The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2
Discussion
EddieSteadyGo said:
The fishing industry I don't know much about but I seem to recall much of the effect is down to conservation of fishing stocks that otherwise would have continued to dwindle having been decimated by years of over fishing.
you recall incorrectly. as we speak there are are more saleable fish being discarded dead than being landed every year. over 500 000 tonnes every year gets thrown back dead by the uk fleet as a direct result of the common fisheries policy and the inept f
king academics running the international council for the exploration of the seas.i could quite happily lower every single commisioner involved with the cfp over the last 40 years to the sea bottom in a trawl to let them see exactly what the situation is.
i would imagine every single person that has reasonable knowledge of any area where eu policy is involved in a myriad of fields has a similar tale to tell of the commissions inability to run a piss up in a brewery. they are utterly f
king incompetent at everything they are involved in.managing eu economy : see pigs
eu energy policy : teetering on the brink of blackouts every winter, pushing green agendas while the uk builds diesel generator plants , and german industry builds small scale lignite burning power stations due to a loophole where they do not need planning permission for stations below a certain output.
managing the natural resources of the eu: see fisheries example above
agricultural policy : revolves around maintaining subsidies for inefficient french farmers and refusing to allow developing countries to enter the market.
car manufacturing: introduced rules that saw many of us switch to filthy diesel , now realise that was a mistake due to increase in particulate pollution. measures also increase fuel consumption for both diesel and petrol engines, good for those in the re map industry though
human crisis management: how many have drowned in the med to date ? sat on their hands during the biggest migration of human beings in modern history with not a clue how to address the issue.
have overseen a huge increase in corporate subsidy by tax payers , the people that b
h and moan about people on disability benefits would do well to stfu until they inform themselves of just how much of the uk and eu taxpayers money finds its way into the pockets of the 1%'ers.there are no doubt many more examples of their ineptitude.we have enough incompetent politicians and bureaucrats of our own, there is no need for another 55k in brussels/strasbourg sticking their neb in.
///ajd said:
FiF said:
///ajd said:
i know why you refuse to debate it
its because you can't have it all ways
sucked in indeed - if you start to say "this option" then the question is quickly "but what about this"
you don't want to do that as you know your brexit case just falls to bits
prove me wrong and explain what your flexcit path & end state is!
The reason I refuse to debate it with you is quite simple, and it's due to your repeated tactic of putting up something that someone hasn't said and trying to twist what they have said into some fiction that you put up in order to knock down. It's disingenuous and have no intention of wasting my time with you. These are my last words to you.its because you can't have it all ways
sucked in indeed - if you start to say "this option" then the question is quickly "but what about this"
you don't want to do that as you know your brexit case just falls to bits
prove me wrong and explain what your flexcit path & end state is!
The Market solution sets out the case for why the first stage of the exit process should be as proposed, yes it's a sub optimal situation, but there is no way that anything else can be reached in the time available, that will give a safe, soft, fiscally neutral landing, retaining access to the single market, passporting rights, mutual recognition of standards and eliminating technical barriers to trade, little disruption to trade on either side, but with some concessions, eg four freedoms, still maintaining some payments into EU, still maintaining cooperation, no bonfire of regulations, no massive monetary savings. But the key is out from the dead hand of the EU, out from some regulations that matter and now in a position to review and change.
The path to make those changes will be a long one, for example it sets out a proposal for changes to the Fisheries Policy. Those aren't going to be effected overnight, it will take years, as it needs changes to many areas, not least deciding if that is what we do want to do, and involves many stakeholders. That's just one area. Now extend that to the review of legislation, as will getting our government and civil service back up into the condition to govern, getting our in position and influence back on the global bodies currently denied to us by the EU. 40 years of entanglement are not going to be undone in a few years, it's going to be a long process, that's why it's important to have a state immediately after leaving where there is very little change, a sustainable holding position.
There is no end state, and I fully realise what people like you will make of that statement, but it's simply a recognition that the world is changing, it will continue to change, it has changed from the time when the EU model was founded, which model no longer fits the world today, and the best thing for the UK is to be outside that outdated model which is being rapidly outpaced by events.
But in essence if you want some vision of an end state in respect of our relationship with the EU it's we don't want to be isolationist and inward looking, but a cooperative and supportive sponsor, trading partner and ally rather than a subordinate state in a political union under a supranational government.
I have no idea why you say I want it all ways when have clearly always talked about compromises. I can only conclude it's another of your episodes of making stuff up that people haven't said.
this is when things get a bit vague from here. mention of fisheries, but is that it?
what about
- single market access for ever? or do we step out? why?
- how much will we pay?
- what our immigration posn will be and why?
you say i read more into things - not really, just that when someone talks about wanting one thing i may point out the likely consequences. they say they haven't said it - but thats not the point, the consequence highlighted is still there and that is what goes unanswered. a prime example would be limiting immigration and maintaining single market access. often a poster here will rant about the former, but fall mysteriously silent when asked about the consequences of such a policy on the latter. "i didn't say that!" goes the cry - well quite.
How much will we pay, you've had that answered twice by Ridgemont iirc, and after the second answer you admitted that you'd ignored it because ...?
Immigration position, leaving the EU isn't going to solve our immigration problems. Getting control of our borders, the usual answer, is an aspiration, not a policy. Clearly we will work within international law, but push and pull factors need to be reduced. Again this isn't going to happen overnight as changes need to be made in the infrastructure and agencies tasked with this. Immediately on exit there will be relatively small changes permitted in how intra EU migration can get handled, but considering most of our immigration is from outside EU this is just tatting at the edges. In summary the advantage to be gained from leaving the EU is that independence of action , within the framework of our agreed international law and conventions would enable the UK to target its action without reference to a consensus defined by multiple interests, and instead address real world problems with a view to solving them.
FiF said:
The knives are really out for Cameron and Osborne now. Open challenges and accusations of lies, and threats of no confidence votes unless Remain wins by 20 points minimum.
Interesting times ahead, quietly pleased that Cammy is being called out.
Nadine Dorries is hardly the most important of "open challenges" for Cameron. She has held a grudge against Cameron for years. Interesting times ahead, quietly pleased that Cammy is being called out.
The Brexit MPs would be best advised to focus on making the case to win referendum rather than trying to settle petty scores.
wc98 said:
you recall incorrectly. as we speak there are are more saleable fish being discarded dead than being landed every year. over 500 000 tonnes every year gets thrown back dead by the uk fleet as a direct result of the common fisheries policy and the inept fking academics running the international council for the exploration of the seas.
i could quite happily lower every single commisioner involved with the cfp over the last 40 years to the sea bottom in a trawl to let them see exactly what the situation is.
Bold claims... would be interesting to see the evidence on which you base you opinion.king academics running the international council for the exploration of the seas.i could quite happily lower every single commisioner involved with the cfp over the last 40 years to the sea bottom in a trawl to let them see exactly what the situation is.
I do believe the conservation strategy played a big part in reducing the volume of fish which could be caught, but happy to be proved wrong. As I said in my original post, fishing is not a topic I know much about.
wc98 said:
alfie2244 said:
zygalski said:
2 vs 600. Seriously?
I'll back the 600 thanks.
Baa BaaI'll back the 600 thanks.
The study says that 94 per cent of public funding for economic theory comes from EU sources.
https://research.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2016/05/19/eu...
EddieSteadyGo said:
Lame attempt at smearing a very large number of individual professional economists.
Hmmm - is 600 "a very large number" as far as the total number of economists in the UK is concerned ? I don't know, so a bit of Googling was required ...Wikipedia said:
The largest single professional grouping of economists in the UK are the more than 1000 members of the Government Economic Service, who work in 30 government departments and agencies.
University of Manchester said:
In most universities, economics is usually the most popular subject of all social sciences. At the University of Manchester, for example, one of the largest universities in the UK, around a thousand students every year join one of our various economics programs, be it as a single degree or combined with another subject.
Assuming the majority of universities offer economics degrees, and even allowing for the fact that many who do study the subject will not get careers as economists, it doesn't seem to me that 600 is likely to be a large number of practising professional economists.Now of course if the survey only sampled the Government Economic Service, then one might expect a slight bias towards the government's line.
Edited to add from the original post :
zygalski said:
Poll shows 88% of 600 experts fear long-term fall in GDP if UK leaves single market, and 82% are alarmed over impact on household income.
So it's not 600 anyway, it's closer to 500.Edited by gothatway on Monday 30th May 00:10
EddieSteadyGo said:
Bold claims... would be interesting to see the evidence on which you base you opinion.
I do believe the conservation strategy played a big part in reducing the volume of fish which could be caught, but happy to be proved wrong. As I said in my original post, fishing is not a topic I know much about.
you will struggle to find any physical evidence as it is all rotting at the bottom of the sea.i could probably get you some videos from onboard if you want to see what i mean. I do believe the conservation strategy played a big part in reducing the volume of fish which could be caught, but happy to be proved wrong. As I said in my original post, fishing is not a topic I know much about.
last week a skipper friend of mind refused to go on deck when hauling as they had to dump 300 boxes of cod between 20 and 35lb (mature fish the academics such as callum roberts at york reckon do not exist) each and 100 boxes of monkfish, in fact on that particular trip the discards were three times the amount of fish retained, so things are actually getting worse. the figure i gave was overall, at the moment most boats are discarding between 90 and 100% of cod , monk and in some cases haddock due to lack of quota.plaice discards can be up to 800 boxes per trip for some boats .
the eu answer to this off the back of the negative publicity generated by the hugh fearnley whittingstall fish fight campaign is to phase in zero discards with non quota fish going to land fill or possibly fish meal plants . this would bankrupt the fishing industry as the price achieved for what were previous discards would not cover the cost of the trip for the boats forced to land them for pennies. this will be good news for the mainland europe fleets as they will have even less competition and in the case of spanish boats won't make any difference to what they land as they ignore the rules 100% of the time anyway.
the only significant conservation measures that have taken place since the inception of the cfp have been gear development to reduce bycatch, days at sea legislation and the voluntary real time closure schemes . the tac based quota system is a farce . quotas based on landings alone actually increased anti conservation actions such as slippage and high grading.
nowhere else in the world would anyone think that throwing back millions of tonnes of perfectly edible high value fish is either sensible management or conservation orientated. outside of the major uk ports people tend to forget that almost every coastal town in the uk was built off the back of our fishing industry.
this is one area i have some knowledge of eu ineptitude, as i said i believe elsewhere in the private sector the same incompetence will exist. i have yet to see one example here or anywhere else where eu management has improved the efficiency of any sector .
as for the smear accusation, as so many on this thread appear to highlight the importance of hard finances over theoretical constructs such as self determination and democracy, i find it strange that economists would be happy to bite the hand that contributes, significantly in many cases, to feeding them.
wc98 said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
Bold claims... would be interesting to see the evidence on which you base you opinion.
I do believe the conservation strategy played a big part in reducing the volume of fish which could be caught, but happy to be proved wrong. As I said in my original post, fishing is not a topic I know much about.
you will struggle to find any physical evidence as it is all rotting at the bottom of the sea.i could probably get you some videos from onboard if you want to see what i mean. I do believe the conservation strategy played a big part in reducing the volume of fish which could be caught, but happy to be proved wrong. As I said in my original post, fishing is not a topic I know much about.
last week a skipper friend of mind refused to go on deck when hauling as they had to dump 300 boxes of cod between 20 and 35lb (mature fish the academics such as callum roberts at york reckon do not exist) each and 100 boxes of monkfish, in fact on that particular trip the discards were three times the amount of fish retained, so things are actually getting worse. the figure i gave was overall, at the moment most boats are discarding between 90 and 100% of cod , monk and in some cases haddock due to lack of quota.plaice discards can be up to 800 boxes per trip for some boats .
the eu answer to this off the back of the negative publicity generated by the hugh fearnley whittingstall fish fight campaign is to phase in zero discards with non quota fish going to land fill or possibly fish meal plants . this would bankrupt the fishing industry as the price achieved for what were previous discards would not cover the cost of the trip for the boats forced to land them for pennies. this will be good news for the mainland europe fleets as they will have even less competition and in the case of spanish boats won't make any difference to what they land as they ignore the rules 100% of the time anyway.
the only significant conservation measures that have taken place since the inception of the cfp have been gear development to reduce bycatch, days at sea legislation and the voluntary real time closure schemes . the tac based quota system is a farce . quotas based on landings alone actually increased anti conservation actions such as slippage and high grading.
nowhere else in the world would anyone think that throwing back millions of tonnes of perfectly edible high value fish is either sensible management or conservation orientated. outside of the major uk ports people tend to forget that almost every coastal town in the uk was built off the back of our fishing industry.
this is one area i have some knowledge of eu ineptitude, as i said i believe elsewhere in the private sector the same incompetence will exist. i have yet to see one example here or anywhere else where eu management has improved the efficiency of any sector .
as for the smear accusation, as so many on this thread appear to highlight the importance of hard finances over theoretical constructs such as self determination and democracy, i find it strange that economists would be happy to bite the hand that contributes, significantly in many cases, to feeding them.
EddieSteadyGo said:
FiF said:
The knives are really out for Cameron and Osborne now. Open challenges and accusations of lies, and threats of no confidence votes unless Remain wins by 20 points minimum.
Interesting times ahead, quietly pleased that Cammy is being called out.
Nadine Dorries is hardly the most important of "open challenges" for Cameron. She has held a grudge against Cameron for years. Interesting times ahead, quietly pleased that Cammy is being called out.
The Brexit MPs would be best advised to focus on making the case to win referendum rather than trying to settle petty scores.
Whilst in principle agreeing with the sentiment on making the referendum case should rake priority, a Prime Minister who openly lies needs to be exposed and deposed imo.
zygalski said:
If you want to vote for dogmatic & parochial reasons with a sod the consequences mindset then that's your choice. I'll vote for what I think is best for the long term future of the UK.
Proud to be English.
Proud to VOTE REMAIN
You're a pathetic embarassment. You wouldn't know pride if it thumped you on the nose. Proud to be English.
Proud to VOTE REMAIN
wc98 said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
Bold claims... would be interesting to see the evidence on which you base you opinion.
I do believe the conservation strategy played a big part in reducing the volume of fish which could be caught, but happy to be proved wrong. As I said in my original post, fishing is not a topic I know much about.
you will struggle to find any physical evidence as it is all rotting at the bottom of the sea.i could probably get you some videos from onboard if you want to see what i mean. I do believe the conservation strategy played a big part in reducing the volume of fish which could be caught, but happy to be proved wrong. As I said in my original post, fishing is not a topic I know much about.
last week a skipper friend of mind refused to go on deck when hauling as they had to dump 300 boxes of cod between 20 and 35lb (mature fish the academics such as callum roberts at york reckon do not exist) each and 100 boxes of monkfish, in fact on that particular trip the discards were three times the amount of fish retained, so things are actually getting worse. the figure i gave was overall, at the moment most boats are discarding between 90 and 100% of cod , monk and in some cases haddock due to lack of quota.plaice discards can be up to 800 boxes per trip for some boats .
the eu answer to this off the back of the negative publicity generated by the hugh fearnley whittingstall fish fight campaign is to phase in zero discards with non quota fish going to land fill or possibly fish meal plants . this would bankrupt the fishing industry as the price achieved for what were previous discards would not cover the cost of the trip for the boats forced to land them for pennies. this will be good news for the mainland europe fleets as they will have even less competition and in the case of spanish boats won't make any difference to what they land as they ignore the rules 100% of the time anyway.
the only significant conservation measures that have taken place since the inception of the cfp have been gear development to reduce bycatch, days at sea legislation and the voluntary real time closure schemes . the tac based quota system is a farce . quotas based on landings alone actually increased anti conservation actions such as slippage and high grading.
nowhere else in the world would anyone think that throwing back millions of tonnes of perfectly edible high value fish is either sensible management or conservation orientated. outside of the major uk ports people tend to forget that almost every coastal town in the uk was built off the back of our fishing industry.
this is one area i have some knowledge of eu ineptitude, as i said i believe elsewhere in the private sector the same incompetence will exist. i have yet to see one example here or anywhere else where eu management has improved the efficiency of any sector .
as for the smear accusation, as so many on this thread appear to highlight the importance of hard finances over theoretical constructs such as self determination and democracy, i find it strange that economists would be happy to bite the hand that contributes, significantly in many cases, to feeding them.
FiF said:
EddieSteadyGo said:
FiF said:
The knives are really out for Cameron and Osborne now. Open challenges and accusations of lies, and threats of no confidence votes unless Remain wins by 20 points minimum.
Interesting times ahead, quietly pleased that Cammy is being called out.
Nadine Dorries is hardly the most important of "open challenges" for Cameron. She has held a grudge against Cameron for years. Interesting times ahead, quietly pleased that Cammy is being called out.
The Brexit MPs would be best advised to focus on making the case to win referendum rather than trying to settle petty scores.
Whilst in principle agreeing with the sentiment on making the referendum case should rake priority, a Prime Minister who openly lies needs to be exposed and deposed imo.
In any event it distracts from the campaign to Leave.
Liam Fox has this right IMO. There will be enough political uncertainty in the event of a leave vote, the last thing you need to be saying is that we are going to get rid of the PM as well at the same time.
Of course in reality he would have to go in the event of a Leave vote for all the obvious reasons. But the people who are advocating this now (including yourself it seems), make a Leave vote a bit less likely.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff