Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Infini

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Not sure what you want to do with all the fish that will be caught, care to enlighten us?

Fishing is such a smalltime industry that is in the hands of the large companies... it gets so much exposure

I believe that this was discussed in a previous incarnation thst much of what was caught was not consumed by the British but exported to the EU as the kinds of fish caught are not liked by the Brits they too oily if i recall. They're preferred by people in other EU countries think its the med since they prefer those type.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

and what is that?

In terms of Norway, here is a glimpse of their fishing industry.

According to recent figures from Statistics Norway, Norway’s fishing industry delivered over 2.3 million tonnes of seafood in 2015, including fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and other seafood products. The landed value of the catch totaled NOK 16.9 billion or USD $2.2 billion. The most important seafood products caught and farmed in Norway’s seafood and fish industry include cod, salmon, herring, capelin, mackerel, and king crab.

ancapailldorcha

Norway and Iceland are both in the EEA so they have to adhere to almost all of the EU's regulations with no say.

quokula

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Not sure what you want to do with all the fish that will be caught, care to enlighten us?

Fishing is such a smalltime industry that is in the hands of the large companies... it gets so much exposure

I think it gets so much over-exposure because it's just about the only industry the UK media can find where there are some people within it actually making a pro-Brexit case, so they vastly over-inflate the importance of it while ignoring countless other much larger sectors where there is nothing but 100% downsides.

careless sherpa

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'm curious to what we are using as term culture for here. I dont think migration ruins culture personally but that's just my belief and what I may consider culture, our history, our language and our traditions, I've never seen under risk because of immigration. I'd like to know what gets diluted.

Is a great point. Go to any gaelscoil in the country and you will see either immigrants or the children of immigrants immersed and embracing Irish culture, language and tradition. Far from undermining it they can help it to develop and flourish. I often wonder if those that harp on about Irish culture being undermined or eroded could converse with some of these children as gaeilge and put their points to them. I am doubtful if they could.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Norway and Iceland are both in the EEA so they have to adhere to almost all of the EU's regulations with no say.

The point here is the value that fishing industries can bring, despite what other posters here have claimed.

Norway has 200 nautical miles within which it catches its fish, though she has agreements with other EEA countries on quotas and so forth. After China, she is the world's second-largest exporter of fish.

I'm not suggesting the UK will become the next Norway, but I think there's an argument that says restoring fishing communities and the industry at large is not an insigificant point.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The point here is the value that fishing industries can bring, despite what other posters here have claimed.

Norway has 200 nautical miles within which it catches its fish, though she has agreements with other EEA countries on quotas and so forth. After China, she is the world's second-largest exporter of fish.

I'm not suggesting the UK will become the next Norway, but I think there's an argument that says restoring fishing communities and the industry at large is not an insigificant point.

Right but British fishermen and women export two thirds of their catches to the EU. Slapping tariffs on that won't help anyone and fishing isn't ever going to make up a big part of the economy.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I've made the point; that the idea independent countries return to fascism, division and war - merely because they control migration - is an absurdity.

Ummm ... not that much of an absurdity if we look at the first country on your list: the US. Let's drop the inflammatory "facism" tag and look at the reality of the current political process: the disenfranchisement of voters, the appointment of judges for life based only on party allegiance, endemic racism, uncontrollable illegal migration, huge drug dependency, an almighty (federalised) military starting or intervening in wars across the globe, a population that believes that everyone should have the right to "bear arms" in case they're attacked by their fellow citizens ...

Given that the campaign for Brexit is being funded and promoted by many of the same agents that supported Trump, what do you see in Brexit that will stop GB from going down the same path?

(Side question: do you admire the USA as a socio-political entity? )

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Furthermore, a fourth benefit of Leaving the EU is departing from the Common Fisheries Policy and restoring our coastal fishing communities.

Nigel Farage tweeted about this yesterday. Worth a watch, it's only a minute or so.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1195326978225844224

I'd like to remind people that Nigel Farage attended only 1 out 42 meetings of the EU's fisheries committee. Perhaps if he actually represented his constituents, British fishing might be in better shape.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but British fishermen and women export two thirds of their catches to the EU. Slapping tariffs on that won't help anyone and fishing isn't ever going to make up a big part of the economy.

Right, but that doesn't mean it's not insignificant.

Of course it's not going to become a large sector within the UK economy, but for those local communities for whom fishing matters, I think we shouldn't look down on their industry and say, let's ignore that and just point toward bigger industries that matter.

For these communities, fishing matters.

Again, it's not all about the big money.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, but that doesn't mean it's not insignificant.

Of course it's not going to become a large sector within the UK economy, but for those local communities for whom fishing matters, I think we shouldn't look down on their industry and say, let's ignore that and just point toward bigger industries that matter.

For these communities, fishing matters.

