*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Quote:

---

I don't think you understand how good it is to be in an economic union and how bad it is to be isolated from one in terms of trade.

---

I don't think you understand how much bigger the rest of the world is compared to Europe. Currently, we can't agree bilateral trade deals with USA, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Brazil...

Also, the EU is a great deal more than an economic bloc.

Quote:

---

Imagine you're a company who wants to build widgets. Caveat emptor, would you rather put your factory in a market with 1x labor and 1x consumers, or 5x labor and 5x consumers? It's not hard to see why companies are already pulling out of the UK pre-Brexit.

---

There's this belief that if a company fucks off, that's bad. Well it's not bad for whichever local company fills the void in the market. I don't give a fuck about companies that leave for greater profits elsewhere. Fuck them. I'm not a globalist, I'd prefer companies in this country to be owned by British people who have no intention of taking their business elsewhere because this is their home.

Quote:

---

Latest polls have it about 60/40 Remain. That's not even close.

---

Do you know what the odds were for Brexit about an hour before the polls opened? Around 4/1.

That's 80/20.

Quote:

---

Then why have any?

---

Because sometimes they are necessary. Why are you asking stupid questions?

Quote:

---

It's up to them; they can have as many referenda as they want. Times change and so do opinions.

---

No, they can't have as many as they want. They might be able to have one a decade, but you can't keep asking the same question every three years. These aren't elections.

Quote:

---

It seems better than the idea that the populace only ever gets one point in time to make a monumental decision at, and if they get more information and change their minds, tough shit.

---

I have had to endure my entire life in the EU, thanks to a referendum in the 70's. I had to wait until 3 years ago to vote to fucking leave. And the best thing is, the referendum we had in the 70's was for the EEC, not the EU. It was an economic bloc, not a political one.

Quote:

---

I have had to endure my entire life in the EU, thanks to a referendum in the 70's. I had to wait until 3 years ago to vote to fucking leave. And the best thing is, the referendum we had in the 70's was for the EEC, not the EU. It was an economic bloc, not a political one.

---

More on this. I know people who voted to join the EEC in the 70's, and voted leave this time around. Their reason? They resented being lied to in the 70's about the nature of the community we were joining. Everyone agrees trade deals with foreign states is mutually beneficial, the EEC was sold as an economic bloc, hence the name European Economic Community. Had they known it was to become a political union, they would never have been on board.

We were sold a bill of good in the 70's and now we're being stitched up again because undemocratic remainers are making a shit ton of noise.

If remain won, I would not be demanding another referendum. I'd be satisfied that I at least got to vote on it during my life, and respect the democratic will of the people.

I might still call remainers idiots, but that would be the limit of my fury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't think you understand how much bigger the rest of the world is compared to Europe.

---

All the more reason to be part of a bloc and not try to go it alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Also, the EU is a great deal more than an economic bloc.

---

Like what? Some laws that don't affect you at all? Oh big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There's this belief that if a company fucks off, that's bad. Well it's not bad for whichever local company fills the void in the market. I don't give a fuck about companies that leave for greater profits elsewhere. Fuck them. I'm not a globalist, I'd prefer companies in this country to be owned by British people who have no intention of taking their business elsewhere because this is their home.

---

Lol, spoken like a true jingoist. "I don't want them damn foreigners bringing jobs to my country!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Do you know what the odds were for Brexit about an hour before the polls opened? Around 4/1.

That's 80/20.

---

Guess BBC was lying then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-36271589

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Because sometimes they are necessary. Why are you asking stupid questions?

---

But why let a popular vote given to largely uninformed (or misinformed) and uneducated people decide a complex issue? This isn't about what they name the next royal baby; it's actually something important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No, they can't have as many as they want. They might be able to have one a decade, but you can't keep asking the same question every three years. These aren't elections.

---

Pretty sure there is no such rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I have had to endure my entire life in the EU, thanks to a referendum in the 70's. I had to wait until 3 years ago to vote to fucking leave. And the best thing is, the referendum we had in the 70's was for the EEC, not the EU. It was an economic bloc, not a political one.

---

We should have a referendum on NATO too - I'm tired of being part of an alliance.

We should have a referendum on whether or not we decide important things by referendum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

More on this. I know people who voted to join the EEC in the 70's, and voted leave this time around. Their reason? They resented being lied to in the 70's about the nature of the community we were joining. Everyone agrees trade deals with foreign states is mutually beneficial, the EEC was sold as an economic bloc, hence the name European Economic Community. Had they known it was to become a political union, they would never have been on board.

We were sold a bill of good in the 70's and now we're being stitched up again because undemocratic remainers are making a shit ton of noise.

---

ya I know people who think it's barely a political union at all. It's not like there's a common foreign policy or really much that's common besides free trade and labour.

Quote:

---

All the more reason to be part of a bloc and not try to go it alone.

---

You seem to be missing the point. Out of the EU, we are free to negotiate. Within the EU, we are not. How is it better to be trapped in a continental bloc when there's a world out there?

Quote:

---

Like what? Some laws that don't affect you at all? Oh big deal.

---

Don't affect me? Are you being willfully ignorant or something?

Here's some reading for you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law

I know you won't read it, I can't be fucked to either, but you might note how long the article is, and each section has its own link to its own page for further detail.

Quote:

---

Lol, spoken like a true jingoist. "I don't want them damn foreigners bringing jobs to my country!"

---

I like how you say "spoken like a true jingoist" and then change my quote so it sounds like a true jingoist. You disingenuous twat.

Quote:

---

Guess BBC was lying then.

---

There's a surprise.

Quote:

---

But why let a popular vote given to largely uninformed (or misinformed) and uneducated people decide a complex issue? This isn't about what they name the next royal baby; it's actually something important.

---

This is pretty insulting to the country you have migrated to. You think British people are only qualified to talk about shit like Royal babies? You think we're uneducated and too stupid to be allowed democracy? With all due respect, which is none, fuck off.

Quote:

---

Pretty sure there is no such rule.

---

No, but there are financial and practical limitations.

Quote:

---

We should have a referendum on NATO too - I'm tired of being part of an alliance.

---

Fuck yes. NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russian body which ceases to have real purpose if Russia is not actually an enemy. Hence, constant propaganda maintaining the threat Russia pose. NATO causes more problems than it solves.

Quote:

---

ya I know people who think it's barely a political union at all. It's not like there's a common foreign policy or really much that's common besides free trade and labour.

---

Are you aware how the EU has evolved over time? They're talking about a joint army now. That will result in joint foreign policy. You think it's all trade and labour? And here you call British people uneducated and misinformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You seem to be missing the point. Out of the EU, we are free to negotiate. Within the EU, we are not. How is it better to be trapped in a continental bloc when there's a world out there?

---

Nvr mind, you're right.

I think we should also have some tariffs and borders between counties. I'm sick of people from Yorkshire coming here taking jobs and selling me their shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Don't affect me? Are you being willfully ignorant or something?

Here's some reading for you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law

---

Name me one of those laws that directly affects you. Explain how it's had a negative impact on your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I know you won't read it, I can't be fucked to either,

---

So calling me willfully ignorant was just you projecting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I like how you say "spoken like a true jingoist" and then change my quote so it sounds like a true jingoist.

---

Well, that's pretty much what you said. Except you couched it in terms like foreign business investment was somehow bad for the people who live here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Attachment 1102

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

There's a surprise.

---

Why do you have data that says Remain was way ahead? Like 80-20 ahead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is pretty insulting to the country you have migrated to. You think British people are only qualified to talk about shit like Royal babies? You think we're uneducated and too stupid to be allowed democracy?

---

I think the British people are collectively about the same as people in every other country. There's some with above average intelligence and an equal number with below average intelligence. There's also a fair share of people who don't understand the issues they're voting on. If you think the UK is somehow special in that regard, then that is jingoistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Attachment 1102

---

Ok ong-bananga.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No, but there are financial and practical limitations.

---

The same applies to elections. Why should they happen so much more frequently? What happened to democracy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Fuck yes. NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russian body which ceases to have real purpose if Russia is not actually an enemy. Hence, constant propaganda maintaining the threat Russia pose. NATO causes more problems than it solves.

---

Not sure if you're aware or not, but Russia just recently invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. So apparently they are something of a threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Are you aware how the EU has evolved over time? They're talking about a joint army now. That will result in joint foreign policy. You think it's all trade and labour? And here you call British people uneducated and misinformed.

---

ya, talking and doing and two different things. Also, I'm pretty sure membership in the joint army would not be mandatory.

Moreover, the various members of the EU have often taken independent lines of foreign policy. Some went to Iraq War II and some didn't, for example.

