Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,287,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 450 of 1206
  1. #376
    You obviously don't understand what an "EU Army" means.

    It's not that you hand over your army to the EU and they decide what to do with it, iow that you relinquish "sovereignty" over your armed forces and/or foreign policy.

    The EU Army would be controlled by its member states, not by "unelected bureaucrats" / Warlords moving pins around a map in Brussels. The fact that you even can entertain such a preposterous idea shows how badly misinformed you are. Why the fuck would any country agree to that?

    When the UK joins a UN peacekeeping force, do you think that is relinquishing our sovereignty too?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  2. #377
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's like the entire idea of uniting states is anathema to you, ong.

    I'm not putting up the USA as a paragon of anything, but these united states are not living with any feeling of missing democracy or freedom. Whether or not that's appropriate in the US is a great topic for debate, but that's not what we're doing, here. Each state contributes to the "superstate's" military, but also maintains state-level military services. The people of the USA largely feel a sense of sovereignty and freedom, despite what you would probably describe as the opposite, due to their membership in the USA.

    If your arguments are putting forth that this kind of superstate is bad for the UK for some reasons specific to the UK, then cool. However, if your arguments are that this style of cooperative / membership governance in a greater political union is an obvious moral wrongness, then your arguments simply aren't making that point.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  3. #378
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    this was always about sovereignty and democracy.
    What sovereignty has Brexit gained us? The right to freely negotiate a lot of poorer trade deals than we had obviously. But what else? We already had the right to abstain from joining the EU Army, so that doesn't count sorry.

    And "democracy" lol. So far, you haven't provided one good reason why being a part of a larger democracy like the EU is somehow a bad thing. Unless of course you go back in a circle to "sovereignty". But then you still can't explain how we are gaining in that respect, except for having the right to lose out on trade so we can salute the flag and shout #MEGA.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  4. #379
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's like the entire idea of uniting states is anathema to you, ong.

    I'm not putting up the USA as a paragon of anything, but these united states are not living with any feeling of missing democracy or freedom. Whether or not that's appropriate in the US is a great topic for debate, but that's not what we're doing, here. Each state contributes to the "superstate's" military, but also maintains state-level military services. The people of the USA largely feel a sense of sovereignty and freedom, despite what you would probably describe as the opposite, due to their membership in the USA.

    If your arguments are putting forth that this kind of superstate is bad for the UK for some reasons specific to the UK, then cool. However, if your arguments are that this style of cooperative / membership governance in a greater political union is an obvious moral wrongness, then your arguments simply aren't making that point.

    Even then, states' rights have been relatively strong in the US, but they're even stronger in the EU. Each country has the right to entirely determine its own foreign policy, to generally manage its own economy how it sees fit - apart from having a dedicated team that negotiates trade deals as part of a bloc - and has frictionless trade and immigration between members. But yeah, who wants that when we can have "sovereignty" and "democracy"?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  5. #380
    The EU Army would be controlled by its member states, not by "unelected bureaucrats"
    So you're saying it won't actually be an EU army? Well ok then, glad you're so confident.

    When the UK joins a UN peacekeeping force, do you think that is relinquishing our sovereignty too?
    No. But if you're suggesting the EU army would be similar to the UN peacekeeping force, what's the point? We already have the UN. And we already have NATO as a defensive bloc. AN EU army can only increase geopolitical tensions.

    So far, you haven't provided one good reason why being a part of a larger democracy like the EU is somehow a bad thing.
    I don't know how many times I need to say this. Let's try one more time.

    I am wholly unsatisfied with the EU's idea of "democracy". I do not consider it to be all that democratic. We have discussed this extensively.

    What sovereignty has Brexit gained us?
    Freedom to trade with who we please under terms that can be mutually agreed. I don't even know what else we've gained because I haven't taken the time to peruse the deal we have finally agreed. I really can't be bothered. You tell me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #381
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    It's like the entire idea of uniting states is anathema to you, ong.
    Well observed.

    I'm not putting up the USA as a paragon of anything, but these united states are not living with any feeling of missing democracy or freedom.
    American democracy is heavily flawed, as we saw when Trump won an election with less votes than Clinton. And you of all people know that "freedom" in USA is bullshit, USA have more people in prison per capita than everyone except China and possibly some small shithole countries.

    If it works for USA, all power to you guys. But I do not want to see Europe "uniting" into one superstate, or at least I don't want the UK to be a part of it.

    There's a big difference between the USA and Europe... culture. I appreciate USA is a mix of various cultures, but the people primarily speak one language. Texas has more in common with Montana than the UK does with Italy. Europe is a continent containing lots and lots of different cultures and languages.

    It's hard enough balancing internal interests within the UK, which is itself a union of multiple cultures. But at least we all speak the same language here and have much in common. But even the UK is struggling and possibly won't exist in its current form for much longer.