Again, it's not all about the big money.

Nobody is looking down on them so don't misrepresent me please. It's just disingenuous. Fishing isn't going to replace jobs in tech, sciences, computing and whatever remains of manufacturing. Then there's the fact that you're merely assuming that it will improve but that's unlikely. WTO terms mean tariffs on fish. I fail to see how that helps Britain's fisherfolk.

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

Right, but that doesn't mean it's not insignificant.

Of course it's not going to become a large sector within the UK economy, but for those local communities for whom fishing matters, I think we shouldn't look down on their industry and say, let's ignore that and just point toward bigger industries that matter.

For these communities, fishing matters.

Again, it's not all about the big money.

But why should we ignore bigger industries that matter to far more people and only focus on a few tiny communities to the detriment of everything else?

To put it in context. 24000 people work in the British fishing industry. The UK have spent £8 billion on Brexit planning according to their own government spending report. That alone would be enough for them to give every single fisherman in the country £300k each, before you even take into account all the other hits to GDP from Brexit.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

for those local communities for whom fishing matters, I think we shouldn't look down on their industry and say, let's ignore that and just point toward bigger industries that matter.

For these communities, fishing matters.

Again, it's not all about the big money.

Fair point.

Fact: "Around half of England’s quota is ultimately owned by Dutch, Icelandic, or Spanish interests" (source Greenpeace, but can be corroborated by comprehensive googling)

Question: who allocates these quota shares?

Factual answer: the Conservative Government, each year, decides who gets what.

Question: if the Tories are responsible for something that you disagree with (unfair allocation of fishing quotas in this case, but could also be ineffective control of migrants), on what basis can you justify supporting a Tory-led Brexit?

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Fair point.

Question: if the Tories are responsible for something that you disagree with (unfair allocation of fishing quotas in this case, but could also be ineffective control of migrants), on what basis can you justify supporting a Tory-led Brexit?

I'm not personally responsible for what the Tory's do or not do. They do a lot I agree with, and a lot I disagree with; an analysis I have with every government of the day, indeed every country's government.

I've already sketched out the moral argument on why it's imperative to deliver on the 2016 referendum result. I think that my argument came out relatively unscathed, still packing a powerful political punch.

What I've now been asked to do is to outline any possible benefits of Brexit. I've issued four which, at least in theory, are beneficial to the nation-state, namely:

• Controlling (not necessarily reducing) EU migration to a greater extent.
• Culture / ensuring integration is managed; eliminating division.
• Restoring coastal fishing communities; enhancing those local economies.
• Restoring law generation to the UK parliament; eliminating that centralised power.

If the Tory's, or anyone else, do not capitalize on these advantages, then shame on them.

But these are tangible benefits, there's no question about it.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

What I've now been asked to do is to outline any possible benefits of Brexit. I've issued four which, at least in theory, are beneficial to the nation-state, namely:

• Controlling (not necessarily reducing) EU migration to a greater extent.
• Culture / ensuring integration is managed; eliminating division.
• Restoring coastal fishing communities; enhancing those local economies.
• Restoring law generation to the UK parliament; eliminating that centralised power.

If the Tory's, or anyone else, do not capitalize on these advantages, then shame on them.

But these are tangible benefits, there's no question about it.

Sorry, but they're not tangible and not benefits. The UK parliament has the power to legislate and control in respect of all four areas, and successive (mostly Tory) governments have opted not to exercise that power. Johnson has demonstrated that he has no shame, is quite prepared to act contemptuously towards Parliament, the Queen and the electorate, yet seems to be on course to win a further term in office. So if the UK/Tory government refuses to exercise the considerable power it already holds, how can a Tory-negotiated Brexit result in any change?

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Sorry, but they're not tangible and not benefits.

But that's the problem with politics; one person's attitude on nationalization is anathema to another person.

There are nuances, advantages and disadvantages, to political positions.

So even if I accede to the demand of highlighting "benefits", you will come across any just dismiss them as "not benefits" because they do not align with your politics.

Excellent 40pc polling for the Conservative Party.

The UK electorate are clear in what they want to see: a Brexit Deal and a rejection of Corbynism.

My only wish is that the Brexit Party wasn't standing. It would put the Conservatives on a whopping 47 percent.

Tory support has hit 40 per cent, increasing the party's lead over Labour ahead of the general election, according to the rolling average of opinion polls.

Labour had been creeping up on the Conservatives over the past week but as of Friday support for Jeremy Corbyn's party remained at 29 per cent.

The Tories have seen a steady climb from 34 per cent over the past two weeks, reaching 40 per cent on Friday.

The Lib Dems have seen a drop in support to 16 per cent, after starting at 19 per cent when the election was called.

McGiver

eskimohunt wrote:

2 - Multi-layered power structure is how you interpret that; I see the same structure as too distant from ordinary people. That's just a difference between us. The idea that the EU is a "decentralised" power is something I've never actually heard from a Remainer before! That's quite new on me, it might take some time to digest.

You mean exactly like Westminster with regards to Cornish, Scottish and the Welsh people, right? Well, and pretty much everyone outside of the Home Counties in fact?

How come German or Spanish decentralisation isn't prevented by the evil centralised EU?
The Scots could dream about the degree of autonomy the Catalonians have even though Spain is on paper a unitary state, it is de facto almost a federation.
Please explain.

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

You mean exactly like Westminster with regards to Cornish, Scottish and the Welsh people, right? Well, and pretty much everyone outside of the Home Counties in fact?

How come German or Spanish decentralisation isn't prevented by the evil centralised EU?
The Scots could dream about the degree of autonomy the Catalonians have even though Spain is on paper a unitary state, it is de facto almost a federation.
Please explain.

You've misinterpreted my point completely.

To clarify:

1 - I am in favour of de-centralisation independent of the EU, that as decided by national parliaments.

2 - I do not wish to see (1) compromised by further layers of EU centralisation.

McGiver

eskimohunt wrote:

I've stated, probably at least four times now, that the UK should have far more devolved powers.

Membership of the EU doesn't prevent decentralisation. It's the HMG and political class that do.

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

Membership of the EU doesn't prevent decentralisation. It's the HMG and political class that do.

I never suggested it does. Please see my last post.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

So even if I accede to the demand of highlighting "benefits", you will come across any just dismiss them as "not benefits" because they do not align with your politics.

You can't claim as a benefit from some future action something that you already have. It has nothing to do with political alignment.

This is what we on the Remain/anti-Brexit side can't understand: everything - every single thing - that's presented as a benefit of Brexit is something already within the scope of the UK government, and the UK government has chosen to sell or give it away. British problems caused by British MPs elected by British voters will not be solved by leaving the EU.

Jamiekelly

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not personally responsible for what the Tory's do or not do. They do a lot I agree with, and a lot I disagree with; an analysis I have with every government of the day, indeed every country's government.

I've already sketched out the moral argument on why it's imperative to deliver on the 2016 referendum result. I think that my argument came out relatively unscathed, still packing a powerful political punch.

What I've now been asked to do is to outline any possible benefits of Brexit. I've issued four which, at least in theory, are beneficial to the nation-state, namely:

• Controlling (not necessarily reducing) EU migration to a greater extent.
• Culture / ensuring integration is managed; eliminating division.
• Restoring coastal fishing communities; enhancing those local economies.
• Restoring law generation to the UK parliament; eliminating that centralised power.

If the Tory's, or anyone else, do not capitalize on these advantages, then shame on them.

But these are tangible benefits, there's no question about it.

I'm sorry but George Orwell himself would be scratching his head at that one.

The most tangible "benefit" of Brexit is to nationalists in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Pretty hard to eliminate division when you vote to essentially divide the union into individual nation states at odds with each other over their identity, Scotland wanting to identify largely as European citizens, and serious security risks with Northern Ireland becoming a hand grenade with border crossings manned by soldiers.

All the while cutting the value of the currency used by those nation states by 25% as it is and almost certainly more once Brexit policies on trade actually goes into effect. It tends to lead to average poor people demanding referendums for independence and border polls. All the while Brexiteers talk about restoring law generation and restoring coastal fishing. It would be so funny if it wasn't so utterly devastating to the future of the UK.

Fair play to you for sticking by your principles over the last few pages but these principals will go down in the history books as a massive blunder for the English public and they won't be able to blame anyone but themselves. No real plan, no diplomacy and in a lot of cases, no facts. There is no benefit to a country when they decide to make a political decision with the level of consequences that Brexit has with none of those three things. You'd want to have a plan, a diplomatic approach and base it all on facts just to have the slightest chance of succeeding, without any of them, no hope.

CelticRambler

You claim this...

CelticRambler wrote: »

You can't claim as a benefit from some future action something that you already have. It has nothing to do with political alignment.

This is what we on the Remain/anti-Brexit side can't understand: everything - every single thing - that's presented as a benefit of Brexit is something already within the scope of the UK government.

Yet you claim all four "benefits" I listed are already within total control of the UK government:

Deleted User wrote: »

What I've now been asked to do is to outline any possible benefits of Brexit. I've issued four which, at least in theory, are beneficial to the nation-state, namely:

• Controlling (not necessarily reducing) EU migration to a greater extent.
• Culture / ensuring integration is managed; eliminating division (as a consequence of (1) above).
• Restoring coastal fishing communities; enhancing those local economies.
• Restoring law generation potential to the UK parliament; eliminating centralised power structures of the EU.

I'd like you to back-up that claim.

McGiver

eskimohunt wrote:

You've misinterpreted my point completely.

Reply my questions please.

McGiver

eskimohunt wrote:

I'm not suggesting the UK will become the next Norway, but I think there's an argument that says restoring fishing communities and the industry at large is not an insigificant point.

UK fish exports account to 0.053% of UK exports and employs only a small number of people. It's completely irrelevant in economic terms. Yes, they can be grown, but that can be be done within EU as well.

UK Fishing declined due to the actions of HMG and not the EU. Fishing agreements predate the EU.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not personally responsible for what the Tory's do or not do. They do a lot I agree with, and a lot I disagree with; an analysis I have with every government of the day, indeed every country's government.

I've already sketched out the moral argument on why it's imperative to deliver on the 2016 referendum result. I think that my argument came out relatively unscathed, still packing a powerful political punch.

What I've now been asked to do is to outline any possible benefits of Brexit. I've issued four which, at least in theory, are beneficial to the nation-state, namely:

• Controlling (not necessarily reducing) EU migration to a greater extent.
• Culture / ensuring integration is managed; eliminating division.
• Restoring coastal fishing communities; enhancing those local economies.
• Restoring law generation to the UK parliament; eliminating that centralised power.

If the Tory's, or anyone else, do not capitalize on these advantages, then shame on them.

But these are tangible benefits, there's no question about it.

Controlling EU migration is a fallacy and virtually impossible. You are never in control of such numbers. At the moment, not enough EU migrant workers are moving to the UK and there's not a thing Britain can do about it.

It would be like a large department store talking about "controlling" the number of customers who come though their doors every year ie. they can't.

McGiver

eskimohunt wrote:

I never suggested it does. Please see my last post.

You essentially suggest that lack of decentralisation would be corrected by leaving the centralised EU. Which is blatantly untrue.
Decentralisation is fully in the competence of the national governments.

Germany, Spain and other countries are significantly more decentralised than the UK whilst being members of the EU.

You suggest that leaving the EU is a tangible benefit in a sense that it will increase the decentralisation. This is not only speculative, because you don't know what the HMG will or will not legislate, but also entirely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the EU membership.

So can you confirm for us the other two tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Since this one is irrelevant and speculative.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not personally responsible for what the Tory's do or not do. They do a lot I agree with, and a lot I disagree with; an analysis I have with every government of the day, indeed every country's government.

I've already sketched out the moral argument on why it's imperative to deliver on the 2016 referendum result. I think that my argument came out relatively unscathed, still packing a powerful political punch.

What I've now been asked to do is to outline any possible benefits of Brexit. I've issued four which, at least in theory, are beneficial to the nation-state, namely:

• Controlling (not necessarily reducing) EU migration to a greater extent.
• Culture / ensuring integration is managed; eliminating division.
• Restoring coastal fishing communities; enhancing those local economies.
• Restoring law generation to the UK parliament; eliminating that centralized power.

If the Tory's, or anyone else, do not capitalize on these advantages, then shame on them.

But these are tangible benefits, there's no question about it.

• The Immigration argument in relation to Brexit has been argued time and time again. And any argument i have seen in favor of 'curbing immigration', has always struck me as a sanitized way of saying that one doesn't want non-nationals coming into ones country
• Culture integrates to a certain degree, and over a protracted period of time. Multi-Culturalism has trumped Enoch Powell's view of what would happen. In a previous post you stated 'I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value' - 'The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes' - this view can only be considered Far Right my friend. It is the politics of the BNP and i reject it profoundly
• You seem very concerned with Fishing communities, despite the fact that over the course of a year, fish populations move about, and within the EU, we have the right to fish each others water - Quotas are there to avoid the destruction of populations of individual species - and quite rightly
• Laws and Lawmaking- the same old argument of UKIP, and TBP, and the ERG - discuss what laws you are concerned with - what law will the british people celebrate on February 1st next years - perhaps just finish the Headline - 'JOY AS BRITISH PEOPLE CAN ONCE AGAIN ENJOY [INSERT ACTIVITY OUTLAWED BY EU]'

Strazdas

McGiver wrote: »

You essentially suggest that lack of decentralisation would be corrected by leaving the centralised EU. Which is blatantly untrue.
Decentralisation is fully in the competence of the national governments.

Germany, Spain and other countries are significantly more decentralised than the UK whilst being members of the EU.

You suggest that leaving the EU is a tangible benefit in a sense that it will increase the decentralisation. This is not only speculative, because you don't know what the HMG will or will not legislate, but also entirely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the EU membership.

So can you confirm for us the other two tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Since this one is irrelevant and speculative.

I was in Berlin recently and visited the Bundesrat building, a special Parliament where the 16 Länder (federal states) are represented state by state and which has the power to pass many laws affecting the regions. This type of decentralisation would be completely unheard of and alien in the UK political system.