Git off me lawn chaps

https://twitter.com/NYPDCT/status/1117852001885392898

Don't worry, Ong!
The fuzz is on it!

Hahahahaha. NYPD counter-terrorism. Keeping NYC safe from fires in Europe.

I love how all the comments are just trolling the guy.

I hope the Birmingham cops are out in force tonite to squelch the coming jihad.

Looks like NDC was 'saved'.

But not before Captain Retard had some words of advice.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...44987293487104

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Name me one of those laws that directly affects you. Explain how it's had a negative impact on your life.

---

I'm not selfish when it comes to my vote. This isn't about me. This is about what I think is good for the UK. If you want an example of an EU law that I think is bad for the UK and bad for British communities, then the obvious one is fishing quotas. Fishermen in England were unable to fish British territorial waters because of EU law. This has a negative impact on the British economy, especially in coastal communities. And yes it does impact me, come to think of it; it means my fish and chips costs more. A minor problem for me, but like I say, I'm not selfish. It's a major problem for the coastal communities. That's why the North East voted en masse to leave. It's not because they're racist. It's because they're relatively poor, by British standards, and are seeing their core industry being raided by other European nations. All in the name of trade agreements.

Quote:

---

Well, that's pretty much what you said. Except you couched it in terms like foreign business investment was somehow bad for the people who live here.

---

It's not what I said. It's how you interpreted it. That's a you problem, not a me problem. You're the one that defaults to jingoism whenever anyone shows any shred of preference for locals. I would prefer British people to own British companies because it means less money leaves the country, which is good for the economy. And it means more tax, which means improved services. It also means the company is less likely to fuck off, leaving people out of work. Local people have closer ties to the community, and accept greater responsibility when it comes to local economies. This isn't jingoism.

Quote:

---

Why do you have data that says Remain was way ahead? Like 80-20 ahead?

---

I made a bet on betfair exchange. I got roughly 4/1. That's not a bookmaker. That's another actual person accepting my bet at those odds. I know you'll laugh at this, but that's real people putting their actual money on the line, not a state sponsored entity publishing propaganda. That for me is better evidence.

Quote:

---

I think the British people are collectively about the same as people in every other country. There's some with above average intelligence and an equal number with below average intelligence. There's also a fair share of people who don't understand the issues they're voting on. If you think the UK is somehow special in that regard, then that is jingoistic.

---

Every other country? No. Every other western nation? Closer. No, I don't think the UK is special, I just recognise that we have world class education, which puts us in the top bracket, along with other nations with similar education standards. But this is besides the point. The point is that if you can't trust the public to make democratic decisions, then what is the point of democracy in the first place? If you truly believe in democracy, then you simply have no choice but to put your faith in the public's collective ability to make the right decision. If you don't have that faith, democracy isn't for you. You're basically saying that people are collectively too stupid for democracy. To suggest that for the UK, you might as well go right ahead and apply it to the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

The same applies to elections. Why should they happen so much more frequently? What happened to democracy?

---

Elections have to happen regularly. 5 years is about right. If we have referenda every five years, that's going to have a negative impact on the economy, and cause social division. I mean, if we vote again now, and we vote to remain, does that mean we get another vote in three years? And then after another three years? Every three years? The EU won't tolerate this uncertainty indefinitely, will they? It is impractical to keep voting on this issue. It is not impractical to have an election every five years.

Quote:

---

Not sure if you're aware or not, but Russia just recently invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. So apparently they are something of a threat.

---

Yeah. They are a "threat" to any region that actually wants to be part of Russia.

Quote:

---

ya, talking and doing and two different things. Also, I'm pretty sure membership in the joint army would not be mandatory.

Moreover, the various members of the EU have often taken independent lines of foreign policy. Some went to Iraq War II and some didn't, for example.

---

Currently, foreign policy is a matter for member states, and is not subject to common policy. That will change, you'll see. If you want evidence, do some fucking research. Learn about what the EEC was, how it evolved into what it has become, and understand why it is a great deal more than trade and labour. Then perhaps you might understand that people like me are not racist, we are not jingoistic, we simply value culture, community, and above all, independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ong

If you truly believe in democracy, then you simply have no choice but to put your faith in the public's collective ability to make the right decision.

---

Or learn from the wrong decisions. Which is what a lot of people have done. That's why older people voted to leave. They were around when we last voted on this issue. They believe it was a mistake to join. If you disagree with them, fair enough. But if you disagree with the collective will of the people, then you either have to admit you're wrong, or accept the public have made a mistake they need to learn from.

We probably won't know if this was a mistake for a decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm not selfish when it comes to my vote. This isn't about me. This is about what I think is good for the UK. If you want an example of an EU law that I think is bad for the UK and bad for British communities, then the obvious one is fishing quotas. Fishermen in England were unable to fish British territorial waters because of EU law. This has a negative impact on the British economy, especially in coastal communities. And yes it does impact me, come to think of it; it means my fish and chips costs more. A minor problem for me, but like I say, I'm not selfish. It's a major problem for the coastal communities. That's why the North East voted en masse to leave. It's not because they're racist. It's because they're relatively poor, by British standards, and are seeing their core industry being raided by other European nations. All in the name of trade agreements.

---

That's the best you got? Pretty lame.

For one, fisheries have been in decline for > 100 years.

For another, NE England has been poor relative to the South for much longer than the EU has been around. Whether individuals there blame it on the EU is irrelevant; if they are using the same logic as you it's positively misguided. Also, people in Scotland also fish and yet they voted overwhelmingly for Remain.

Show me actual proof that this policy has hurt UK fishing AND that this outweighs the benefits of the common market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I would prefer British people to own British companies because it means less money leaves the country, which is good for the economy. And it means more tax, which means improved services. It also means the company is less likely to fuck off, leaving people out of work. Local people have closer ties to the community, and accept greater responsibility when it comes to local economies.

---

None of this is supported by evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I made a bet on betfair exchange. I got roughly 4/1. That's not a bookmaker. That's another actual person accepting my bet at those odds. I know you'll laugh at this, but that's real people putting their actual money on the line, not a state sponsored entity publishing propaganda. That for me is better evidence.

---

Funny that you bristled at me for calling people dumb and then use their stupidity as evidence of a 'poll'. The fact you got such good odds on Leave only suggests people think polls are either/or propositions and don't understand margins of error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The point is that if you can't trust the public to make democratic decisions, then what is the point of democracy in the first place? If you truly believe in democracy, then you simply have no choice but to put your faith in the public's collective ability to make the right decision.

---

One thing you can trust is for people to make better decisions the better informed they are. People are now better informed than they were 3 years ago; that's why another referendum makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're basically saying that people are collectively too stupid for democracy. To suggest that for the UK, you might as well go right ahead and apply it to the rest of the world.

---

Not what I said at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Elections have to happen regularly. 5 years is about right. If we have referenda every five years, that's going to have a negative impact on the economy, and cause social division.

---

The referendum reflected social division. It doesn't cause it anymore than an election does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I mean, if we vote again now, and we vote to remain, does that mean we get another vote in three years? And then after another three years? Every three years? The EU won't tolerate this uncertainty indefinitely, will they? It is impractical to keep voting on this issue. It is not impractical to have an election every five years.

---

The problem is that a 52/48 split is hardly an overwhelming majority. They basically won by a whisker. If it had been 60/40 or higher I would have said 'ok fuck it they won'. But 52/48 suggests it could easily go the other way next time. And unless you have a clear majority you shouldn't start fucking around with things that most of the voters didn't really understand when they voted the first time anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Yeah. They are a "threat" to any region that actually wants to be part of Russia.

---

According to who? The referendum where Russian soldiers watched the people vote? Yea that was fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Currently, foreign policy is a matter for member states, and is not subject to common policy. That will change, you'll see.

---

Oh you're psychic now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If you want evidence, do some fucking research.

---

Yeah, cause obviously I'm not to going to get any from you lol.

I asked my uncle who follows UK politics what the deal was with brexit because I honestly still don't get any of it. He started droning on about how they're selling polish sausage on Oxford street or whatever, and I just zoned out. Meanwhile Ong is worried about fish & chips. I think it's time to concede that this is something I'll never get my head around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Looks like NDC was 'saved'.

But not before Captain Retard had some words of advice.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...44987293487104

---

It still surprises me that Trumples aren't deeply embarrassed by stuff like that.

But then I remember:

https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/st...57842566815746
https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/s...60297388572673 (Glenn Beck: I'm not saying it's muslims, but if it is muslims, they'll never say it's muslims, so it's muslims)
https://removeddit.com/r/The_Donald/...xru/?context=1 (almost every single comment is blaming muslims, these are the highlights)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Meanwhile Ong is worried about fish & chips.