    If your arguments are putting forth that this kind of superstate is bad for the UK for some reasons specific to the UK, then cool.
    It's bad for the UK because we are a sovereign state and have been for a very long time. Texas isn't a sovereign state, nor has it ever been. The USA was formed as a union when they declared independence from the UK. The UK is used to ruling itself. Texas is not.

    It's not that I have a problem with the American system, it's that I don't think that can work in Europe because Europe has suffered many wars, some very recent, Europe is a continent of cultures that don't historically get on very well. Enforced unions won't resolve those problems. Mutual respect for each others' sovereignty is a better plan imo.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #382
    The UK is made up of a dominant tribe (Anglo Saxons) and three branches of a minority tribe (Celts). I think we should respect their right to self-sovereignty, and not wait for them to leave, but dissolve the UK right now.

    It's the best way to preserve the peace that has existed between us for the last couple hundred years, just like dissolving the EU is the best way to preserve the peace in a multicultural union that has not had a war between its member states since it was founded.

    Still interested to know what part of our sovereignty we lost to the EU apart from the right to negotiate our own second-rate trade deals, and something something fish that is also pretty small potatoes compared to what we would get as members.

    But given you haven't come up with a decent answer yet, and nor has anyone else, I'm not holding my breath on that one.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  8. #383
    The UK is made up of a dominant tribe (Anglo Saxons) and three branches of a minority tribe (Celts). I think we should respect their right to self-sovereignty, and not wait for them to leave, but dissolve the UK right now.
    If I said this, you'd say something about banana in Latin.

    They do have a right to self determination. All they need to do is exercise that right. They also have a right to membership of the UK if they prefer that option, so removing their status without their blessing would be an awful thing to do. Which of course you know full well.

    I don't want to dissolve the EU, I want the UK to leave the EU, and I hope that any other member state whose population wishes to leave is allowed to.

    Still interested to know what part of our sovereignty we lost to the EU apart from the right to negotiate our own second-rate trade deals
    I like the way you say "apart from..." as though the ability to agree trade deals is a minor aspect of sovereignty. But seeing as you don't seem to understand what sovereignty means, let's try this... is Texas sovereign?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by ong
    Texas isn't a sovereign state, nor has it ever been.
    Turns out I'm wrong here. Texas was, briefly, a sovereign state (1836 to 1846). I guess I picked a bad example there. Never mind.

    Texas probably does have a right to self determination, if they so choose. Whether it would be allowed is a whole different matter, but they likely fall into the category of "nation".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If I said this, you'd say something about banana in Latin.

    They do have a right to self determination. All they need to do is exercise that right. They also have a right to membership of the UK if they prefer that option, so removing their status without their blessing would be an awful thing to do. Which of course you know full well.
    Well wait, it can't be that only they get to decide if they're in or not. What if the English voted to kick them out? Whether it's nice or not is a moot point. It's our right to decide who we are joined to, isnt' it?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I like the way you say "apart from..." as though the ability to agree trade deals is a minor aspect of sovereignty. But seeing as you don't seem to understand what sovereignty means, let's try this... is Texas sovereign?
    It's kinda dumb though to make a big deal out of having the right to negotiate worse deals than what we already have, as if that's somehow a benefit of leaving the EU.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    let's try this... is Texas sovereign?
    Texas can move goods to and from other states without customs declarations or tariffs. It also benefits from whatever trade deals the US makes. So, if Texas thought it would do better to negotiate it's own trade deals from a weaker position then it would be as wrong as anyone who thinks the UK will get better trade deals than it had before. Even the EU is giving us a good rogering now, thanks to "sovereignty."

    It's a weird paradox that you value sovereignty over trade when that means we'll be worse off. It's like doing your own taxes and paying more than if you let your accountant do them because you want to exercise your right to independence.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  11. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Turns out I'm wrong here. Texas was, briefly, a sovereign state (1836 to 1846). I guess I picked a bad example there. Never mind.

    Texas probably does have a right to self determination, if they so choose. Whether it would be allowed is a whole different matter, but they likely fall into the category of "nation".
    Whatever right it has depends on what the US a whole decides. A lot of other states once decide they had the "right" to leave before, and that didn't go over well. You may have heard of that of that little kerfuffle, but possibly not.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  12. #387
    What if the English voted to kick them out?
    We can't do that. We could vote to leave the UK though.

    It's kinda dumb though to make a big deal out of having the right to negotiate worse deals than what we already have, as if that's somehow a benefit of leaving the EU.
    I've been trying to leave your "worse" comments alone, because as you are aware, such comments are subjective. The deals we agree might be worse, but they aren't necessarily so. We could, in theory, agree free trade deals with the rest of the world, while dealing with the EU on WTO terms. That's better than what we had. That's not going to be the case though. It looks like we'll have a beneficial economic relationship with the EU, while also now being free to trade with who we like on whatever terms suit us. I wouldn't call that "worse", I'd call that "better". But, like I say, subjective.

