I don't know what more is there to say?

Is it really too much effort to ask that you actually contribute instead of just relentlessly attacking me without substance? I mean c'mon, you even now resorting to strawmen arguments that fall flat in the posts you're responding to. I'm beginning to think this is on purpose :\

[mainiac]

Me disagreeing with you is not the same as me ignoring your points.

[nenjin]

Is it really too much effort to ask that you actually contribute instead of just relentlessly attacking me without substance?

As maniac once famously put it in the Ameripol thread, he's not here to teach anyone anything. If the salt level can come down a bit between the two of you (although mostly just maniac), he might decide it's worth actually providing some content to back his interpretation. But if you're expecting him to go point for point through your post to show where he believes your links are spurious, well, that rarely happens.