---

I'm not worried about fish and chips, I'm concerned about people's livelihoods. I couldn't give a fuck about Polish sausage being sold on Oxford Street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

Show me actual proof that this policy has hurt UK fishing AND that this outweighs the benefits of the common market.

---

True colours shown here, socialist. So if you send me £600 a month, I promise to stop claiming benefits. That means it's a net gain for the economy, even though it's obviously a net loss for you. So you should do it, just like fishermen in Grimsby should accept EU quotas for the benefit of whoever the fuck it is that is actually better off thanks to the EU. People who work in the City I guess.

Quote:

---

For one, fisheries have been in decline for > 100 years.

---

So? It's in even more decline than it should be. That's because a lot of fish from British waters are not being sold at British markets.

Quote:

---

For another, NE England has been poor relative to the South for much longer than the EU has been around.

---

True. But you seem to think this means that the EU is not making them poorer. If they are poorer, then they should be supported, not abandoned.

Quote:

---

One thing you can trust is for people to make better decisions the better informed they are. People are now better informed than they were 3 years ago; that's why another referendum makes sense.

---

It doesn't make sense. It would be political, economic and social madness, more so than what we're witnessing. And, like I said yet you completely ignored, the EU will not tolerate indefinite uncertainty, it is not practical to keep voting on this issue. It might make sense in your undemocratic world, but in mine we have made a decision and we must accept it, whether we think it is right or not.

Quote:

---

Not what I said at all.

---

Oh, you don't like it when people twist your words to make it sound worse than what you intended? Don't do it to other people then.

Quote:

---

The referendum reflected social division. It doesn't cause it anymore than an election does.

---

There's an element of truth to this, but at the same time the referendum amplified that social division. More so than elections do. I can't ever remember an election causing this much division.

Quote:

---

The problem is that a 52/48 split is hardly an overwhelming majority.

---

It doesn't matter. It is a majority. You once again imply that you do not subscribe to democracy.

Quote:

---

And unless you have a clear majority you shouldn't start fucking around with things that most of the voters didn't really understand when they voted the first time anyways.

---

So in your democratic world, 60% is the winning line for referenda? What if it's 59.99%? Is that no longer a clear enough majority for you?

Quote:

---

According to who? The referendum where Russian soldiers watched the people vote? Yea that was fair.

---

They speak Russian. Their culture is Russian. They are historically Russian. It's a lot easier for me to believe a region of Russian speakers would vote in a referendum to become part of Russia, than it is to believe they prefer to remain part of Ukraine, who were treating them as second class citizens because they spoke Russian and identified with Russian culture. If you think they were actually coerced into it against their true will, you've been seduced by anti Russian propaganda.

Quote:

---

Oh you're psychic now?

---

You'd have said the same to me if we had this discussion in 1995, and I said they were moving towards a common currency. That happened. Fortunately we managed to stay the fuck away from that.

The EU is a superstate, it is not an economic bloc like it used to be. It exerts authority over a great deal more things than economics. It would be nice if you knew this, considering you're trying to patronise me about the EU.

Quote:

---

Yeah, cause obviously I'm not to going to get any from you lol.

---

I did my research when I was considering my vote. I'm not here to spoon feed you. If you want to understand why people voted to leave, do your research. If you can't be bothered or don't give a fuck, stop treating people who voted to leave like they are stupid and made a mistake, and instead accept the democratic will of the people.

So basically Ong, you have nothing to back up your statements but your own assurances.

We've been down this path before; if you want to make an argument you need to be able to back up your claims with evidence. It's not the other person's job to do the research to prove you're just talking shit again, so you can go 'hurr durr i was trolling haha'.

No. If you want evidence, do your fucking research. I've done mine. I can't be bothered to google on your behalf.

Ya, I know how you feel. I've done research that proves the Earth is flat and Hillary is a lizard queen. If you want to see the evidence, go find it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No. If you want evidence, do your fucking research. I've done mine. I can't be bothered to google on your behalf.

---

That's not an intelligent discourse. That's a copout.

The so-called facts you've provided are contrary to your audience's expectations. You haven't shown them any reason to believe it's a reliable report on the factors at hand.
Which is fine, unless your goal is to be understood.

If you want to be understood, then you need to share your motivations and sources. You need to listen to the skeptics and take them seriously. You don't combat ignorance with, "Go figure it out."
You get that, right? If you say something that goes against my understanding if physics, I don't condescend you and tell you to go figure it out. Why would you?
You don't change someone's mind by saying, "lol. look how dumb you are."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

You don't change someone's mind by saying, "lol. look how dumb you are."

---

... but it's the next best thing.

I know it's bad how much I look at T_D, you don't need to tell me, but just look at this shit:

https://i.imgur.com/qM0ygYS.jpg

... endless comedy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKMxPdp2NEQ

great take on why charitable billionaires are a bad thing. Case in point with Notre Dame imho. Should that really be a priority? I get it's sad, but you can do a lot more with 400 million than put a roof on a church. In any case, if you do it right, it wouldn't cost $400 million. Brutalists already on the job:


https://i.imgur.com/msmTcVW.jpg

I would laugh if they spent 400 million to rebuild it and then it got hit by a meteor the next day.

What does poop even want "evidence" for? That the EU quotas are actually hurting fishermen? Here's as much googling as I can be bothered with.

https://media.breitbart.com/media/20...40302350-2.png

That's Sir Fucking Bob flicking the v's at Nigel Farage on the River Thames. Nigel was part of a protest fleet of fishermen who had sailed down from the North East to protest at EU quotas. Now why in the fuckity fuck would these fishermen go to all this trouble if they're not pissed off? And to be greeted by a rich mortherfucker with a fucking titled name, a corrupt piece of shit who made millions off famine, and his rich cunt buddies, challenging their democratic right to protest, daring to treat hard working people like they are the enemy, then maybe you can begin to understand why they voted "fuck off".

For what it's worth, this single image might have swung the referendum.

You guys seem to think this is a court of law. It's not. We're having a discussion. Poop challenged me with regards to the EU. He responded to my comment by patronising me about why the EU is good, as though he's an authority on the matter. He's since demonstrated that he believes it is "trade and labour", thus proving himself to be completely out of his depth. He needs to do his fucking research, or withdraw from such conversations. I will not spoon feed him. I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, I'm here to tell poop to respect my democratic dignity and that of 52% of the country. It is not his place to say it's not enough of a majority. We cannot keep voting on this issue until we get a 60/40. He's talking bollocks about a subject he knows fuck all about, and expects me to do his googling. Sorry but no.

And this idea that people have changed their mind. Have you any idea how many times I've made a bad mvoe in chess and want to take it back? Or the times I've raised when I wished I folded?

You don't get to change your mind in such matters. That's not how it works. Be informed when you make your decision. I pretty much knew I was going to vote to leave, but that didn't stop me from researching. I had to be as sure as I could be that I wasn't making a mistake. And if right now I felt I had made a mistake, I wouldn't have the fucking neck to demand I get to change my mind.

Honestly, I still don't know if I made a mistake by voting leave. But I'm more sure now than I was when I voted. I'll know for sure in a decade.

Brexit isn't some game. That seems pretty core to your argument. Comparing it to a game seems to dilute the differences between global politics and leisure activities.

People do change their minds. Laws change to reflect public sentiment over time. All kinds of laws. Some as big of a deal as slavery. Some as little of a deal as tax rates on cakes.


Sure.. we shouldn't set a precedent of having the voters vote on something, then politicians don't do it. We shouldn't set a precedent that voters vote one way, then politicians don't like it so they hold more votes until they get the vote they want. That's terrible, and you're right.

However... this was a clusterfuck from the start. As I understand it, most of it was fallout from someone writing some lies on a bus and driving it around.
Even the pro-Brexit politicians had no actual plan if the vote went in their favor. That pretty much tells me that even they didn't expect it to go their way, that they were bluffing.


A lot of information has come to light in the past 3 years that was not known. The difficulty of striking any favorable deals as the UK leaves the EU must change the minds of people who originally voted thinking otherwise. 3 years of stalled movement with no compromises is enough to pull over to the side of the road and make sure you've got the right map, and that you're heading the right direction.


I've no vested interest in this. Whether or not you /should/ take another vote or press on with the last one is not for me to say. It just strikes me that there is a compelling argument to be made that this is not a scam, that the first vote was the scam, and the constituency is far more informed now than they were back when.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Attachment 1103

---

This is why discussing things with you is pointless. You got asked for evidence that the EU was definitely hurting fishermen's livelihood and you respond with a picture of Bob Geldof and a big rant. Like that proves anything.