    It's a weird paradox that you value sovereignty over trade when that means we'll be worse off.
    It's not a paradox. I find it baffling that you value economics over sovereignty. I mean, perhaps we'd have been better off letting Hitler defeat us. Should we have allowed it?

    And no, I'm not comparing the EU to Nazi Germany. I'm simply using the extreme case to make the point that sovereignty is more important than economics.

    It's like doing your own taxes and paying more than if you let your accountant do them because you want to exercise your right to independence.
    Perhaps. Or, if you're a competent accountant yourself, you could avoid having to pay some fucker else to do something you're capable of doing yourself.

    A lot of other states once decide they had the "right" to leave before, and that didn't go over well. You may have heard of that of that little kerfuffle, but possibly not.
    If you're referring to the US civil war, I'm really not well clued up on it. I'm not even going to try and get into it, other than to say that a "nation", which is well defined, has a right to self determination. I appreciate that exercising that right is rarely easy in practise, as we see in Catalonia. 19th century USA is a whole different beast.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #388
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Turns out I'm wrong here. Texas was, briefly, a sovereign state (1836 to 1846). I guess I picked a bad example there. Never mind.

    Texas probably does have a right to self determination, if they so choose. Whether it would be allowed is a whole different matter, but they likely fall into the category of "nation".
    I was going to point it out that Texas is a particularly bad example, but it doesn't really sully your greater point. Most states did not have independent sovereignty as you describe after the very early years of the US. States paying federal taxes was purely voluntary at first, and the federal laws didn't clearly trump state laws at first, either. But once the initial shocks of forming the new nation were over, it settled largely into what it is today as far as the mix of federal and state sovereignty.

    No US state has the right to declare independence from the USA without invoking a war. There are a few popular urban myths running around that certain states (Texas included) have clauses in their state constitutions that allow them to secede from the union if they so choose. And that's all well and good as far as their state laws go, but the federal laws are quite clear that seceding from the union is a declaration of war - and could be interpreted and tried as treason, depending on how far it went and what political powers chose to do.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  14. #389
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Poopy did point out one of the dividing lines as far as federal vs state sovereignty in the US.

    Only the fed can negotiate an international agreement - especially trade when it comes to states ability to negotiate with whomever they choose. The states can interact freely with each other, providing they aren't breaking federal laws - which is too complicated to codify in a post. States are largely free to move goods and services back and forth if they pay the taxes associated with interstate commerce.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  15. #390
    Here's an article for poop to read...
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-35630757

    The last two sentences are important...

    However, those who want to leave the EU say the only sovereignty that matters is the ability to make all our laws in the UK.

    And if that's what sovereignty means, it's difficult to see how it can be achieved while the UK remains part of the EU.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  16. #391
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    but the federal laws are quite clear that seceding from the union is a declaration of war
    Pure speculation here, but I suspect this is not compatible with international law. A "nation" has a right to self determination. This is not a right that a state can take away from a nation. But in practise, the state regularly takes this right away from the nation.

    For the sake of clarity, a nation is a population with a common culture, history, territory and language. That's pretty vague, a better definition can be found by researching, but that's the gist. It certainly helps if such a population has been independent in the past, as is the case with Texas. So I suspect that international law allows Texas to unilaterally declare independence, and any punishment by the state would be a breach of international law. However, this isn't how the world actually works, otherwise we'd see pressure on Spain to allow Catalonia a referendum. That is the best example in modern times of a nation attempting to break away from a state. And Scotland, who chose not to in a referendum.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #392
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,507
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Regardless of international law - who's going to enforce international law against the US?


    It's similar for Russia, India, and China and probably a few others. If they decide to go against international agreement, the scale of war that would result if the world chose to oppose them with military would be catastrophic.

    This is why the US got away with invading Iraq, and it's why Russia is getting away with invading Ukraine (if that's what it's doing... I haven't heard much about it in a while).


    There's sovereignty in scale. Which is a curious thing about your argument. On some level - if the EU forms an army, then they gain the sovereignty of being able to threaten global war if they are opposed militarily. That buys them the freedom to disregard international laws when it suits them to take the other sanctions as hits... if there are any.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  18. #393
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Here's an article for poop to read...
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-35630757

    The last two sentences are important...
    Yes that's about as deep as the argument seems to go - we want to make all our own laws.

    The question is whether that principle alone has a greater value than the benefit of being part of the world's largest trading bloc. And if so, how that value can be realised. Just saying "it makes me feel good that British people are making our own trade deals now" isn't a good argument if those trade deals are worse than the ones we had before. But obviously we've been over this before.

    You're apparently prepared to take a large and lasting economic hit so you can own this right of sovereignty that harms your own country economically. Fine, I get it. But, neither you nor any other Brexiter can explain how your or my or any of our countrymen's lives are going to be better because of it in any tangible way, just that it feels good to you and the #MEGA crowd - which is never going to cut it for me.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  19. #394
    Regardless of international law - who's going to enforce international law against the US?
    Quite. If Spain can get away with it, then USA certainly can.

