Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

4 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

So a self-employed person doesn’t like the working time directive even though it has no impact on them. Such is level of desperation to bend over for big business. Cucky McCuck and half, that.

 

The right wing really are the most pathetic, subservient, piss-weak cohort of men in history. I’m embarrassed for and by you.

Cucky McCuck? The spoiling the thread police will be telling you off.

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Melanie Phillips gave you an example, I gave an example of university academics in this country who say it's like that. What evidence has been provided that it's not like that other than saying it's all propaganda?

Damn it, guess this is going into extra time then.

 

The burden of proof is on them - Ms Phillips and the academics involved - to empirically prove their accusations beyond hearsay and innuendo, not the other way round. Until then, it belongs in the dismissed column with Ether Theory and Young Earth Creationism.

Edited 24 February 2018 by leicsmac

[Webbo]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Damn it, guess this is going into extra time then.

 

The burden of proof is on them - Ms Phillips and the academics involved - to empirically prove their accusations beyond hearsay and innuendo, not the other way round. Until then, it belongs in the dismissed column with ether theory and Young Earth Creationism.

It was a newspaper article, not a court of law.  I'm not trying to convince you one way or another, I'm not the one spitting the dummy because someone has criticised their world view. Until somebody can categorically prove it's lies I believe it, whether you believe it or not is up to you.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It was a newspaper article, not a court of law.  I'm not trying to convince you one way or another, I'm not the one spitting the dummy because someone has criticised their world view. Until somebody can categorically prove it's lies I believe it, whether you believe it or not is up to you.

Fair enough - just shows the power of words I guess, even if those words may or may not be true.

 

I would say that it's unfortunate that decent scientists are being painted the way that they are here and that people believe it to be the case, but that's hardly a new thing and it's merely the world we live in, I guess.

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, Webbo said:

Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I haven't answered them. I believe it, you don't, lets leave it at that.

 

While you responded to some of my points, I don't believe that you did reply to a couple of important points - entirely your prerogative, of course.

 

I agree that it's time to move on, but will state below what I presume from your non-answers to those points:

 

Firstly, I presume you are maintaining your claim that Phillips' article was all about "academics in academia", which I disputed. You therefore presumably believe that when she wrote of "Brexit supporters" seeking to restore democratic control over British laws and policies, of "Remainers" despising democratic sovereignty, of "many Remainers" viewing "Brexit supporters" as racists, Nazis and stunted imbeciles, she was referring only to academics. Likewise, that when she referred to "the millions who voted for Brexit....resisting the abuse of cultural power" and "the battle over Brexit now being a fight to the death", she was again presumably referring only to academics? Agree to disagree, if so! 

 

Secondly, I presume you are maintaining your belief that her article was "a fair assessment" of the attitudes of Remainers (be they academics or others) - and that you therefore feel that the use of the same or equivalent language about Brexiteers is also a fair assessment. Here's the equivalent again, which I kept as close to the original as possible: 

"Remainers are deemed to be communists, traitors, scroungers, immigrant-lovers and, of course, naive, pampered snowflakes. These aren't just insults deployed to smear Remain supporters and shut down debate. Among many Brexiters, there's a deep belief they are true. Brexiters don't value democratic sovereignty. Many despise it. That's why they want to leave the EU. And why they are determined that the Brexit deal must not be subject to a vote in parliament".

 

Right, time to move on, as you say. Here's hoping that the UK Parliament takes back control and votes through the forthcoming amendment in favour of the UK joining a Customs Union, eh?

As a believer in the need for parliament to take back control, I'm sure you'll join me in partying long into the night if that happens... 

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

While you responded to some of my points, I don't believe that you did reply to a couple of important points - entirely your prerogative, of course.

 

I agree that it's time to move on, but will state below what I presume from your non-answers to those points:

 

Firstly, I presume you are maintaining your claim that Phillips' article was all about "academics in academia", which I disputed. You therefore presumably believe that when she wrote of "Brexit supporters" seeking to restore democratic control over British laws and policies, of "Remainers" despising democratic sovereignty, of "many Remainers" viewing "Brexit supporters" as racists, Nazis and stunted imbeciles, she was referring only to academics. Likewise, that when she referred to "the millions who voted for Brexit....resisting the abuse of cultural power" and "the battle over Brexit now being a fight to the death", she was again presumably referring only to academics? Agree to disagree, if so! 

 

Secondly, I presume you are maintaining your belief that her article was "a fair assessment" of the attitudes of Remainers (be they academics or others) - and that you therefore feel that the use of the same or equivalent language about Brexiteers is also a fair assessment. Here's the equivalent again, which I kept as close to the original as possible: 

"Remainers are deemed to be communists, traitors, scroungers, immigrant-lovers and, of course, naive, pampered snowflakes. These aren't just insults deployed to smear Remain supporters and shut down debate. Among many Brexiters, there's a deep belief they are true. Brexiters don't value democratic sovereignty. Many despise it. That's why they want to leave the EU. And why they are determined that the Brexit deal must not be subject to a vote in parliament".

 

Right, time to move on, as you say. Here's hoping that the UK Parliament takes back control and votes through the forthcoming amendment in favour of the UK joining a Customs Union, eh?

As a believer in the need for parliament to take back control, I'm sure you'll join me in partying long into the night if that happens... 

If that happens it'll probably bring the govt down and we'll have another election. It'd be interesting to see if Labour do vote for that after Barry Gardiner said staying in the customs union would make us a vassal state.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Alf vs webbo sustains me

[Buce]

Just now, Sharpe's Fox said:

Alf vs webbo sustains me

 

If it was a boxing match the ref would have stopped it several rounds ago. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If that happens it'll probably bring the govt down and we'll have another election. It'd be interesting to see if Labour do vote for that after Barry Gardiner said staying in the customs union would make us a vassal state.

 

Indeed it will be interesting. I read that Corbyn is supposed to be giving a big speech on Monday, adjusting Labour's policy on Brexit (possibly to approve A Customs Union, but not THE existing Customs Union or Single Market).

Then May is scheduled to announce the policy agreed by the Tory cabinet on their recent Chequers get-together (widely leaked as being divergence in some areas, but continued convergence in others - liable to be seen as "cherrypicking" by the EU, I suspect).

 

Will the Labour leadership be prepared to ask their troops to support an amendment tabled by Umunna, Soubry, Clarke & co, rather than their own? If they've any sense, they will, as to win any vote they need the support of at least a dozen Tory MPs - and Tory Remainers will be much happier supporting something drafted by Soubry, Clarke & Umunna than by the Labour front bench.

 

If Labour does support the amendment, I suppose it will then be a question of (a) whether enough Tory Remainers feel this is the right time to make a stand; and (b) whether the Tory leadership is able to cajole or coerce enough into backing down: e.g. making it a 3-line-whip, threatening an election with the prospect of a Corbyn govt or merely suggesting that there'll be another opportunity later to vote on what is negotiated with Barnier....

 

I couldn't predict the outcome with any confidence. My guess would be that Labour WILL back the amendment and some Tory Remainers will rebel, but not enough to win the vote....not this time, anyway. Probably just the first of a series of such votes over coming months, though, I imagine.

[Izzy]

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

If it was a boxing match the ref would have stopped it several rounds ago. 

Nah, Webbo's 'rope-a-doping' him 

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

 

[Bellend Sebastian]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

 

 

These are strange times

[Sampson]

This is a good video. Probably the best and most even handed one I've seen on the subject.

[Izzy]

7 hours ago, Sampson said:

This is a good video. Probably the best and most even handed one I've seen on the subject.

So all this Left/Right stuff is just a load of old French bollux 

Thanks for posting it Sampson, very interesting  

[Buce]

52 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

So all this Left/Right stuff is just a load of old French bollux 

Thanks for posting it Sampson, very interesting  

 

Bolleaux?

Edited 25 February 2018 by Buce

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Bolleaux?

 

les couilles, physiologically

 

In the sense of "a load of old cobblers"?

Maybe Putain! Quel bordel de merde, la politique! ("Oh, whore! What a brothel of shit politics is!) 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

On 23/02/2018 at 17:35, Buce said:

 

This is why you get dog's abuse - you just make shit up, then use it as a stick to beat Corbyn and Labour.

 

What was actually said was:

 

"Yo Theresa May, where’s the money for Grenfell?"

"What, you thought we just forgot about Grenfell? You criminals, and you’ve got the cheek to call us savages, you should do some jail time, you should pay some damages, you should burn your house down and see if you can manage this."

 

 

Ok so you think I deserve 'dog abuse' mainly from you because you disagree with me. Now whatever the precise wording of Stormzys 'exact' comments which I admit I misquoted (so sorry to the pretentious lefties out there). 

 

My view is that comment whether it refers to Teresa mays house or whatever will be taken out of context by certain people, they will use it an excuse for class war and possibly burn them as a result. Corbyn and McDonnell already talk of this anyway. Not saying I am correct but whatever the wording I find it likely to incite class attacks. You have you head in your clouds if you think this is ok.

 

Despite Stormzy being a champagne socialist he is somekind of working class hero. Exactly the kind of shit I hate about the modern Labour movement. He is a whining cvnt, Labour use shit like this because its soundbites that other whiny momentum cvnts latch onto and love and share on facebook etc

 

Actually Stormzy and his fellow tossers instead of talking shit at a horific obscene elitist event for average musical artists could have had a whip around instead of enjoying the excesses lavished upon them and sorted the stuff out for the grenfell survivors using their pocket change. Of course they dont wsnt to that because it impacts their lives and doesnt make good sound bites that class warriors can use to create yet more division. 

 

Its disgusting whatever the wording. I stand by that. You may disagree and give me 'dogs abuse' if you wish but yet again it speaks more about the person making the abuse I would say.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

Ok so you think I deserve 'dog abuse' mainly from you because you disagree with me. Now whatever the precise wording of Stormzys 'exact' comments which I admit I misquoted (so sorry to the pretentious lefties out there). 

 

My view is that comment whether it refers to Teresa mays house or whatever will be taken out of context by certain people, they will use it an excuse for class war and possibly burn them as a result. Corbyn and McDonnell already talk of this anyway. Not saying I am correct but whatever the wording I find it likely to incite class attacks. You have you head in your clouds if you think this is ok.

 

Despite Stormzy being a champagne socialist he is somekind of working class hero. Exactly the kind of shit I hate about the modern Labour movement. He is a whining cvnt, Labour use shit like this because its soundbites that other whiny momentum cvnts latch onto and love and share on facebook etc

 

Actually Stormzy and his fellow tossers instead of talking shit at a horific obscene elitist event for average musical artists could have had a whip around instead of enjoying the excesses lavished upon them and sorted the stuff out for the grenfell survivors using their pocket change. Of course they dont wsnt to that because it impacts their lives and doesnt make good sound bites that class warriors can use to create yet more division. 

 

Its disgusting whatever the wording. I stand by that. You may disagree and give me 'dogs abuse' if you wish but yet again it speaks more about the person making the abuse I would say.

Just a thought but in terms of events likely to incite a class war, a pop-star criticising the prime minister is perhaps slightly less powerful than the burning to death of numerous poor families and subsequent inability of the establishment to demonstrate they give even the slightest ****.

[Buce]

 

 

Labour backs staying in EU customs union, Keir Starmer confirms

Shadow Brexit secretary says his party wants to remain in customs union permanently

The shadow Brexit secretary has formally confirmed that Labour wants the UK to effectively remain permanently in the EU’s customs union.

Sir Keir Starmer told The Andrew Marr Show on BBC One on Sunday the shadow cabinet had unanimous support for the new policy, which Jeremy Corbyn will flesh out in a speech in Coventry on Monday.

Starmer said the party wanted the UK to have “a” customs union with the EU after Brexit, rather than to remain in “the” customs union, but he also said this distinction was merely technical and that in practice the effect would be the same.

“The customs arrangements at the moment are hardwired into the membership treaty, so I think everybody now recognises there is going to have to be a new treaty [between the UK and the EU]. It will do the work of the customs union. So it is a customs union,” Starmer said.

“But will it do the work of the current customs union? Yes, that’s the intention.”

Starmer said staying in a customs union was “the only way realistically” for the UK to get tariff-free access to the EU. This was really important for manufacturing, he said.

 

The government is strongly opposed to staying in a customs union with the EU on the grounds that this would prevent the UK negotiating its own trade deals with non-EU countries after Brexit.

But Starmer said he was not aware of any credible analysis showing the UK would do better on its own than it would negotiating deals with the EU.

He said that after Brexit Labour would want the UK to have a say in how the EU negotiates future deals. That would have to be negotiated, he said.

He went on: “But the real point is – because we all want trade agreements, more trade – we will be more likely to get them if we do it jointly with the EU [than] on our own.”

Labour has been firming up its support for remaining in a customs union for some time, but the formal confirmation that this is party policy opens the door to the opposition supporting amendments to legislation forcing the government to adopt it. A key one is an amendment to the trade bill, new clause 5 (NC5), which has already been signed by eight Tory MPs.

Starmer effectively confirmed Labour would vote for NC5, saying it was “essentially saying the same thing” as what his party wanted.

“Crunch time is now coming for the prime minister because the majority of parliament does not back her approach to a customs union and the majority in parliament needs to be heard and it will be heard sooner rather than later,” he said.

In his own interview with Marr, Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, confirmed the government was delaying the key votes on the trade bill because it feared losing on the customs union. “We want to persuade our colleagues of the merits of our argument before we take the bill forward,” he said.

Fox also insisted that with 90% of global growth due to come from outside the EU in the years ahead, the UK needed to be outside the customs union so it could strike its own trade deals.

 

Sir Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Caroline Lucas, the Green party co-leader, both welcomed Starmer’s announcement, but urged Corbyn to go further and to back staying in the EU single market, a position advocated by more than 80 senior Labour figures in a statement issued to the Observer.

Cable said: “Labour supporting permanent membership of the customs union is a modest step on the road to sanity and it is right that progressives from across the left and centre-left keep up the pressure for Labour and Jeremy Corbyn to properly resist the government’s plans for a hard and reckless Brexit.”

Lucas said: “Leaving the single market – threatening labour standards, putting women’s rights at risk, and giving those who want to weaken or abolish environmental protection an opportunity to run amok – would still be a mistake and should be opposed by those on the left in all parties.”

Topics

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/25/labour-backs-staying-in-eu-customs-union-keir-starmer-confirms

[UpTheLeagueFox]

22 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

The right wing really are the most pathetic, subservient, piss-weak cohort of men in history.

Well if the alternative is being left wing ... thin-skinned, super sensitive, angry, bitter at seeing others doing well, refusing to accept others can think differently to them, wanting a race to the bottom ... then I'll stick to my centre right position, thanks 

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

Labour backs staying in EU customs union, Keir Starmer confirms

Shadow Brexit secretary says his party wants to remain in customs union permanently

The shadow Brexit secretary has formally confirmed that Labour wants the UK to effectively remain permanently in the EU’s customs union.

Sir Keir Starmer told The Andrew Marr Show on BBC One on Sunday the shadow cabinet had unanimous support for the new policy, which Jeremy Corbyn will flesh out in a speech in Coventry on Monday.

Starmer said the party wanted the UK to have “a” customs union with the EU after Brexit, rather than to remain in “the” customs union, but he also said this distinction was merely technical and that in practice the effect would be the same.

“The customs arrangements at the moment are hardwired into the membership treaty, so I think everybody now recognises there is going to have to be a new treaty [between the UK and the EU]. It will do the work of the customs union. So it is a customs union,” Starmer said.

“But will it do the work of the current customs union? Yes, that’s the intention.”

Starmer said staying in a customs union was “the only way realistically” for the UK to get tariff-free access to the EU. This was really important for manufacturing, he said.

 

The government is strongly opposed to staying in a customs union with the EU on the grounds that this would prevent the UK negotiating its own trade deals with non-EU countries after Brexit.

But Starmer said he was not aware of any credible analysis showing the UK would do better on its own than it would negotiating deals with the EU.

He said that after Brexit Labour would want the UK to have a say in how the EU negotiates future deals. That would have to be negotiated, he said.

He went on: “But the real point is – because we all want trade agreements, more trade – we will be more likely to get them if we do it jointly with the EU [than] on our own.”

Labour has been firming up its support for remaining in a customs union for some time, but the formal confirmation that this is party policy opens the door to the opposition supporting amendments to legislation forcing the government to adopt it. A key one is an amendment to the trade bill, new clause 5 (NC5), which has already been signed by eight Tory MPs.

Starmer effectively confirmed Labour would vote for NC5, saying it was “essentially saying the same thing” as what his party wanted.

“Crunch time is now coming for the prime minister because the majority of parliament does not back her approach to a customs union and the majority in parliament needs to be heard and it will be heard sooner rather than later,” he said.

In his own interview with Marr, Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, confirmed the government was delaying the key votes on the trade bill because it feared losing on the customs union. “We want to persuade our colleagues of the merits of our argument before we take the bill forward,” he said.

Fox also insisted that with 90% of global growth due to come from outside the EU in the years ahead, the UK needed to be outside the customs union so it could strike its own trade deals.

 

Sir Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Caroline Lucas, the Green party co-leader, both welcomed Starmer’s announcement, but urged Corbyn to go further and to back staying in the EU single market, a position advocated by more than 80 senior Labour figures in a statement issued to the Observer.

Cable said: “Labour supporting permanent membership of the customs union is a modest step on the road to sanity and it is right that progressives from across the left and centre-left keep up the pressure for Labour and Jeremy Corbyn to properly resist the government’s plans for a hard and reckless Brexit.”

Lucas said: “Leaving the single market – threatening labour standards, putting women’s rights at risk, and giving those who want to weaken or abolish environmental protection an opportunity to run amok – would still be a mistake and should be opposed by those on the left in all parties.”

Topics

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/25/labour-backs-staying-in-eu-customs-union-keir-starmer-confirms

Well that rules me out of voting for them, I’m glad I didn’t last time too.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Fancy some Sunday reading? 

 

https://articulatelive.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/20-years-of-tuition-fees-where-do-we-go-from-here/

 

This has been a piece I've been putting together for a little while on the subject of tuition fees, looking at their 20 year history and the various political positions the parties are taking now.

 

It includes some original content that I've obtained from a local Labour MP, a University prospective and some guy within the Scottish Education department who was kind enough to email a response at the 11th hour. 

 

And to sound needy - if you read and thought, that's not bad or even boarding into good, leave a 'like' or comment on the article page please - it'll make me feel a lot better, given this was written as an assessment 'feature article' for my Uni course that may meet the 'feature' element, but has gone over the 800 word limit that was set! 

 

[Donut]

19 hours ago, Webbo said:

Instead of me answering your question, answer mine. How has being in the Common fishery policy benefited your life? How has it improved our country letting foreign boats catch our fish?

And this is you in a nutshell. When youve got nothing sensible to say in reply, or no justification for something, you try and turn it back on the original poster with a question of your own, rather than answering the question that has been asked to you.

 

You didnt attempt to answer any of the points you have quoted me on.

 

In answer to YOUR question, whilst for one i am not an expert on the common fisheries policy, I believe the purpose of the policy is to share EU water equally, and to create sustainable fish stocks for everyone, including us.

 

So presumably, you must think maintaining sustainable fish stocks is a bad thing? because its a policy that you want to get rid of. Why didnt the UK veto the policy if if was a bad thing?

 

Its a policy that I am not passionate about either way. But im not arguing that my control is being taken away like you are and that all the laws made by the EU, the ones you couldnt name and you just listed a few after a frantic little search whether they affected you or not, are damaging to my freedom.

 

This is entirely the issue, you bemoan EU laws and yet you cant name any that affect you. First of all you said "im not a lawyer" when it was obvious you didnt know any of the laws that you supposedly want freedom from, then you listed a few and you couldnt name any reasons why they were affecting your life.

 

All you can gather from this thread reading your opinions are that you voted brexit in atempt to take back control from laws you cant name, cant answer how they affect you or cant comment on how these laws are implemented in countries, yet youre absolutely sure these laws you couldnt name are a problem.

 

You voted brexit to have more democratic power, to be able to "boot out" a government if you didnt like their policies, which was what you could do anyway and always could, even the brexit white paper says that "parliament has always been sovereign",  but you wont be any more involved in the policy making process than you are now.

 

You voted brexit over pie in the sky economics that exist at the moment only in your head, because there are no confirmed economic plans or trade deals in place. These scenarios could make us all better off but highly likely to leave us all worse off, as bank of england reports have said that mitigating damage is the best we can hope for.

 

You then gave strokes a thumbs up reputation for a post about not caring whether we got poorer, it was a price worth paying to gain more democratic power. This goes against your ideas that we will benefit from new trade deals, you effectively say i think I will be better off, but i know most likely ill be worse off so either way i dont care. You wouldnt have spoken about trade deals if you didnt care. You do care and youve contradicted yourself.

 

And weve learned that on numerous occasions when you say something and you cant justify why youve said it or voted for it, youll just shout back louder, try and make yourself look more politically astute than someone else, or just duck the question all together and turn it into a question of your own.

 

It shouldnt really be a surprise though because the kind of muddled thinking you display is on show in the government too, no two politicians can agree what they want as a negotiating strategy and brexit end game just like no two brexit voters can, the conservative leader didnt even want brexit in the first place, and when you cant answer legitimate questions you try and shift the goalposts on why you voted how you did.

Edited 25 February 2018 by Donut

[Webbo]

14 minutes ago, Donut said:

And this is you in a nutshell. When youve got nothing sensible to say in reply, or no justification for something, you try and turn it back on the original poster with a question of your own, rather than answering the question that has been asked to you.

You didnt attempt to answer any of the points you have quoted me on.

In answer to YOUR question, whilst for one i am not an expert on the common fisheries policy, I believe the purpose of the policy is to share EU water equally, and to create sustainable fish stocks for everyone, including us.

So presumably, you must think maintaining sustainable fish stocks is a bad thing? because its a policy that you want to get rid of.

Its a policy that I am not passionate about either way. But im not arguing that my control is being taken away like you are and that all the laws made by the EU, the ones you couldnt name and you just listed a few after a frantic little search whether they affected you or not, are damaging to my freedom.

This is entirely the issue, you bemoan EU laws and yet you cant name any that affect you. First of all you said "im not a lawyer" when it was obvious you didnt know any of the laws that you supposedly want freedom from, then you listed a few and you couldnt name any reasons why they were affecting your life.

All you can gather from this thread reading your opinions are that you voted brexit in atempt to take back control from laws you cant name, cant answer how they affect you or cant comment on how these laws are implemented in countries, yet youre absolutely sure these laws you couldnt name are a problem.

 

 

You voted brexit to have more democratic power, to be able to "boot out" a government if you didnt like their policies, which was what you could do anyway and always could, even the brexit white paper says that "parliament has always been sovereign",  but you wont be any more involved in the policy making process than you are now.

 

 

You voted brexit over pie in the sky economics that exist at the moment only in your head, because there are no confirmed economic plans or trade deals in place. These scenarios could make us all better off but highly likely to leave us all worse off, as bank of england reports have said that mitigating damage is the best we can hope for.

 

 

You then gave strokes a thumbs up reputation for a post about not caring whether we got poorer, it was a price worth paying to gain more democratic power. This goes against your ideas that we will benefit from new trade deals, you effectively say i think I will be better off, but i know most likely ill be worse off so either way i dont care. You wouldnt have spoken about trade deals if you didnt care. You do care and youve contradicted yourself.

 

 

 

And weve learned that on numerous occasions when you say something and you cant justify why youve said it or voted for it, youll just shout back louder, try and make yourself look more politically astute than someone else, or just duck the question all together and turn it into a question of your own.

 

 

It shouldnt really be a surprise though because the kind of muddled thinking you display is on show in the government too, no two politicians can agree what they want as a negotiating strategy and brexit end game just like no two brexit voters can, the conservative leader didnt even want brexit in the first place, and when you cant answer legitimate questions you try and shift the goalposts on why you voted how you did.

Crikey, I thought I was the shouty one?

 

I've answered questions a plenty over the last couple of days, so much so I'm tired of having to justify myself, whatever I say its never good enough anyway. It seems like you don't feel you have to justify yourself either, its not much fun is it?

 

We had sustainable fishing stocks before we joined the common fisheries policy, I don't know how letting foreign boats fish in our waters too helps. I can't go into a Swedish pine forest and help myself to 10 acres of timber because they are part of the EU so why should foreign firms be allowed to help themselves to our fish?

[Donut]

20 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I've answered questions a plenty over the last couple of days, so much so I'm tired of having to justify myself, whatever I say its never good enough anyway. It seems like you don't feel you have to justify yourself either, its not much fun is it?

 

We had sustainable fishing stocks before we joined the common fisheries policy, I don't know how letting foreign boats fish in our waters too helps. I can't go into a Swedish pine forest and help myself to 10 acres of timber because they are part of the EU so why should foreign firms be allowed to help themselves to our fish?

I like being part of a large trading block and the security it gives over jobs, i like having tariff free trade as part of the block, I like the additional negotiating power we have as part of the block rather than out of it, I like that the EU provides investment into various industries like i said on the previous page, I like that if i want to i can move freely to work, to travel, and unlike you I cant give a way that any of the policies and laws you hastily retreated on are damaging my life.

 

So there in a concise definition for you, is my justification for voting remain.

 

So whenever you say i dont feel like i can justify my vote, or i dont feel i have to, copy that, put it into size 20 font and refer to it in the same way i refer to you stumbling around with made up economics and laws you can barely name.

 

And i dont know what, if any policy the EU has on sustainable timber. Once again, it doesnt affect my life, and i was never arguing for us pulling out of whatever if any policy the EU has on timber and insisting for UK timber laws. Do you want a law that allows the UK to invade Sweden and cut down 10 acres of timber? I dont even know what youre trying to discuss.

 

You clearly must think its an example of the EU controlling you because you want whatever is in place to be gotten rid of, and yet even if a policy was in place, the terms could have been negotiated in european court and we could have vetoed the policy anyway. Your example was basically rubbish.

 

 

 

 

Edited 25 February 2018 by Donut