Even assuming these fishermen were so angry about quotas that they organized a protest in London with Farage doesn't itself prove the EU hurt them. The protest only (assuming it's actually true and you have the details straight, which is a big 'if' about anything you claim since you never seem to consider providing any hard evidence) shows they THINK the EU is bad for them. It's kind of like saying the Nazi rallies at Nuremberg proved that Jews were bad for Germany because wow look at all those people.

I mean obviously you can't boil down the + and - of membership in the EU into a simple number. But you can do better than just say 'look at these angry people' and 'omfg i don't get a takeback in chess why should the UK get a takeback in whether it's in the EU or not?'

So simplifying the problem by saying let's look at fishermens' livelihoods (not that they're somehow more important than anyone else in the UK, but just to narrow the issue a bit) is one place to start. Are they better or worse off under the EU? If all you can offer is 'it seems a lot of them think not' that's not evidence for reasons I've already explained. There may be other factors at play in their livelihoods than EU fishing quotas like depleted stocks (which, as I understand it, is the main purpose of having a quota in the first place, so the next generation can still have something to fish). What they believe is irrelevant to what the facts are. People believe all kinds of stupid things, sometimes en masse.

So you'll have to do better than that, sorry.

Quote:

---

Brexit isn't some game.

---

No, but democratic actions are not something you can simply change your mind about shortly afterwards.

Quote:

---

Sure.. we shouldn't set a precedent of having the voters vote on something, then politicians don't do it. We shouldn't set a precedent that voters vote one way, then politicians don't like it so they hold more votes until they get the vote they want. That's terrible, and you're right.

---

We also shouldn't set a precedent that 52/48 is not a a majority. We also shouldn't set a precedent that we have repeat votes for the benefit of people who may have changed their mind. It's a simple case of "tough shit". I think the American way of saying that is "deal with it".

You want a better analogy, how about changing your mind about nailing that blonde piece after your wife finds out. It's a bit late.

Quote:

---

However... this was a clusterfuck from the start. As I understand it, most of it was fallout from someone writing some lies on a bus and driving it around.

---

This is ridiculous. Brexit happened because there was a social appetite for it.

Quote:

---

Even the pro-Brexit politicians had no actual plan if the vote went in their favor. That pretty much tells me that even they didn't expect it to go their way, that they were bluffing.

---

I don't doubt some were. Others would argue the plan is simply to leave and adapt, take the initial hardship while rebuilding our economy for the better. We used to be the world's largest economy, we started the industrial revolution. Now 80% of our GDP comes from the services sector. We're a nation of bankers and retail assistants. Very few people now work in agriculture or industry. We make fuck all. That needs to change. We need to create British products that people around the world want to buy. Like cars, to throw out one example. Some would call that a plan.

Quote:

---

A lot of information has come to light in the past 3 years that was not known. The difficulty of striking any favorable deals as the UK leaves the EU must change the minds of people who originally voted thinking otherwise.

---

This is nonsense. Everyone who voted leave expect the Europeans to be bloody difficult. And everyone also knew that it was impossible for us to negotiate trade deals with other countries until we had actually left. So we all expected a clusterfuck of uncertainty. It's the price we were willing to pay.

To the minority of people who naively thought it would be easy and now regret their choice, tough shit., You don't get to change your mind because you weren't informed when you voted.

Quote:

---

It just strikes me that there is a compelling argument to be made that this is not a scam, that the first vote was the scam, and the constituency is far more informed now than they were back when.

---

The first vote wasn't a scam. Do you want to remain in the EU or leave? There isn't a "wait to see what happens and then make a decision". There's obviously new information that comes to light. That works both ways. What if we vote to remain, and then they start building an army? We vote again? We can't keep doing this, how is that not obvious?

If there's still appetite for it in a decade, maybe.But for now, we have made our choice, and we must follow it through to completion. Only after we have adapted (or not) can we know if we made a mistake. Maybe then we can vote again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

not that they're somehow more important than anyone else in the UK, but just to narrow the issue a bit

---

I'm sorry if I give more of a fuck about a fisherman who risks his life to feed his family and the nation than I do about a banker who gets a bonus for fucking the economy. And it's not just jobs. It's entire communities that suffer. Go to Grimsby, and fishing is what it's all about. There's basically fuck all else in Grimsby. If fishing suffers, the town suffers. That happens all around the coast. When fishing is suffering because the Dutch are fishing British waters, there's a problem. And the problem isn't the Dutch. It's the agreement that allows it to happen.

Quote:

---

(which, as I understand it, is the main purpose of having a quota in the first place, so the next generation can still have something to fish)

---

Partly, but we've been fishing sustainably for a very long time. We don't need sustainability quotas imposed on us from others. But that isn't what these quotas are about. At the time of the vote, the Dutch were fishing these waters. So it's not like it was a matter of sustainability.

Quote:

---

So you'll have to do better than that, sorry.

---

You need to do better. You once again show you're out of your depth by suggesting these quotas are about sustainability. You think it's the leave campaign that is misinformed, while blinded to your own ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm sorry if I give more of a fuck about a fisherman who risks his life to feed his family and the nation than I do about a banker who gets a bonus for fucking the economy.

---

Well if we're dividing up the population in terms of who is most important, then that doesn't sound like democracy to me.

Further, what about the firemen who risk their lives to save some div who leaves the oven on and sets their houses on fire? Should they have to pay more for everything and have a worse standard of living so you can get local made fish and chips?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And it's not just jobs. It's entire communities that suffer. Go to Grimsby, and fishing is what it's all about. There's basically fuck all else in Grimsby. If fishing suffers, the town suffers. That happens all around the coast.

---

Again, you've presented no evidence the decline in the fishing economies is due to the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

When fishing is suffering because the Dutch are fishing British waters, there's a problem. And the problem isn't the Dutch. It's the agreement that allows it to happen.

Partly, but we've been fishing sustainably for a very long time. We don't need sustainability quotas imposed on us from others. But that isn't what these quotas are about. At the time of the vote, the Dutch were fishing these waters. So it's not like it was a matter of sustainability.

---

Oh there's more to the story. It was the Dutch fishing in UK waters that caused Grimsby (and by proxy NE England) to vote Leave, is that it now?

Your talent for oversimplification to suit your whims is astounding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You need to do better. You once again show you're out of your depth by suggesting these quotas are about sustainability. You think it's the leave campaign that is misinformed, while blinded to your own ignorance.

---

You think the quotas are there so the Dutch fishermen can prosper at the expense of the UK. That's what funny about you suggesting I'm out of my depth. Your arguments don't even pass the laugh test. I guess that's why you can't be bothered to provide evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You want a better analogy, how about changing your mind about nailing that blonde piece after your wife finds out. It's a bit late.

---

This is weak sauce, comparing a referendum to adultery. What a reach.

How about an analogy being you ask 100 people in your neighborhood if they want some deal and 52 say yes. You tell them ahead of time it's not a legally binding vote. Later information comes in that makes the deal look worse than it did when they voted. Are you going to say 'well fuck it 52% of us wanted it, so let's go ahead anyways regardless of whether it's now 40% now that more is known about the deal'? Seems kinda dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't doubt some were. Others would argue the plan is simply to leave and adapt, take the initial hardship while rebuilding our economy for the better. We used to be the world's largest economy, we started the industrial revolution. Now 80% of our GDP comes from the services sector. We're a nation of bankers and retail assistants. Very few people now work in agriculture or industry. We make fuck all. That needs to change. We need to create British products that people around the world want to buy. Like cars, to throw out one example. Some would call that a plan.

---

What a delusional argument this is. Not only is this an unrealistic plan, there's no reason to think Brexit would help it become a reality. We're not going to lead the world's economy anymore, get over it. Learn Mandarin and deal with the fact that times change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What if we vote to remain, and then they start building an army?

---

Lol, such a paranoid fantasy that we're going to lose our sovereignty because we're in the EU.

Well,there's a fucking surprise.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-pinching-our-fish/

Quote:

---

The UK’s share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU.

---

And another:

Quote:

---

Total Allowable Catches are intended to ensure that fishing is sustainable within each fishing zone and that the areas are not overfished. There are doubts within the industry as to whether or not the EU’s fishing policy has actually achieved this. But, some species, such as North Sea cod, seem to be recovering and an assessment is underway to determine whether or not it is now sustainable.

---

Shock/horror

Quote:

---

If we left the EU it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the situation would improve. The House of Commons Library has said that “many of the underlying issues that affect fisheries management would remain unchanged.”