    We're drifting off topic here, but the Crimea thing is not as simple as an "invasion". The Crimean people speak Russian, and identify as Russian. Of course, that is no coincidence, rather it's a result of oppressive Russian policy against Ukrainian residents over the decades, but the current population of Crimea want to be Russian. So I don't think it's fair to compare it to a breach of international law. To do so is to ignore the right of the population to self determination. They voted for it, and I'm in no doubt that the vote was a fair reflection of their will.

    There's sovereignty in scale. Which is a curious thing about your argument. On some level - if the EU forms an army, then they gain the sovereignty of being able to threaten global war if they are opposed militarily. That buys them the freedom to disregard international laws when it suits them to take the other sanctions as hits... if there are any.
    Sovereignty isn't binary, it's not like you either have it or you don't. We're just more sovereign outside the EU than within. We have greater power to make our own laws, and the freedom to trade with whoever we like on mutually beneficial terms.

    The power of an EU army depends a great deal on its role relative to the militaries of its member states. If it's a UN-style peacekeeping force, it's a lot harder for it to become rogue, but if it replaces member state militaries, it could be a huge problem, especially if member states are signing up without the blessing of their population. Considering such an army is completely unnecessary, it doesn't seem worth the risk. It seems to me that such an army would be intended to rival the military power of USA, Russia and China. We don't need another military superpower, it causes problems, it does not solve problems.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Pure speculation here, but I suspect this is not compatible with international law. A "nation" has a right to self determination. This is not a right that a state can take away from a nation. But in practise, the state regularly takes this right away from the nation.

    For the sake of clarity, a nation is a population with a common culture, history, territory and language.
    There's no international law that says a country has to let a part of it secede.

    I'll think you'll find if the UK doesn't at least start making noises towards rejoining the EU in the next five years, there will be another Scottish referendum with a different outcome, and possible a N. Irish one too. Then we'll see how the UK responds. Most countries are not keen to see parts of themselves break away.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  21. #396
    Yes that's about as deep as the argument seems to go - we want to make all our own laws.

    Yes. That's what sovereignty is. Those who are democratically elected make the laws, not outsiders.


    The question is whether that principle alone has a greater value than the benefit of being part of the world's largest trading bloc.

    Again, you're putting economics above sovereignty. This is where we differ in opinion greatly. You're in the "economics at any cost" camp. I'm in the "sovereignty at any cost" camp.


    But, neither you nor any other Brexiter can explain how your or my or any of our countrymen's lives are going to be better

    That's because this isn't what it's about. Our lives might be better because we have more economic freedom, or they might be worse because we fail to take advantage of our economic freedom. It's irrelevant. I voted to reject excessive outside interference in our affairs.


    Some people will certainly benefit, while others will lose out. That's the reality of an economic shock on this scale. I really don't know if in ten years time the average person will be better off or worse off. That depends on what happens in the next ten years, not what has happened in the last five.


    This isn't about MEGA. That's a cute little catchphrase that you've coined to belittle Brexiteers. We're used to it. I'm impressed you haven't called me gammon yet.


    Try MESA instead. I don't want us to be "great", I want us to be "sovereign". It's not like we want a return to the empire days. Well, some might, but I certainly don't. I want a much more restrained foreign policy, instead of us being a nuclear state with a big mouth. I also want us to be in control of our own laws and our own economy. That isn't MEGA, that's just us being a normal country like pretty much everyone outside of Europe.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    On some level - if the EU forms an army, then they gain the sovereignty of being able to threaten global war if they are opposed militarily. That buys them the freedom to disregard international laws when it suits them to take the other sanctions as hits... if there are any.
    The EU Army is mostly about standardizing equipment and the like, which brings a lot of savings. If all 27 countries are using the same rifles and ammunition, it's a lot cheaper to supply them than if they're using 27 different rifles with 27 different bullets, and 27 different tanks and 27 different jet fighters, etc. etc. When you add it all up, it's a lot of money that could be saved, like billions of $$$.

    Despite what fiction Ong might have heard on the internet, its' not like every member country hands their army over to the EU Warlord Council which decides who to attack with it. Each country woud still control its own forces, though obviously they'd rely on each other for supply - e.g., if the tanks were all made in Germany and the planes were all made in France, it'd be pretty hard for one to attach the other. But, it'd be a lot easier for them to both finance their defense budgets.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  23. #398
    There's no international law that says a country has to let a part of it secede.
    I'm not sure about this, and I doubt you are either. International law is complicated and routinely ignored.

    I'll think you'll find if the UK doesn't at least start making noises towards rejoining the EU in the next five years, there will be another Scottish referendum with a different outcome, and possible a N. Irish one too. Then we'll see how the UK responds. Most countries are not keen to see parts of themselves break away.
    Are you forgetting we already allowed Scotland to vote on this matter? The UK doesn't want it, but the UK might not be able to stop it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #399
    My God, poop actually wants to have a continent-size army so we can all have the same guns.

    Fuck me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Some people will certainly benefit, while others will lose out. That's the reality of an economic shock on this scale. I really don't know if in ten years time the average person will be better off or worse off. That depends on what happens in the next ten years, not what has happened in the last five.
    Weak. Of course "some" will benefit. Most will lose. The country will be worse off overall. Drink all the "MESA" koolaid you want, it's not going to a good thing for us.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  26. #401
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Weak. Of course "some" will benefit. Most will lose. The country will be worse off overall.
    This is your opinion. This is not a fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #402
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm not sure about this, and I doubt you are either. International law is complicated and routinely ignored.
    There's no law that tells a country how to deal with its own separatist movements. If there were we'd have heard about it being quoted by separatists. FFS, read a book.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  28. #403
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is your opinion. This is not a fact YET.
    fyp.

    It's in all the forecasts. It's pretty basic economics that when you impair your own trade, you lose out.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  29. #404
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    There's no law that tells a country how to deal with its own separatist movements. If there were we'd have heard about it being quoted by separatists. FFS, read a book.
    I don't think you know what "nation" means. Go read a wikipedia page.

    This isn't about "separatists", it's about "nations". I can be a separatist. I can't create my own nation though.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #405
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Are you forgetting we already allowed Scotland to vote on this matter?
    Did you not see the word "another" in my post?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The UK doesn't want it, but the UK might not be able to stop it.
    Quebec had two separate referendums to gain it's independence from Canada. The first one the PM told them even if the separatists win, you're not going anywhere. So yeah, the UK could stop it if they want to; though it'd be pretty hypocritical after they just did the same thing to the EU, so I doubt they would.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  31. #406
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    fyp.

    It's in all the forecasts. It's pretty basic economics that when you impair your own trade, you lose out.
    Yeah, "impair". We now have greater economic freedom. I'd call that the opposite of "impaired".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #407
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't think you know what "nation" means. Go read a wikipedia page.

    This isn't about "separatists", it's about "nations". I can be a separatist. I can't create my own nation though.
    Sorry for not using language you can understand; I was referring to separatist movements led by "nations within other nations".
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  33. #408
    Did you not see the word "another" in my post?

    You're implying we won't let them leave if they choose to. We've already proven that we will.

    Is Quebec a nation? I don't think so.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #409
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Sorry for not using language you can understand; I was referring to separatist movements led by "nations within other nations".
    Nations within nations.

    Yeah you don't know what "nation" means in the context of this conversation. You are using the word as a synonym for "country".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #410
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah, "impair". We now have greater economic freedom. I'd call that the opposite of "impaired".
    Sadly, you don't magically just get a better deals by negotiating independently from a weaker position.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  36. #411
    Quebec might be a nation. I really don't know. Has Quebec ever been independent? That's kind of key. They likely tick the other boxes.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #412
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Sadly, you don't magically just get a better deals by negotiating independently from a weaker position.
    "weaker position"

    More subjective bollocks.

    I would argue we're in a potentially stronger position. But that's my subjective opinion too.

    The difference between you and me is that I know my opinion is not fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  38. #413
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nations within nations.

    Yeah you don't know what "nation" means in the context of this conversation. You are using the word as a synonym for "country".
    Right. So now you're just reductio ad onging me about semantics here. Which shows you have no valid arguments left to make and are just trying to piss on my leg.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  39. #414
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    "weaker position"

    More subjective bollocks.

    I would argue we're in a potentially stronger position. But that's my subjective opinion too.

    The difference between you and me is that I know my opinion is not fact.

    Oh, I haven't noticed all those countries running to give us a plum deal in the last four years. They must be playing coy.

    An objective truth is we've got less trading power as a country of 68m than the EU as a trading bloc of 300m. It's not complicated.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  40. #415
    For fuck's sake.

    There is a reason the word "nation" is defined differently to words like "country" and "state".

    You can say it's semantics if you want, mojo can chime in and say words mean what the user intends, and I'll say the word nation hasan actual meaning and that's why I keep using the word nation instead of country.

    Learn what the fucking word means instead of using the word incorrectly.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #416
    Yeah well if you make your own definitions then I guess you are right to get salty when people aren't prepared to follow them.

    nation
    /ˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
    Learn to pronounce
    noun
    noun: nation; plural noun: nations

    a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
    Quebec is a nation by this definition. It doesn't have to have ever been an independent country. They certainly weren't bothered by your definition when they held their referenda.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-29-2020 at 04:55 AM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  42. #417
    You're doing what you moan at me for now, pulling up the first definition you can find and assuming it's a complete and accurate definition.

    I think you need to tick more than one box, but whatever, maybe Quebec does qualify as a nation. Maybe "independent" was the wrong word... "autonomous" might be more accurate. The problem here is that we have two people who are not familiar with how international recognition works debating what "nation" means.

    But at least you are now not using the word as a synonym for "country". The two concepts are different, that's an important aspect to understand. For example, the UK is not a nation, it is a union of four nations.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #418
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,665
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The funny thing about Brexit is that the more I hear about it the less I understand it.

    https://twitter.com/HackedOffHugh/st...745565696?s=20

    So fish farmer (obviously) who voted for Brexit because he thought it would bring about a global market, regrets his decision after finding out it's the opposite.
    Like what?
    What is going on?
    Baby eels???
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  44. #419
    Something doesn't add up here. In 2002, selling eels to markets outside the EU was made illegal, as the European eel had become critically endangered. Given this, why the fuck would he expect to have access to non-EU markets after we left the EU? Before 2002, his business was threatened by the expansion of the French eel industry, so he started selling to China. In 2002, he accepted EU funding and sold solely to the EU, though it doesn't appear he is selling food direct to customers, rather he is selling stock to farmers for breeding. And it also seems this company has a sister company in France. He should be able to use this company to manage the paperwork which he thinks is going to be a problem.

    Sounds to me like he hasn't prepared for Brexit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #420
    The whole "fishing sovereignty" thing and "taking back our waters" is a totally contrived argument for Brexit for a number of reasons.

    1. Most of our fishing quotas have been sold to the EU in the past. No-one forced us to do that, so why we suddenly should be up in arms that they're fishing in our waters seems a bit strange to say the least. I wonder why someone would want to get people riled up about that, hmmm?

    2. If we did keep our quotas there aren't enough UK fishermen to send out to catch them, so we'd either end up selling them back to the EU again, or we'd have to hire (gasp) immigrants to do our fishing.

    3. Most of the fish we do catch now are exported to EU countries. With more paperwork required after Brexit to export to the EU, this can only increase the price of those fish, making them less attractive to EU consumers. That's bad for our fishing industry.

    3a. Arguing that 'arrghggh! MESA! We'll just sell them to other countries then!" is problematic because a) we have to find other countries who want to buy our fish, which they probably won't because they're too far away and fish tend to spoil quickly; and b) the price of shipping further distances would make such deals unlikely anyways unless we cut our prices. Neither of those bode well for our fishing industry post-Breixt.

    4. Most of the fish we eat is imported from the EU or Norway. Adding customs declarations is going to push up the prices. This is bad for UK consumers.


    It'd be nice if the #MESA people would stop trying to argue they're defending the interests of our fishing industry, and realise that they've been duped by Brexit campaigners. Some of them have realised that and changed their opinion, but it's a minority. Many just say things like:


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Sounds to me like he hasn't prepared for Brexit.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  46. #421
    I like how you completely ignore this guy saying "I expected global markets" when that is clearly a lie, based on the fact that his own website informs us that such markets have been inaccessible to UK fisheries since 2002.

    You just prefer to quote my last comment because you think it makes a point.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #422
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    The funny thing about Brexit is that the more I hear about it the less I understand it.

    https://twitter.com/HackedOffHugh/st...745565696?s=20

    So fish farmer (obviously) who voted for Brexit because he thought it would bring about a global market, regrets his decision after finding out it's the opposite.
    Like what?
    What is going on?
    Baby eels???

    The guy obviously was told that after Brexit there'd be some magic unicorn that would allow him to export his eels anywhere he wanted and make a lot of money. Now he realises he was duped and his business if fucked. It's the same story playing out across the entire country.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  48. #423
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I like how you completely ignore this guy saying "I expected global markets" when that is clearly a lie, based on the fact that his own website informs us that such markets have been inaccessible to UK fisheries since 2002.

    You just prefer to quote my last comment because you think it makes a point.
    Why would he expect global markets? Could it be because he was told that by Brexit campaigners? It's hard to imagine he deliberately voted for something he thought was going to ruin him.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  49. #424
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The guy obviously was told that after Brexit there'd be some magic unicorn that would allow him to export his eels anywhere he wanted and make a lot of money. Now he realises he was duped and his business if fucked. It's the same story playing out across the entire country.
    Actual lol. The reason non-EU markets became inaccessible was because eels had become critically endangered. Do you suppose us leaving the EU means they are no longer classed as such?

    You're guessing, and guessing badly. There is no way he truly expected such markets to open up, and if he did, then that was a very foolish assumption based on absolutely nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #425
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I like how you completely ignore this guy saying.
    I like how you completely ignore the rest of my post that lists all the reasons why Brexit is bad for our fishing industry, despite us being told it would usher in a golden age for fishermen.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  51. #426
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Why would he expect global markets? Could it be because he was told that by Brexit campaigners? It's hard to imagine he deliberately voted for something he thought was going to ruin him.
    Ok, actually show me where Brexit campaigners suggested that the global eel market would be opened up for UK fisheries.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #427
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There is no way he truly expected such markets to open up
    It does seem pretty dumb, but the alternative seems even dumber - that he deliberately voted to fuck himself over.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  53. #428
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, actually show me where Brexit campaigners suggested that the global eel market would be opened up for UK fisheries.
    I doubt very much they campaigned specifically about eels, but they certainly made a number of broad claims about international markets opening up after Brexit. I suppose the fairest assumption is this guy didn't read the nuance into that claim, that it wouldn't apply to him - though to be fair it doesn't apply to anyone else in the UK fishing industry either, and a lot of them bought into it too.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  54. #429
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I like how you completely ignore the rest of my post that lists all the reasons why Brexit is bad for our fishing industry, despite us being told it would usher in a golden age for fishermen.
    I learned from the best. Ignore the bit you can't be arsed to argue about, and pick the end bit where you go "mwaaaahahahaha gotcha".

