Me disagreeing with you is not the same as me ignoring your points.
Voicing your disagreement and saying I'm wrong/full of shit/misrepresenting my arguments entirely - doing everything to make your opinion asserted but unbacked, is altogether quite strange. I don't understand why you are so inimical to my point that you would spam all caps refusing I even made the points in the first place, or else pretend I made the exact opposite point, but it does not seem to be with friendly intent :
P
Heck, look at your most recent accusation. You said I've spent pages and pages spouting innuendo, despite linking to:
*The Telegraph detailing how the British fishing industry declined under Heath's leadership and the illegal merging of our fishing stocks, BBC news interviewing Scottish fishermen on the decline of the British fishing industry after introduction of the Common Fisheries policy resulted in hundreds of boats scrapped and quotas implemented to the benefit of Spanish and French trawlers, the Commentator on the drastic shrink of the UK's once dominant market share and geographicly fortunate control of fishing waters, the Council Regulation 2141/74 that gave all members equal rights to waters that was implemented before the UK joined which details how "Member States were in particular to ensure equal conditions of access to and use of the fishing grounds situated in those waters for all fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State and registered in Community territory," and the nature graph using the gov stats which showed upon the allowance of all European fishing vessels into British waters, British landings plummeted.
#Link to that post#And then constructively debated with Sheb over my points, with Sheb contesting that the decline was a natural result of fishing trawlers growing more powerful and overtaking the rate of spawn, with the EU having stabilized fishing rates, with myself pointing that under the quotas fishing rates had not stabilized - having already collapsed, and that my nature article did indeed prove that the EU quotas resulted in significant reductions in British landings as fish landed in into other countries.
#Link to that post#*Here where I used the Telegraph, Guardian and the European Commission Maritime Affairs and Fisheries all corroborating the EU's apology and the need for reform of the disastrous EU policies which have led to the destruction of not just the UK's stocks, but most all of Europe's. The difference in decision making and effectiveness of environmental protection was highlighted by the Guardian when on the National level, the UK reduced discard by 50% by listening to their fishermen whilst the EU continued onwards with Spain and France's lobbies in mind, ordering from the top down instead of bottom up.
#Link to that post#*Or here where SirQuiamus pointed out the question of domestic lobbies, and I pointed out a cursory glance at the article linked would reveal that they were run by Spanish fishing barons with links to illegal fishing and the destructive deep sea trawling that screwed Europe's waters up - even how said fishing barons took advantage of British fishing quotas and denied small-scale fishermen representation in Europe-wide political forums, thus showing how they were not domestic lobbies, but European ones.
#Link to that post#In continuation I went further down this line of enquiry after SirQuiamus continued asking me in kind, and voiced my opinion that people employed to lobby MPs are not an issue when their employees are gotten rid of, given that without money lobbying cannot continue. But to answer the question that SirQuiamus intended to ask if the NFFO had not turned out to be Spaniards, I replied saying I agreed that Brexit would do nothing to stop truly domestic British trawlers from lobbying for more harmful overfishing, saying I did not expect Brexit to be a magic bullet that fixed all problems, only that I would rather confront the British lobby without having to also confront European lobbies in European governments where I have no power.
#Link to that post#I don't recall ever saying Brexit would fix the domestic ills of Britain, and I do go out of my way to stress so repeatedly I might add - though my efforts seem often in vain.
*And here, where I broke down most all criticisms I had the time to levy on the EU in regards to fish.
On how we could not extend our EEZ beyond 12 nm due to membership of the EU or how our landings were sent to the Netherlands, France or Spain. Or how using statistics from the European Commission JRC-IPSC Maritime Affairs of the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, French and Spanish trawlers were unprofitable even with EU subsidies, yet they were given egregious sums of money and access to foreign waters whilst the profitable British fleet was paid to be scrapped or forced through quotas to stop fishing their own waters.
I pointed out with a BBC article how 1 in 3 of Spain's fish were paid for by subsidies, how the Government was so focused on short-term jobs that they guaranteed long-term disaster, and how in another BBC article we were more than capable of protecting dolphins and porpoises within our 12 nm radius, but in order to protect them beyond that we would have to require the agreement of Spain and France - which wasn't going to happen, because they were the ones we had to protect against.
I then pointed as to why in particular, pointing to how through a Guardian article, British attempts to save our fishing industry through the EU were by banning discarding were thwarted by Spain and France, and how the quotas were directly used for overfishing and not protecting stocks. I pointed to a BBC article where there were fears that the discarding ban would be diluted, to a fishsite which stated the ban was delayed by two years, and then to a reuters article where it was finally revealed that Spain and France had secured a loophole which rendered the discarding ban pointless. Meaning we would have to start the fight for discarding all over again - or regain our waters.
I then mentioned the British government had done something I was actually proud of, in defending the West African nations' coasts from plundering by Spanish and French trawlers, as reported by the Guardian. The leaked documents they published revealed that the UK may have succeeded in blocking legislature which would have allowed European trawlers to continue overfishing African waters, I then pointed to a European Parliament News article detailing the new EU-Mauritania fisheries deal, meaning the UK had only succeeded in stalling it for 4 years. I then made points about how it made no sense to subsidize harmful behaviour that produced no profit and didn't even serve lobbyist interests in the long term - being a lose-lose situation that the EU controlled, that the UK lost disastrously on.
#Link to that post#Each of these points are expanded in fuller and greater detail in their original posts. You replied thus:
It sounds like the sort of complaint that has a grain of truth and a pile of exaggeration.
What you said could be very bad or it could be nothing of concern at all.
I'm sorry that I assumed that you read the daily mail just because you are repeating the talking points of one of their fake scandals.
Okay now what you are telling us is just incoherent. The fish are allocated to Britain then the fishing rights are sold to the Dutch and somehow this is the EUs fault? Sounds like your problem is with whoever is selling the fishing rights.
Sounds like a typical "SOMETHING I DONT LIKE IS HAPPENING" proof of "guilt".
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.
Well you didn't provide a single number and you are making a nationalistic denouncement of foreigners.
LW, I think you REALLY need to stop reading the daily mail.
I'm sorry that I assumed that you read the daily mail just because you are repeating the talking points of one of their fake scandals. You could have read about it on all sorts of poorly sourced right wing news sources targeted towards nationalistic British conservatives.
(Are you trying to step into LW's shitposting role since he has decided to change into the forum right nationalist british poster?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc There was a fishing collapse that part is true. It's the rest that's a load of shit. You take something that did happen and you ascribe it without a shred of proof to the EU. You even blame the EU for the policies of the British government that the EU doesn't dictate.
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?
"Not a magic bullet" isn't an excuse for it doing literally nothing about what you say it will solve.
Which has demonstrated the utmost insincerity.
A brief breakdown of all the sources used in alphabetical order:
- BBC [5]
- Commentator [1]
- European Union [4]
- Fishsite [1]
- Gov MMO/Nature [1] (not counting reposts)
- Guardian [4]
- Greenpeace [1], credit to SirQuiamus
- Reuters [1]
- Telegraph [2]
- Time [1]
Yet you see the Daily Mail and BNP lol
You know, whatever this is, you do have to appreciate the irony in you as the white American male trying to invalidate others like that :
P
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.
That's fine and all, but if one intends to do nothing but act salty and contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion, then they are doing nothing but inflame the thread and disrupt constructive discussion
And that's not good at all xD
Poll
Author
Topic: Breeki British Brexit thread (Read 154488 times)