---

Yeah, no misinformation campaign there

https://fullfact.org/europe/vote-lea...acts-leaflets/

I don't know about you, but I'd be happy to be £850-1700/yr poorer just to save me from being drafted into the Imperial European Army.

https://fullfact.org/europe/stronger...aflet-leaving/

So I heard the cost to rebuild NDC is going to be $1bn. Yes, one billion fucking dollars. And the plan is to do it. Is it just me or are there better things to spend a billion on?

Quote:

---

The UK’s share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU.

---

Oh, so British fishing isn't in decline? Great news. Problem solved. Point to random figures off some random site, and ignore actual fishermen who were protesting as we built up to the referendum.

I'm literally going to bed. I'll give those figures the benefit of the doubt for now and dig tomorrow, What I'd ask now is this... how much of the EU's marine territory is British? How much is our share relative to this figure? If we cut loose, will our fishing haul go up, or down? Then you can tell me if there's anything to be gained for the fishing industry in the UK by leaving the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Point to random figures off some random site

---

Are you saying they just made those up? Not impossible but then what are the real figures?


This quote is from the House of Commons Library.

Quote:

---

If we left the EU it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the situation would improve. The House of Commons Library has said that “many of the underlying issues that affect fisheries management would remain unchanged.”

---

Makes me wonder what some of those underlying issues are. Obviously it's not as simple as 'they're stealing our fish'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

and ignore actual fishermen who were protesting as we built up to the referendum.

---

Like I said, you don't have to be right to be a protester.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If we cut loose, will our fishing haul go up, or down? Then you can tell me if there's anything to be gained for the fishing industry in the UK by leaving the EU.

---

Another question might be who will buy our fish with a 20% tariff?

Overfishing is a thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I know it's bad how much I look at T_D, you don't need to tell me, but just look at this shit:

https://i.imgur.com/qM0ygYS.jpg

... endless comedy!

---

to be fair, this is an awful headline that can easily be read either way. If you read it with a coma after "measure", it means what they think it means.

Quote:

---

Are you saying they just made those up? Not impossible but then what are the real figures?

---

I'm not saying it's made up any more than you're saying these fishermen are liars. If fishing is going up, then it's not in decline, and there's no problem.So why is fishing in decline, and why do we have a problem?

Quote:

---

Another question might be who will buy our fish with a 20% tariff?

---

British people. We eat a lot of fish.

Quote:

---

If we left the EU it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the situation would improve.

---

I don't think anyone pretends to be certain things will improve. How can anyone know? People are just willing to take the risk. 52% of people, in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm not saying it's made up any more than you're saying these fishermen are liars. If fishing is going up, then it's not in decline, and there's no problem.So why is fishing in decline, and why do we have a problem?

---

Overfishing is the simplest explanation. see link posted by jack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

British people. We eat a lot of fish.

---

People don't suddenly start stuffing themselves with certain foods because their country can no longer export it due to tariffs. They might eat more if the price goes down (a price drop which is bad for fishermen) due to lack of trade, but in aggregate that won't make the fishermen better off. Catch more fish and sell it cheaper is not a solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't think anyone pretends to be certain things will improve.

---

Certain enough to support Brexit though, that's the problem.

Here's some idea of how complicated the single issue of fishing is re: Brexit. Best case scenario is we get a trade deal similar to one we have now, which seems pretty unlikely given we'd be giving them two fingers up. Worst is we get treated like every other riff raff country. How many of those well-informed protesters and/or Leavers read this report I wonder (or an analogous report, assuming one exists, for NE England)? Of the ones who did, how many had the level of intelligence/training to understand it? It's pretty dense and complicated.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/ec...-exit/pages/6/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

Overfishing is a thing

---

Says Greenpeace? That's rather like NATO telling us Russia is a threat. Whatever it takes to get a large budget.

Overfishing is a thing, but we're not engaged with such activities. We've been sustainably fishing for a long, long time. Don't get me wrong, we've had our problems over the years, like 3 "Cod wars" with Iceland, which ultimately they won. That was the beginning of fishing decline in the UK. We had to conceded large swathes of marine territory because Iceland threatened to pull out of NATO. Did we start overfishing the waters we can fish? No, because we're not stupid.

We don't need to be partonised about such issues, not least from fucking Greenpeace. I note the words "UK", "Britain" and "England" are not part of the article which admittedly I didn't read.

Well, that's interesting. They don't like the quotas but they like the free trade. Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/n...seafood-736984

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I note the words "UK", "Britain" and "England" are not part of the article which admittedly I didn't read.

---

Do you see it in this article?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...r-overfishing/

This whole nostalgia for fishing in Grimsby strikes me as similar to the nostalgia for the glory days of coal in West Virginia. While I'm sympathetic to people losing employment opportunities because times have changed and missing the good old days, they have to understand that we can't just turn back the clock and make everything better. They might have to go find something else to do.

Quote:

---

This whole nostalgia for fishing in Grimsby strikes me as similar to the nostalgia for the glory days of coal in West Virginia.

---

Nostalgia? That's an interesting word to describe people's livelihoods. Yes it's reasonable to compare it to mining... Thatcher closed the mines and then started buying coal from abroad, destroying communities across the country.

This isn't about "good old days", it's about entire communities suffering thanks to globalism. If you're a globalist and don't have a problem with it, fair enough, I'm not telling you how you should think economically. But you should still respect people's democratic dignity, you should still understand why communities suffer and why they have a problem with it. If suddenly you were unable to work because someone decided to buy whatever you make or get whatever service you provide from elsewhere without a care about your personal circumstances, if suddenly you couldn't support your family, you'd be pissed off. If you felt leaving the EU would make things better, then you wouldn't be arguing with me about why the EU is so bloody marvelous.

Quote:

---

While I'm sympathetic to people losing employment opportunities because times have changed and missing the good old days, they have to understand that we can't just turn back the clock and make everything better. They might have to go find something else to do.

---

Grismbsy is an absolute shithole. There is nothing there except for fishing. If fishing is done, so is Grimsby. And it's hardly the only fishing community, I refer to this town because it's somewhere I've been, I know how important fishing is to this town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Do you see it in this article?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...r-overfishing/

---

Quote:

---

A think-tank has placed the UK at the top of an international league table of overfishing.

---

I read that and couldn't be bothered any more. A think tank? Utter bollocks. We've been fishing for centuries. I also noted Scottish Fishing has something to say about it. The Scottish want to remain in the EU, so naturally they jump on anything that supports their case.

And this is still besides the point. If this is about sustainability, then nobody should be fishing those waters. That isn't what's happening, or at least it wasn't when we voted. I actually don't know what's going on there now, I haven't researched this in depth since the vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Grismbsy is an absolute shithole. There is nothing there except for fishing. If fishing is done, so is Grimsby. And it's hardly the only fishing community, I refer to this town because it's somewhere I've been, I know how important fishing is to this town.

---

There's towns all over the world that time has passed by. They're called ghost towns.

I missed your post above when I replied to Jack, I was about to go out.

Quote:

---

Overfishing is the simplest explanation. see link posted by jack.

---

Overfishing is not the reason why you allow somebody else to fish particular waters. That doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

People don't suddenly start stuffing themselves with certain foods because their country can no longer export it due to tariffs.

---

We eat a lot of fish. I don't know how much we export, and who to, but tariffs are something we can negotiate after we leave. Maybe New Zealand will buy our fish and we'll buy their lamb. I have no idea, that's for when we actually leave. That's not a choice we made, we literally cannot negotiate these things until we leave.

Quote:

---

Certain enough to support Brexit though, that's the problem.

---

You're the one who thinks leaving the EU is a problem. I don't. I agree it's a clusterfuck, but it's not a problem until it is clear that we are worse off. That won't be clear for a long time, there are still many obstacles to overcome, such as trade deals with other countries.

Quote:

---

Best case scenario is we get a trade deal similar to one we have now, which seems pretty unlikely given we'd be giving them two fingers up. Worst is we get treated like every other riff raff country.

---

Your focus here is the EU. That's your problem, it's like you think they're the only people we can trade with. If we get a similar trade deal while not being politically integrated into their superstate, that's great,perhaps even optimal. If they treat us like riff-raff, fuck them. Hello USA, hello New Zealand and Australia, hello China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

There's towns all over the world that time has passed by. They're called ghost towns.

---

This is not something we should simply allow to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is not something we should simply allow to happen.

---

Why? Why are you attached to the old ways so much even when they're no longer viable?