    2. If we did keep our quotas there aren't enough UK fishermen to send out to catch them, so we'd either end up selling them back to the EU again, or we'd have to hire (gasp) immigrants to do our fishing.
    This one made me laugh. Why do you suppose there aren't enough fishermen in the UK to catch the fish? I'll give you a hint... membership of the EU has slowly destroyed our fishing industry. It will obviously take time to recover.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #430
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    It does seem pretty dumb, but the alternative seems even dumber - that he deliberately voted to fuck himself over.
    So he's lying. Fuck knows why, but I don't have sympathy for someone who thinks illegal markets will suddenly become accessible unless there was direct claims to support such ideas.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I doubt very much they campaigned specifically about eels, but they certainly made a number of broad claims about international markets opening up after Brexit.
    True. But those claims were not going to be regarding markets which were illegal.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #432
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    membership of the EU has slowly destroyed our fishing industry. It will obviously take time to recover.
    Explain how it's done that please. By giving us cheap markets to sell our fish too? Or by allowing us to sell the quotas we didn't use?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  58. #433
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Explain how it's done that please.
    Quotas, and European fishermen fishing UK territorial waters.

    Why do you think a flotilla of fishing boats descended on London in the build up to the vote? They were pissed off.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #434
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Quotas, and European fishermen fishing UK territorial waters.
    But we didn't use all our quotas, so how did that limit us in any way?

    Also, were we not also allowed to fish in EU waters, so it's a reciprocal arrangement?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Why do you think a flotilla of fishing boats descended on London in the build up to the vote? They were pissed off.
    They may well have been pissed off, and they may even have had a good reason to be. You just haven't explained what that reason is yet.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  60. #435
    They may well have been pissed off, and they may even have had a good reason to be. You just haven't explained what that reason is yet.
    Well you should either ask a fisherman, or do some research, instead of asking someone you know is lazy and talks pretty much out of his arse.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  61. #436
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well you should either ask a fisherman, or do some research, instead of asking someone you know is lazy and talks pretty much out of his arse.
    I've looked into it and I haven't heard a reasonable argument in the last four years. I was hoping you had heard one, possibly even before you voted for it.

    It seems though that the proposed solution to whatever our fishing woes are is to leave the EU, only fish in our own waters, catch fish we generally don't want to eat, and make it harder to sell them to other countries.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  62. #437
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I've looked into it and I haven't heard a reasonable argument in the last four years. I was hoping you had heard one, possibly even before you voted for it.

    It seems though that the proposed solution to whatever our fishing woes are is to leave the EU, only fish in our own waters, catch fish we generally don't want to eat, and make it harder to sell them to other countries.
    I can't remember what I had for dinner yesterday, let alone what I was reading five years ago. I thought it was about quotas and territory, but I could be wrong. I know you find it hard to believe, but I did do a fairly large amount of reading before I voted. But I also smoke weed, and weed really does effect memory.

    We don't tend to eat eels, but we do want to eat cod and haddock in large amounts.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  63. #438
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,665
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Well thanks for explaining it guys, I now feel about as well informed as Demi Lovato in this Season 1 Eric Andre Show interview:

    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  64. #439
    ^^ You are having a crash version of the real UK experience here in the last four years by being exposed to a mixture of facts by someone who's done their homework, and a rehash of Brexit propaganda from someone who can't remember what they had for dinner yesterday. If you're still confused, I can't do much more for you, sorry.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  65. #440
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    We don't tend to eat eels, but we do want to eat cod and haddock in large amounts.
    We mostly eat beef and chicken. Fish is pretty minor in our diet.

    The typical person here eats beef or chicken most days, and fish maybe once or twice a week, if that.

    Most of the fish we eat comes from the EU. 20k tonnes of cod last year for example.

    Same for our exports, mostly go to the EU. About 25% of our fish exports are salmon that we sell to France. Whether they'll still want it once all the customs paperwork is added and we're threatening to shoot up their fishing fleets is an interesting question.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  66. #441
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,665
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    ...
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  67. #442
    Hey Oskar.

    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  68. #443
    We mostly eat beef and chicken. Fish is pretty minor in our diet.
    Is this research or opinion? Including tuna, we eat a lot of fish. I personally eat more fish than beef or chicken, but I acknowledge that those meats will sell more. But fish is not "minor".

    The typical person here eats beef or chicken most days, and fish maybe once or twice a week, if that.
    I probably eat fish twice a week on average. Twice a week is not "minor". Turkey and lamb is "minor". Pork is probably consumed on a par with fish, and that's largely thanks to sausage.

    I've tried looking on the internet and I've given up trying to find a nice pie chart, but I found a bar chart that implies we spend twice as much on meat as we do on fish. That's beef+chick+pork+lamb+turkey+whatever else vs cod+haddock+tuna+plaice+whatever. Of course fish is generally more expensive, but you're mistaken if you think fish is "minor", unless by "minor" you simply mean "less than beef and chicken".

    Most of the fish we eat comes from the EU. 20k tonnes of cod last year for example.
    Interesting. Any idea how much of the fish comes from UK waters?

    Same for our exports, mostly go to the EU. About 25% of our fish exports are salmon that we sell to France.
    Oh yeah there's salmon too.

    Whether they'll still want it once all the customs paperwork is added and we're threatening to shoot up their fishing fleets is an interesting question.
    We'll eat it, salmon is delicious. I don't eat it often because it's so expensive, but perhaps it will become cheaper if there's a surplus. Great.

    By the way, did you notice the French had a warship in the English channel recently? The flexing of muscles is not just confined to the UK. It's standard and is for public consumption. Governments want their people to think they're hard and not afraid of rivals. It's not intended to intimidate the other side.

    If I were PM, I'd have sent a small boat with two men on it, one armed with a bb gun, and the other armed with a camera. Shoot at the fucker with a pathetic little gun that won't even dent the hull, and laugh as it turns around. Comedy gold that would be.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    by "minor" you simply mean "less than beef and chicken".
    Yes. It's not like we eat mostly fish like some countries where fishing is actually an important part of the economy.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Interesting. Any idea how much of the fish comes from UK waters?
    No idea. Could be a lot if we sold most of our quotas off.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We'll eat it, salmon is delicious.
    I like how your answer to all these macroeconomic problems is that we'll just eat all the fish we can't sell. It won't work out that way, people won't suddenly start eating 3x as much fish as before.

    If we do start eating more it will mean the price of fish we used to export falls so much it's no longer profitable for fishermen to go fish it. Doesn't help the precious fishermen much then does it?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    By the way, did you notice the French had a warship in the English channel recently?
    Don't follow the French Navy exercises very closely, but I doubt that's an unusual thing. It's not like it's "our" channel.

    When they start threatening to send a gunship after a British fishing trawler, let me know. Until then, we're the dicks when it comes to trying to bully other countries over fish.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If I were PM, I'd have sent a small boat with two men on it, one armed with a bb gun, and the other armed with a camera. Shoot at the fucker with a pathetic little gun that won't even dent the hull, and laugh as it turns around. Comedy gold that would be.
    Jingo all the way.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  70. #445
    Here's that eel geezer promoting Brexit for UKIP in 2016.

    https://twitter.com/Geoelte_Spinne/s...78060962537478
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  71. #446
    Jingo all the way.
    Oh come on, you don't think this would be a hilarious way to deal with this kind of thing? It's not jingoism, not if they enter our territorial waters anyway. Ok if they're in neutral waters they have every right to be there and we have no right to moan, but if they're being naughty, well we can either act all serious and threaten them with consequences (which the jingoists would love) or we could turn it into a comedy (which lots of people will like).
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  72. #447
    I think it'd be funnier if we sent a battleship to intercept a fishing boat.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  73. #448
    I'd call that jingoism.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #449
    Yes. It's not like we eat mostly fish like some countries where fishing is actually an important part of the economy.
    Fishing is an important part of the economy. It might not seem like it from the comfort of the inner cities, but on the coast, where people are poorer, it is important. The towns and cities on the coast are not as well connected to the rest of the country as places like London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc. The cities don't rely on fishing for jobs, but the shitty towns like Grimsby most certainly do. As much as I never want to go to Grimsby (it stinks of fish) we still shouldn't disregard these places as irrelevant. Unemployment is high, young people migrate inland and abandon their hometown, this happens because fishing is in decline. Hopefully that will change, but it will take years.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  75. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fishing is an important part of the economy.
    It really isn't. It's worth 0.12% of our economy. It's about on the same level as our timber industry, but less than our leather good industry and much less than things like manufacturing or travel. It's absolutely dwarfed by our service industry. Fishing is important to a very small proportion of the country that lives in towns like Grimsby, which became a poster child for Brexit due to manipulative campaigning.

    If you think it would somehow be worth harming 99.88% of the economy to help 0.12% of it, you've got a pretty strange set of priorities.

    The irony of course is that the gov't doesn't really give a fuck about fishing either, as they showed when they caved on the EU's demands. So fishing is getting harmed by Brexit too.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ng-term-damage

    https://nffo.org.uk/news/negotiations-outcome.html

    https://nffo.org.uk/news/miniscule-m...-pathetic.html

    #MESA
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-30-2020 at 09:20 AM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •