Anti-Brexit scaremongering ....

[Gunny]

Secede bumper sticker on his HD 2500.

You've seen my truck ....

[Noir]

So THAT's what you're afraid of. This time You would have to defend your Rights AND fend for yourselves. Something no good socialist like you is up to.

Even if you don't want to get your balls back, Noir, it appears others do. I realize you prefer being a live, mediocre slave to a dead patriot, but not everyone feels that way.

Lul, I’m not afraid of it in the slightest - but people who make their living from killing fish are (and probably with good reason if they want to continue making their loving killing fish) - and this is only from what’s been leaked, once the full document is public then the real laughter begins.

But remember- the U.K. government are saying this is a good deal, so it’s okay because it’s good that we’re still going to be bound to the share the of the quota the EU allocates the U.K., right?

[Gunny]

Lul, I’m not afraid of it in the slightest - but people who make their living from killing fish are (and probably with good reason if they want to continue making their loving killing fish) - and this is only from what’s been leaked, once the full document is public then the real laughter begins.

But remember- the U.K. government are saying this is a good deal, so it’s okay because it’s good that we’re still going to be bound to the share the of the quota the EU allocates the U.K., right?

DO note: Both Drummond and I have stated more than once that the current deal is not a good one. That would be the reason for this discussion, no?

Again, I will point out that Europe putting quotas on whoever for whatever is only as good as those who bow to its wishes. If the UK chooses to fish and enforce its international territorial waters and not pay the EU, too bad. Matter of fact, seems to me that if the UK enforced its territorial waters AGAINST EU fishing, it wouldn't be the UK losing out. The EU knows that.

Point is, y'all are being bullied by words and allowing it to happen. Now you're just arguing over a bad deal that everyone on the UK end agrees is a bad deal but won't come together to fix it. Dumb.

[Drummond]

Lul, I’m not afraid of it in the slightest - but people who make their living from killing fish are (and probably with good reason if they want to continue making their loving killing fish) - and this is only from what’s been leaked, once the full document is public then the real laughter begins.

But remember- the U.K. government are saying this is a good deal, so it’s okay because it’s good that we’re still going to be bound to the share the of the quota the EU allocates the U.K., right?

You've forgotten what you posted, HERE, Noir ... ?? >>>

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...594#post918594

Granted that the typos make it harder reading than it needed to be. Talking of typos ...

Your prejudices are showing .. it seems. Is your wording 'if they want to continue making their loving killing fish' .. your intended wording ? I doubt that anyone catching fish in our waters 'kills' them because they 'love' doing it. There's a market for that fish, and they are in business to supply that market. It's a living .. and for many involved in it, it'll be the only living they've ever known. Towns are dominated, financially, by the need to see that trade succeed.

Along come the EU, DEMANDING .. NOT ASKING, DEMANDING ... to fish in our waters. Typical of the contempt they all have for us. I say ... we don't owe them a damned thing. To hell with their 'demands'.

Unfortunately, our leaders are too spineless to concede this.

As for your more general point, and your other post (the one I've given us all a link to) ... you, Noir, must well know that Mrs May's deal is deeply unpopular. We all do, on this side of the Pond. There have been Cabinet resignations over it ... including, two past chief negotiators, namely, Davies and Raab. THIS YOU KNOW, NOIR. OUR NEWS BROADCASTS HAVE BEEN DOMINATED BY ALL OF THE DIVISIONS CREATED, FOR WEEKS.

[Drummond]

DO note: Both Drummond and I have stated more than once that the current deal is not a good one. That would be the reason for this discussion, no?

Again, I will point out that Europe putting quotas on whoever for whatever is only as good as those who bow to its wishes. If the UK chooses to fish and enforce its international territorial waters and not pay the EU, too bad. Matter of fact, seems to me that if the UK enforced its territorial waters AGAINST EU fishing, it wouldn't be the UK losing out. The EU knows that.

Point is, y'all are being bullied by words and allowing it to happen. Now you're just arguing over a bad deal that everyone on the UK end agrees is a bad deal but won't come together to fix it. Dumb.

Yes - the EU have done a lot of bullying. For our part, we've done a lot of caving in to it. Doing so has caused no end of trouble.

We are a major financial contributor to the EU, one the EU would rather not lose. I think we could've done a lot more to use that as leverage to demand respect, and a deal good enough to reflect such respect. What we did, though, thanks to Mrs May's ego, was to concede whatever we had to, in order to strike a balance between a compromised Brexit and all the arrogance the EU has demonstrated throughout.

Tomorrow, a meeting will happen in Brussels where all 27 EU members will endorse their acceptance of our deal (.. it still has to be ratified by the UK Parliament, though, which is highly unlikely). Tonight, Mrs May summarily caved in to the Spanish, over Gibraltar. Spain wanted 'a greater say' in Gibraltarian affairs, despite the fact that Gibraltar is UK territory, one which also took part in the 2016 Referendum, voting heavily to quit the EU !!

Mrs May (details are sketchy, as yet) agreed to Spain's demand. This they did because Spain threatened to veto the deal, tomorrow, unless we capitulated.

So, we did. Or more precisely, desperate to push the deal through, Mrs May capitulated.

It only took her a few hours to do so.

This says it all. I think Mrs May, by this point, would do anything and everything it took to appease her way to having her 'done deal'.

It's at times like these I miss Margaret Thatcher. Rather than appease an inch, I think she'd have given the EU's negotiators (and anybody else within range) a good 'handbagging' for trying what they have ....

[Noir]

Along come the EU, DEMANDING .. NOT ASKING, DEMANDING ... to fish in our waters. Typical of the contempt they all have for us. I say ... we don't owe them a damned thing. To hell with their 'demands'.

Unfortunately, our leaders are too spineless to concede this.

The “demand” made by the EU is that if we want to fish in EU countries waters, we have to allow the EU countries to fish in our waters. Do you think that is unreasonable?

As for your more general point, and your other post (the one I've given us all a link to) ... you, Noir, must well know that Mrs May's deal is deeply unpopular. We all do, on this side of the Pond. There have been Cabinet resignations over it ... including, two past chief negotiators, namely, Davies and Raab. THIS YOU KNOW, NOIR. OUR NEWS BROADCASTS HAVE BEEN DOMINATED BY ALL OF THE DIVISIONS CREATED, FOR WEEKS.

Yes, you will find a common theme throughout my posts about the results of Brexit - they are unpopular and overall laughable, as they were always going to be because common sense.

[Drummond]

The “demand” made by the EU is that if we want to fish in EU countries waters, we have to allow the EU countries to fish in our waters. Do you think that is unreasonable?

Yes, I do. Why does an agreement leading us to be able to fish in EU waters, NECESSITATE that we grant the EU the very same access to our waters ? Why must we defer to the EU's preference in the matter ?

Granted ... it sounds like an equitable arrangement. But this business of DEMANDING parity of access is a matter (or, SHOULD BE) one of freedom to agree if we choose to, and not any moralistic arm-twisting. They are our waters, after all.

[Besides, is equality really the issue ? What's the scope of our water's territory, compared with that of the EU, beyond our waters ? What are fish stocks like ? Critically ... how can it be fair for our management of fish stocks to be OUT of our control, as it would be, if any EU's boats fished exactly as they chose, out of our vetoing control ?]

So, no ... we should expect fairness of our own interests. Your suggestion of automatic, compulsory parity of arrangements, grants us none of that.

Yes, you will find a common theme throughout my posts about the results of Brexit - they are unpopular and overall laughable, as they were always going to be because common sense.

.. because common sense, WHAT, Noir ?

You make the mistake of blaming our own people, and not being nearly critical enough of the EU. Fact is, the EU have treated us abominably.

[Gunny]

Yes - the EU have done a lot of bullying. For our part, we've done a lot of caving in to it. Doing so has caused no end of trouble.

We are a major financial contributor to the EU, one the EU would rather not lose. I think we could've done a lot more to use that as leverage to demand respect, and a deal good enough to reflect such respect. What we did, though, thanks to Mrs May's ego, was to concede whatever we had to, in order to strike a balance between a compromised Brexit and all the arrogance the EU has demonstrated throughout.

Tomorrow, a meeting will happen in Brussels where all 27 EU members will endorse their acceptance of our deal (.. it still has to be ratified by the UK Parliament, though, which is highly unlikely). Tonight, Mrs May summarily caved in to the Spanish, over Gibraltar. Spain wanted 'a greater say' in Gibraltarian affairs, despite the fact that Gibraltar is UK territory, one which also took part in the 2016 Referendum, voting heavily to quit the EU !!

Mrs May (details are sketchy, as yet) agreed to Spain's demand. This they did because Spain threatened to veto the deal, tomorrow, unless we capitulated.

So, we did. Or more precisely, desperate to push the deal through, Mrs May capitulated.

It only took her a few hours to do so.

This says it all. I think Mrs May, by this point, would do anything and everything it took to appease her way to having her 'done deal'.

It's at times like these I miss Margaret Thatcher. Rather than appease an inch, I think she'd have given the EU's negotiators (and anybody else within range) a good 'handbagging' for trying what they have ....

Didn't the EU come after Thatcher? Not that I've paid a lot of attention, but I pre-date the EU. Whenever it was, I thought it was a bad idea. Seems to me the UK went full-circle after Thatcher and elected a total wuss.

If Parliament has not agreed to anything, that's where to start IF anything is to be done. I wouldn't give the EU a thing and I'd certainly tell Spain to go pound sand. What I don't get is what is May doing? She's certainly not making anyone in your government happy. So why bother if it's going to be shot down?

I'm all for BREXIT. I really can't find anything logical about the way the UK (May) is going about it. It's like she's signing the Treaty of Versailles.

[Drummond]

Didn't the EU come after Thatcher? Not that I've paid a lot of attention, but I pre-date the EU. Whenever it was, I thought it was a bad idea. Seems to me the UK went full-circle after Thatcher and elected a total wuss.

If Parliament has not agreed to anything, that's where to start IF anything is to be done. I wouldn't give the EU a thing and I'd certainly tell Spain to go pound sand. What I don't get is what is May doing? She's certainly not making anyone in your government happy. So why bother if it's going to be shot down?

I'm all for BREXIT. I really can't find anything logical about the way the UK (May) is going about it. It's like she's signing the Treaty of Versailles.

You're right. Mrs Thatcher was pro-the EEC, as it was back then ... when it was just a trading confederation. As I recall, the means by which it mutated from that to become the power-grabbing colossus known as the EU, was the Maastricht Treaty, post-dating Mrs Thatcher's Premiership by just a year or 2; signed by John Major.

I can't imagine, had Mrs T somehow managed to stay on, that she'd have maintained any pro-EU stance. She never did anything that I'm aware of to facilitate our part in the EU at all.

Spain posed us a difficulty, though. They could've vetoed the Agreement, tomorrow, which would have caused chaos all round. Welcome chaos, from my point of view ... but chaos nonetheless. Mrs May obviously thought it had to be staved off .. I'm guessing at any cost, from her point of view.

I think what underpins all of this is a lack of confidence in the UK's ability to thrive in the wider world market. Mrs May might want the UK to attain some independence, but as a would-be Remainer herself, she believes we have a need to be tied to the EU 'marketplace', with all that membership provides us with. She lacks confidence in our ability to 'go it alone'.

I think this is nonsense. Yes, short-term hardship would've been likely. In the longer term, we'd have thrived, and big-time ... especially thanks to any deals which Donald Trump's America would have happily agreed with us.

As for 'what is Mrs May doing' ... I think she's trapped into continuing with her present course. She wants to be seen as the 'only PM' who could've delivered a deal, and she knows, and has said, that any alternative to it is a non-starter. Lack of time, and a lack of willingness from the EU to consider an alternative, all commits her to her present course.

Bottom line: just as she's been bullied into this fudge of a deal by the EU, so she in turn is bullying anyone she can into going along with her. Her ego just won't let her deviate from her present path, even if it'll all fall apart in Parliament.

She's probably hoping and praying for last minute about-turns from MP's, to give her a ratifying majority. It isn't impossible ... not quite ... just highly unlikely, as the DUP have turned against her, and the opposition Labour Party insist they'll oppose it because it doesn't meet their 'six tests' for acceptance.

[Gunny]

You're right. Mrs Thatcher was pro-the EEC, as it was back then ... when it was just a trading confederation. As I recall, the means by which it mutated from that to become the power-grabbing colossus known as the EU, was the Maastricht Treaty, post-dating Mrs Thatcher's Premiership by just a year or 2; signed by John Major.

I can't imagine, had Mrs T somehow managed to stay on, that she'd have maintained any pro-EU stance. She never did anything that I'm aware of to facilitate our part in the EU at all.

Spain posed us a difficulty, though. They could've vetoed the Agreement, tomorrow, which would have caused chaos all round. Welcome chaos, from my point of view ... but chaos nonetheless. Mrs May obviously thought it had to be staved off .. I'm guessing at any cost, from her point of view.

I think what underpins all of this is a lack of confidence in the UK's ability to thrive in the wider world market. Mrs May might want the UK to attain some independence, but as a would-be Remainer herself, she believes we have a need to be tied to the EU 'marketplace', with all that membership provides us with. She lacks confidence in our ability to 'go it alone'.

I think this is nonsense. Yes, short-term hardship would've been likely. In the longer term, we'd have thrived, and big-time ... especially thanks to any deals which Donald Trump's America would have happily agreed with us.

As for 'what is Mrs May doing' ... I think she's trapped into continuing with her present course. She wants to be seen as the 'only PM' who could've delivered a deal, and she knows, and has said, that any alternative to it is a non-starter. Lack of time, and a lack of willingness from the EU to consider an alternative, all commits her to her present course.

Bottom line: just as she's been bullied into this fudge of a deal by the EU, so she in turn is bullying anyone she can into going along with her. Her ego just won't let her deviate from her present path, even if it'll all fall apart in Parliament.

She's probably hoping and praying for last minute about-turns from MP's, to give her a ratifying majority. It isn't impossible ... not quite ... just highly unlikely, as the DUP have turned against her, and the opposition Labour Party insist they'll oppose it because it doesn't meet their 'six tests' for acceptance.

What I think is glaringly obvious, or should be, the less ties the UK keeps with the EU the better off the UK will be on its own. May handicapping the UK with all these promises to the EU is guaranteeing disaster with each and every concession.

I mentioned the Treaty of Versailles for a reason. The treaty was untenable on the part of the Germans. From what I can see and you are saying, I'd just scrap any agreement made to date and start over. I of course would start over by telling the EU to pound sand. There's their deal. Considering there are far more pilomatic people than me in Parliament , I'm sure a more tenable plan can be reached, but the end result has to be "We are leaving. This is your deal. Don't agree to it and we're leaving anyway."

Whatever happened with that vote of no confidence for May? Does it mean anything? She may be saying her way or no way but it looks to me like she's just working her way into getting sidelined. What a mess.

John Major was the guy I was thinking of. Talk about giving away the farm then begging for eggs at the gate ...

[aboutime]

Lul, I’m not afraid of it in the slightest - but people who make their living from killing fish are (and probably with good reason if they want to continue making their loving killing fish) - and this is only from what’s been leaked, once the full document is public then the real laughter begins.

But remember- the U.K. government are saying this is a good deal, so it’s okay because it’s good that we’re still going to be bound to the share the of the quota the EU allocates the U.K., right?

EVEN IF YOU ARE A NON-BELIEVER. Jesus taught people to Fish. He taught them how to catch Fish, and the Fish Died, then they were able to EAT to survive, without idiots like you, complaining about being hungry.?????? What a joke?

[Noir]

Yes, I do. Why does an agreement leading us to be able to fish in EU waters, NECESSITATE that we grant the EU the very same access to our waters ? Why must we defer to the EU's preference in the matter ?

Amazing.

U.K. - We want our fishers to be able to fish in EU waters

EU - Okay, in which case we want EU fishers to be able to fish in U.K. waters

U.K. - No, that is unreasonable, we have a perfectly reasonable request that we will be able to fish in your waters, but you will not be able to fish in ours

EU - ...if you don’t allow us to fish in your waters, we won’t allow you to fish in ours.

U.K. - What?! How dare you, why are you making these demands! Why must we allow you to fish in our waters just so we can fish in yours? Isn’t it our sovereign right to both deny you access to our waters, and help ourselves to yours? This is typical of the EU’s failure to want to negotiate a fair deal for the U.K.

Etc etc,

Drummond why exactly do you believe the U.K. should be able to say fish in Spanish waters, while denying Spanish farmers the right to fish in British waters - why would the Spanish accept that?

[Noir]

Whatever happened with that vote of no confidence for May? Does it mean anything?

The vote of no confidence hasn’t happened, because despite *everything* the 1922 committee haven’t received letters from 15% of the Tory MPs calling for a leadership election. So apparently as of right now 86%+ of Mays MP think she’s the best person to lead the party, and country. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Drummond]

Amazing.

U.K. - We want our fishers to be able to fish in EU waters

EU - Okay, in which case we want EU fishers to be able to fish in U.K. waters

U.K. - No, that is unreasonable, we have a perfectly reasonable request that we will be able to fish in your waters, but you will not be able to fish in ours

EU - ...if you don’t allow us to fish in your waters, we won’t allow you to fish in ours.

U.K. - What?! How dare you, why are you making these demands! Why must we allow you to fish in our waters just so we can fish in yours? Isn’t it our sovereign right to both deny you access to our waters, and help ourselves to yours? This is typical of the EU’s failure to want to negotiate a fair deal for the U.K.

Etc etc,

Drummond why exactly do you believe the U.K. should be able to say fish in Spanish waters, while denying Spanish farmers the right to fish in British waters - why would the Spanish accept that?

We ASK. But, EU countries, DEMAND. There is a difference.

My point about fish stocks (which you've ignored ?) is a valid one. How can we tolerate foreign fishing, over which we'd exercise zero control, coming along and depleting stocks, as THEY chose to do ?? One, doing that would be irresponsible in the extreme, and two, depleted stocks would damage the viability of our own fisheries businesses.

The EU could argue the same, of course. Which is why our approach is less arrogant than theirs. [Incidentally, doesn't this in itself make a nonsense of the 'free movement across borders' EU imperative ? Each country has, surely, a right to control its territorial interests !!]

Talking of foreign arrogance, to say nothing of sheer disrespect and disreputable greed .. even the BBC featured a story about the Dutch, last evening (perhaps you viewed it ?). Turns out that their boats fish in our waters, get the fish they want, clear off to the Netherlands with it, then they sell it back to the UK (for a profit, but of course) for our consumption. How about that, eh ... the Dutch selling us OUR OWN fish, back to us !!

'Enjoy' this link Noir:

http://britishseafishing.co.uk/cornelis-vrolijk/

[High_Plains_Drifter]

but people who make their living from killing fish...

"killing fish"... pfft...

If you can't tell someone is a slow leak leftist snowflake by looking at them, just wait until they open their mouth.