When they discover gold or silver or some other mineral in some place and then the mineral runs out, they don't go 'oh fuck we better find a way to prop these miners up, else what will they do?' They say 'there's no more work here, get a different job'

Why I should be most likely £1000 poorer every year so some fisherman I've never met may or may not (more likely not) be able to continue scraping by in an industry that's dying because their predecessors overfished the waters they want to fish in, and they're too stupid to admit it and so they blame it on being in an economic union that benefits the whole country? Fuck off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Your focus here is the EU. That's your problem, it's like you think they're the only people we can trade with. If we get a similar trade deal while not being politically integrated into their superstate, that's great,perhaps even optimal. If they treat us like riff-raff, fuck them. Hello USA, hello New Zealand and Australia, hello China.

---

Yeah I'm sure all these countries are just hoping we'll leave the EU so they can have our fish all to themselves. You think the moment we lose one market we gain another? It doesn't work that way.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...-imported.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...theres-a-catch


They're unlikely to give us a good deal if we leave the EU. They won't even give Norway a good deal and it's in the EEA.

Also, the actual source I cited took into account our ability to trade with other countries. It's not like they're fucking clueless . If you actually scanned over the report you'd realise they know more about it than you or me.

And oh yea, the fishing industry isn't just about some hardasses on a boat. There's also processing, which is heavily invested in the EU.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...om/78/7811.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

We eat a lot of fish. I don't know how much we export, and who to, but tariffs are something we can negotiate after we leave.

---

I've learned more in a half hour of scanning links than you ever knew about the whole question.

Glad you've done the research to back up your opinion.

What exactly are your reasons for backing Brexit? I mean specifically, not just vague things about 'fishermen protesting' and 'superstate' and 'imperial army' shit. What good do you expect to come from it?

Looks like I'm not the only one who's learned a few things since 2016.

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/n...inster-2312213

Quote:

---

Why? Why are you attached to the old ways so much even when they're no longer viable?

---

Who says it's no longer viable? You? The EU? Certainly the people of Grimsby aren't saying that fishing is no longer a viable economy.

This isn't about "old ways". We eat fish, we sell fish to export markets. Why isn't it viable? I don't see how you're qualified to make this determination.

Quote:

---

When they discover gold or silver...

---

Gold and silver do not reproduce. At least mining isn't sustainable, I do understand that difference between mining and fishing.

Quote:

---

Why I should be most likely £1000 poorer every year so some fisherman I've never met may or may not (more likely not) be able to continue scraping by in an industry that's dying because their predecessors overfished the waters they want to fish in,

---

THIS ISN'T ABOUT OVERFISHING, THE DUTCH WERE FISHING THE WATERS, THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.

Besides, even if overfishing is a problem, then the solution isn't to stop altogether, it's to impose quotas... sustainability quotas... until stocks have replenished.

Your argument is selfish, too. Why should a town become a ghost town so you can (maybe) earn £1K a year more? If you lost £1k a year income, does that threaten you, your family, and your entire community? No it fucking doesn't. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you will indeed be worse off. I don't know how you can know this, it will take years before you can know. Maybe you'll be £1k worse off next three years, then £2K better off the next three. Neither of us know. What matters is a democratic decision has been made, so we'll find out in time.

Quote:

---

and they're too stupid to admit it and so they blame it on being in an economic union that benefits the whole country? Fuck off.

---

This is MASSIVELY insulting, not to me, but to people who fish for a living. It's one of the most dangerous careers in this country, they literally risk their lives to feed their families. To call them "stupid" for assuming the EU quotas are hurting them, which they quite obviously are. It's astonishing you want proof that allowing the Dutch to fish British waters is hurting the local economy. They fish for a living and they are unable to fish waters they used to be allowed to fish. Use your fucking brain.

You are making an assumption that the EU benefits the whole country. That is highly debatable.I'm not calling you stupid for thinking the EU is good, I'm telling you that to call people stupid for disagreeing with you is arrogant as fuck, especially coming from someone who migrated here for economic reasons. How would you feel if Canadian fishing was being fucked by USA fishing their waters? How about if these Canadian fishermen were your brothers and cousins?

Quote:

---

Yeah I'm sure all these countries are just hoping we'll leave the EU so they can have our fish all to themselves. You think the moment we lose one market we gain another? It doesn't work that way.

---

Neither of us know this. But I am confident there are nations out there who can't wait to trade with us. It's obviously not just about fish, is it?

Quote:

---

They're unlikely to give us a good deal if we leave the EU.

---

I don't expect a good deal from them, never did expect it. Hoped, perhaps, but I didn't vote leave expecting it.

Quote:

---

Also, the actual source I cited took into account our ability to trade with other countries. It's not like they're fucking clueless . If you actually scanned over the report you'd realise they know more about it than you or me.

---

Nobody knows who we can deal with and at what cost post EU, so nobody is in any position to know if we will be better off or not. We can't know until we either succeed or fail in negotiating trade deals with other countries, and those negotiations cannot happen (at least overtly) until we leave.

Quote:

---

And oh yea, the fishing industry isn't just about some hardasses on a boat. There's also processing, which is heavily invested in the EU.

---

So? We can process fish. We don't need the EU to do it for us.

Quote:

---

I've learned more in a half hour of scanning links than you ever knew about the whole question.

---

No, you cherry picked what you respond to while ignoring things like "we cannot negotiate trade deal until we leave".

Quote:

---

What exactly are your reasons for backing Brexit? I mean specifically, not just vague things about 'fishermen protesting' and 'superstate' and 'imperial army' shit. What good do you expect to come from it?

---

"Superstate" is not shit, it is what the EU is. If you read my posts, you would see I have answered this question already... culture, community, and above all else, independence.

What good do I expect to come out of it? Our economy adapts to one that exports more than we import. For that to happen, we need to start making things again that the rest of the world wants to buy. We also reclaim our ability to create our own laws, reflecting British values and protecting British sovereignty.

Quote:

---

Looks like I'm not the only one who's learned a few things since 2016.

---

Oh marvelous, a poll citing 2% of Grimsby's population. And we all know how reliable polls are.

You've learned fuck all, because you're still talking about the EU as though it's trade and labour while dismissing concerns about political integration, while calling hard working people "stupid" for daring to disagree with you. You're no better than Bob Geldof when you say things like that.

If you can't accept the basic, well-agreed on fact that overfishing has been a major factor in the decline in fishing industry then you're a lost cause. it's not a case of 'hurr durr they're stealing our fish' ffs. I'd provide you with some (more) evidence but obviously you're not interested in facts.

And stop with the whole 'fishermen are heroes' whining. No-one is forcing them to do that for a living, or saying that they can't possibly get another job ever.

And yeah too bad the poll agrees with me, even the people in Grimsby.

Quote:

---

You're no better than Bob Geldof when you say things like that.

---

I apologise for this insult. No matter how arrogant you come across right now, I doubt very much you'd happily make millions off famine. This was below the belt.

Quote:

---

If you can't accept the basic, well-agreed on fact that overfishing has been a major factor in the decline in fishing industry then you're a lost cause.

---

It might be, but it's compeltely besides the point. EU quotas allow other people to fish the waters. So the EU agree that there is enough fish in these waters for viable economic activity. These are British waters, the economic activity should be British, or foreign at our invitation. Now we did invite such activity... by joining the EEC. Now we've changed our mind... decades after we joined, not a couple of fucking years.

Overfishing is not what this is about. That doesn't kill the fishing industry. It hurts it, sure, but it's not what these people are complaining about. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance on this topic.

---

Coming from the guy who doesn't need evidence to support his claims and won't even look at any that disagrees with them, this is pretty rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Coming from the guy who did his research when it mattered and can't be bothered to now, this is pretty rich.

---

fyp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I did my "research" like I always do (half -assed), gathered some half-truths, and can't find any of my sources when challenged on it.

---

fyp

FWIW, the combine harvester already took all our jobs, changed the food supply chain such that only a small number of people were making any money off of what is now "big farming." 80% of humans were farmers before that machine was around. Now it's closer to 5 - 10% in countries where combine harvesters are available (they cost over $250k, so not accessible to poor farmers).

This talk about the fishing community losing their jobs... I mean... it's harsh in the short term, but in the long term, it's just like all those farming communities that went bust. Times change. The localization of labor changes.
This is at the core of ong's argument, so I'm confused why he'd to point to a short-term harsh adjustment as a negative. If the fishing industry doesn't support the scale at which Grimsby has become accustomed, then Griimsby needs to adjust and re-accustom itself to the changing times. The short-term adjustment as Grimsby moves away from being a fishing community is just the path of human progress.

The mere argument that a community is losing its industry is not necessarily a sign that the industry should be saved.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Context matters.

If the issue is foreign fishers fishing the waters, so that UK fishers can't fish the amount of fish they could fish, which the market supports, then that's in line with ong's argument.
If the foreign fishing issue is a red herring (lol), as the quote from the House of FancyPants that Poopy shared indicates, then Grimsby is understandably upset that their industry is failing, but it's nothing to do with the EU or Brexit... it's just a changing world. Sorry Grimsby, but if you're clawing onto a failing industry that doesn't support the scale at which you've historically had it run, then that's on you to adjust your industry, create or invent new jobs and find prosperity in a new way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

fyp

---

I clearly have done more research than you have. You still insist overfishing is the cause of their problems, and you still insist that political integration concerns are baseless. You've stopped responding to me point by point because you can't keep cherry picking. Meanwhile, I respond to everything you post. Well, except the obvious attempts to bait me. I do ignore one or two things, but generally I have a response to anything. That should demonstrate to you that I have indeed done my research. Am I right? Fuck knows, I'm not an expert. I'm a voter who has a single vote, and exercised my democratic right.

mojo, what's the fishing equivalent of the combine harvester?

And mojo, you do understand that if the Dutch are fishing British waters, there is enough fish there for economic activity, right?

Quote:

---

"Very worried of course about Brexit," says Barend Hakvoort, whose job it is to ensure the Netherlands' largest fish auction house maintains its stocks.

---

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46361999

It's Mueller timer!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4ch2ZoXkAExBcc.jpg

It's obviously quite complicated as you can see from the links I posted, and not simply a matter of the EU stealing our fish. There's quotas on fish (agreed to by the UK fwiw) for the purpose of sustainability. These aren't unique to the EU but also involve global agreements because of overfishing.

There's also agreements about where different nations can fish; it's not that the Dutch suddenly got given access to UK waters and now they're getting rich off our back, they've historically been in those waters all along.

There's also, as pointed out, historical factors at play that mean that laborer jobs aren't able to sustain the relative standard of living they used to be able to. People don't want to work in shitty pay dangerous jobs when they have better opportunities elsewhere.

Again, I sympathize with these people, I'm sorry if they're suffering. I just don't feel like I should take it on the chin for something that may or probably won't help them.

Actually a surprising amount is not redacted. As far as I can tell by now, Trump is fucked once he's out of office but until then he's untouchable on obstruction. - Ordered the DOJ to fire Mueller. That's probably going to be the big one, but I'm only a couple pages in.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...m_npd_nn_tw_ma

HOW ARE YOU GUYS STILL TALKING ABOUT FISH?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46361999

---

Suddenly now you trust the BBC lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Ordered the DOJ to fire Mueller. [/url]

---

Whooaaaaaa! Back up! Beep! Beep! Beep!

Quote:

---

There's quotas on fish (agreed to by the UK fwiw) for the purpose of sustainability.

---

I don't know how many times I have to keep saying this, but I'll try one more time.

Sustainability quotas are not the problem.

Quote:

---

There's also agreements about where different nations can fish; it's not that the Dutch suddenly got given access to UK waters and now they're getting rich off our back, they've historically been in those waters all along.

---

We actually have a strong relationship with the Dutch. I am certainly not anti-Dutch, I recognise their legal right to fish these waters. When we reclaim our waters, it's not out of the question that we continue to work with the Dutch with regards to fishing. But it has to be our choice, and to our mutual benefit, not just theirs.

Quote:

---

People don't want to work in shitty pay dangerous jobs when they have better opportunities elsewhere.

---

They don't? You can speak on their behalf, can you? Why are they pissed off then? Why aren't they seeing the decline of the fishing industry as an opportunity?

You're wrong. People would rather do what their ancestors have done for centuries than go and work for Tesco for the same shitty pay, even if it's less dangerous.

Quote:

---

Again, I sympathize with these people,

---

Don't lie. You called them stupid. Stand by your convictions. You have no respect for them, you think they are stupid and their job is shitty, you think you can speak on their behalf. You can say you sympathise with them, but your comments prove otherwise. You have no respect for their democratic dignity and think you can speak on the behalf when it comes to such matters.

Quote:

---

I just don't feel like I should take it on the chin for something that may or probably won't help them.

---

Here's the difference between our positions on the EU... your position is about you, mine is not.

Quote:

---

Suddenly now you trust the BBC lol.

---

Trust? No. But that at least demonstrates to mojo that the Dutch are indeed fishing our waters, and that us leaving the EU will potentially change that. I don't trust any MSM source, which is why I can't be fucked to provide link after link "proving" my position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

HOW ARE YOU GUYS STILL TALKING ABOUT FISH?!

---

You're right, it's like talking to a brick wall with a trace of banana dna

oskar,it's not about fish, it's about democracy and poop's absolute disregard for it. It's also about his misinformed opinion on what the EU is, and his "sympathy" for people he thinks are too stupid to speak for themselves.

You guys play nice, I have a report to read.

Yaya, this is the MAGA thread. If you want to make up shit with no facts to back you up maybe start a 'Brexit Friends of Democracy and Brave Fishermen Who've Done Research They Can't Cite" thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

You guys play nice, I have a report to read.

---

Tell us the juicy bits.

VOX is reading the entire thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G73iRRgoLKg

They're currently at page 90. Almost everything so far already was public knowledge except some very specific communications between Cohen and a Giorgi Rtskhiladze. It's on page 78 of the pdf.

The story so far is: an insane amount of evidence that russians tried to get in contact with the trump campaign clearly stating that they want to help trump become president. Basically... Trump campaign sought to collude. Russians sought to collude, but they found no collusion because apparently for it to be collusion they have to sign a collusion agreement or something along those lines. Lets remember that the 18 angry democrats (used to be 13) are mostly republicans, so there's that.

Huh. Well none of that's surprising really. Kinda fits the narrative so far.

Didn't know collusion required a signed agreement though. That's some legal wizardy the mob would be proud of

Collusion is not a crime on any level, so there's no reason to prove it.

It's a misdirection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

mojo, what's the fishing equivalent of the combine harvester?

---

Nothing compares to the CH on this level. It's the single most life-changing invention of humans to date.
It took the jobs of over 60% of almost all humans.

My point was that no matter what's happening in the fishing industry, the decline alone isn't indicative of the need to step in. Industries change for all kinds of reasons.

If the fishermen are hurting, that's a fact on the ground we can work with. What's their proposed change? That seems to go against what their politicians say will happen if they get what they're protesting for... so something's not in line.

If what they're asking for wont change their problem, then there's a good reason to not put much weight in what they're asking for.

I'm just pointing out that both of you can be right on this issue... The fishermen are hurting and want Brexit to alleviate their hurt. AND Politicians know that whatever happens with Brexit isn't going to affect the change the fishermen want.
They're not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And mojo, you do understand that if the Dutch are fishing British waters, there is enough fish there for economic activity, right?

---

In Holland, yeah. Doesn't speak to there being a market in the UK, though.

Quote:

---

Nothing compares to the CH on this level.

---

I agree, which was the point I was hinting at.

Quote:

---

My point was that no matter what's happening in the fishing industry, the decline alone isn't indicative of the need to step in. Industries change for all kinds of reasons.

---

Yes they do. Some reasons are acceptable and inevitable, such as technology. Other reasons are not, such as external imposition of quotas. There's no reason why fishing should go the same way as farming, because technology is not the problem. The demand is still there, the fish are there, and the way to catch the fish is to take boats into the water with nets. The argument is that British waters should belong to Britain, not Europe. This isn't comparable to the combine harvester.

Quote:

---

What's their proposed change? That seems to go against what their politicians say will happen if they get what they're protesting for... so something's not in line.

---

If anyone is suggesting that reclaiming control of our waters will not improve the economies of fishing communities, they are lying. That should be obvious. More fish at British markets means more income for fishermen. Obviously.

Quote:

---

AND Politicians know that whatever happens with Brexit isn't going to affect the change the fishermen want.

---

Politicians are insincere, they are not to be trusted on such issues. They simply pick a side and then try to get votes. Very few politicians have integrity. This is a major flaw with democracy, more so than stupid people voting. Politicians care more about votes than what's actually in the best interest of the country.

Quote:

---

In Holland, yeah. Doesn't speak to there being a market in the UK, though.

---

This doesn't make sense. The Dutch aren't taking less fish than we would. If they were, the sustainability argument has some merit. But nobody has said to the UK "you can't fish there because you're irresponsible, we're letting the Dutch do it instead".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

HOW ARE YOU GUYS STILL TALKING ABOUT FISH?!

---

I mean god damn

Ya that's why I moved the uneducated fishermen's arguments to another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Ya that's why I moved the uneducated fishermen's arguments to another thread.

---

Liar. I did that. You merely suggested it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Collusion is not a crime on any level, so there's no reason to prove it.

It's a misdirection.

---

Yeah whatever... coordination and conspiracy. Anyway, they somehow found none despite me now having read a couple dozen accounts of what I would call coordination and conspiracy, but I'm not a republican lawyer!

However on pages 445 and 446 they list 14 matters of criminal activity that have been found by the special council which they considered outside the scope of the investigation. One of which is regarding Cohen, one is the Manafort stuff, the other 12 are redacted.

cautious: :banana:

Quote:

---

Towards the end of the lunch, the President brought up Comey and asked if Christie was
still friendly with him.224 Christie said he was.225 The President told Christie to call Comey and
tell him that the President "really like[s] him. Tell him he's part of the team."226 At the end of the
lunch, the President repeated his request that Christie reach out to Comey.227 Christie had no
intention of complying with the President's request that he contact Comey.228 He thought the
President's request was "nonsensical" and Christie did not want to put Comey in the position of
having to receive such a phone call.229 Christie thought it would have been uncomfortable to pass
on that message.230

---

Page 251 (pdf)

Quote:

---

Just hours before meeting one-on-one with Comey, the President told Christie that firing Flynn would put an end to
the Russia inquiries. And after Christie pushed back, telling the President that firing Flynn would
not end the Russia investigation, the President asked Christie to reach out to Comey and convey
that the President liked him and he was part of "the team." That afternoon, the President cleared
the room and asked Comey to "let[] Flynn go."

---

Page 259

Whoever is currently securing the movie rights to the Trump presidency, they better act fast because the only people who can do this material justice are Jim Abrahams and David Zucker.

NO COLLUSION. NO OBSTRUCTION

Two dozen top level federal prosecutors spent 2 years crawling up your ass and couldn't charge you with a crime. You're fucking innocent. Anyone who believes otherwise is a lunatic.

Anyone who is still concerned about the President being a criminal traitor was never going to vote for Trump anyway. So MSNBC, CNN, and all the 2020 candidates who are still throwing temper tantrums about this are just sabotaging themselves. They're alienating the moderate voters that they need. So keep whining Oskar, and whoever else is still whining. You're going to get Trump re-elected.

And impeachment is bonafide loser talk. The election is in 19 months. Just beat the guy. Trump must be stroking his toad every time a 2020 candidate talks about impeachment. The only way that impeachment would be an issue, is if they can't beat Trump. It's bonafide loser talk. And every 2020 candidate is screaming it on TV.

MAGA

Real talk, I totally forgot about you Banana. What's up?

I think impeachment probably wouldn't be the best choice because then Pence can pardon Trump. The report says it handed 14 cases over to other teams because they were outside its scope. Two of those are ongoing and we don't know what they are afaik. He already is implicated as a co-conspirator along with Cohen. His charity is a fraud. We don't know why Deutsche Bank lended him over 2 Billion after he already had defaulted on hundreds of million to the same bank. And SDNY is just waiting until they can indict.

Looking at the obstruction part, I honestly do not understand what the bar for obstruction is and how you would meet it. He fired Comey "for the russia thing" He asked if firing Flynn would "end the russia thing," he fired Sessions for recusing himself from the investigation, he ordered McGhan to fire Mueller himself. But they couldn't prove intention?

I do not want a repeat of Nixon. The fact that Nixon and Agnew walked free is more sickening than anything leading up to it. I want Trump in jail. I know it's probably not going to happen, but with impeachment it almost definitely isn't going to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Looking at the obstruction part, I honestly do not understand what the bar for obstruction is and how you would meet it. .....they couldn't prove intention?

---

Pay attention. Get educated:

Mueller identified 10 things that *could* be obstruction-ish.

ALLEGATION: The president told disgraced former F.B.I. Director James Comey he “hoped” Comey could see his way clear of letting go of former National Security Adviser Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was under investigation, even after the White House fired him.
TRUTH: Trump had the constitutional authority to legally put a stop to this investigation and did not use it. Expressing one’s “hope” is not an act of obstruction, nor is it an order … it is the expression of one’s hope. What’s more, Trump is expressing this hope about someone else, not himself.

ALLEGATION: Trump wanted his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to not recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
TRUTH: So what? Trump selected Sessions to be his attorney general because he had faith in him in that role. Once Sessions recused himself, Trump — and don’t forget we are talking about a man innocent of the treason charges being investigated — was now at the mercy of the same Deep State that was already selectively and illegally leaking to frame him for treason.

Trump was not calling on Sessions to reverse his recusal and shut down the investigation. He wanted someone he trusted overseeing it. That is not obstruction, it’s common sense and the way you would expect an innocent man to act.

ALLEGATION: Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation.
TRUTH: Trump fired Comey on Rod Rosenstein’s recommendation. Trump fired Comey because Comey deliberately set him up with that briefing about the phony dossier (Comey’s briefing was the hook the fake news media used to make what became known as the pee pee dossier public). Trump fired Comey because Comey refused to report the truth — that the president was not under investigation and Trump felt (for legitimate reasons) as though he were being blackmailed. Trump fired Comey, as he told Lester Holt on NBC, because he knew Comey would drag his feet with the Russian investigation and Trump wanted to put the issue behind him.

The only way the firing of Comey could be construed as obstruction is if Comey’s replacement agreed to stop the investigation. That didn’t happen because Trump wanted the exact opposite: he wanted the matter resolved.

ALLEGATION: Trump was angry about the appointment of a special counsel and expressed a desire to fire people.
TRUTH: So what? Mueller is actually attempting to claim that Trump’s tweets about the “witch hunt” and his threats to fire people (that were never followed through on) constitute obstruction.

An innocent man raging against a plot to frame him is not, in any legal or moral sense, obstruction. What’s more, had Trump followed through with firing Mueller and Sessions, that would not have been obstruction because it was well within his legal authority to do so.

ALLEGATION: Trump asked his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to tell Sessions to announce that the investigation was very unfair to him, and that he had done nothing wrong.
TRUTH: So what? Asking your attorney general to tell the public the truth is not obstruction.

ALLEGATION: Trump was not publicly forthcoming about the Trump Tower Meeting.
TRUTH: Lying to the media or to the public is not obstruction of justice. All Trump did was spin the meeting in the most favorable light possible — which only proves he’s a politician. When Obama did this, the media gushed over his amazing talent at “slow-walking the truth.”

If lying to the public or to the media is obstruction of justice, the jails are gunna be awfully full.

ALLEGATION: Trump continued to pressure Sessions to unrecuse himself.
TRUTH: So what? Trying to put someone else in charge of an investigation is not obstruction. In fact, the Mueller Report notes that Trump told Sessions: “I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly” — which tells you that Mueller including this in his childish listicle is his way of padding his non-case.

ALLEGATION: Trump didn’t want the public to know he had “directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. “
TRUTH: Again, lying to the press and to the public is not obstruction, and if Trump had truly wanted Mueller fired he could have legally done it. This entire narrative about Trump wanting people fired or wanting to put Sessions in charge of the investigation is breathtakingly desperate and dumb.

ALLEGATION: Trump praised former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Flynn when they held strong and criticized them when they rolled over.
TRUTH: It is not obstruction of justice to express an opinion and these opinions are perfectly in line with an innocent man being falsely accused of treason while the Deep State and media attempt to frame him.

What’s more, Trump was almost always publicly expressing these opinions. People do not commit crimes in front of 50 million Twitter followers.

ALLEGATION: Trump praised his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen when he held strong and criticized him after he rolled over.
TRUTH: As you can see, to pad his non-case to number ten, rather than include Cohen with Manafort and Flynn, Mueller makes Trump’s reaction to Cohen a separate item.

Sorry, but in America telling a friend to “stay strong” when he’s under investigation and then publicly calling him a “rat” when he falsely accuses you of crimes is not obstruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I want Trump in jail.

---

Why? How would that improve anything?

Go post this in the "aaaarrgggggyyahhgghggg" thread

That is a very philosophical question.

That is a lot of instances of someone trying to end an investigation that could be harmful to himself when in reality it's totally something else, don't you think?

Anyway, you are exemplifying the reason I've said from the moment the Barr letter came out that impeachment is probably not the way to go, because you're in the court of public opinion and the fact that the white house was allowed to spin the story not once but twice before a redacted report comes out means that they've won in the court of public opinion. Barr himself said "no collusion no obstruction" when the report clear as day states that it did not try to answer the question of collusion and left obstruction open for congress.

In addition, the handling by MSM is shockingly incompetent. Idk how many times I've heard the "I'm fucked" quote without a hint of reflection why the quote is in the report in the first place. It's there to show intent in obstruction.