Can you not tell that I'm not a fan of "the bloody difficult woman"? I said I didn't want it to be her when nominations first opened and expressed grave concerns over her before she was elected.
Can you not tell that I'm not a fan of "the bloody difficult woman"? I said I didn't want it to be her when nominations first opened and expressed grave concerns over her before she was elected.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
So you cheer on her newly appointed idiot who cancels a treaty of questionable value and validity at a moment that doing that can only annoy the people you want to deal with?
Congratulations America
Gove is quite intellectual and no idiot. Cancelling a treaty of questionable value and validity seems entirely sensible at a time of wiping the slate clean and starting negotiations. If the treaty was of undoubted value then it would be kept but international law is quite clear on the 200 mile zone nowadays. If during negotiations with the EU we give access to our waters in return for a quid pro quo of something then it may all be moot anyway but at least we'll have achieved something we want in return for offering others want.
Right, intellectual, you mean he made it through and English public school and English colleges. The canceling of the convention does nothing positive at all since most fishing is done with trawlers that aren't allowed to fish inside the 12 miles zone under the convention. There is hardly any actual fishing going on under this convention at all. So that makes it an empty gesture for the home front; except that it is taken as a hostile act by everybody else. And that everybody else are the people you want to negotiate with. You wanted to negotiate with them so much that you even accepted their time table for those negotiations. Even though that time table was what you found entirely unacceptable untill it was formally proposed to you. We will not give you anything for access to those waters because we are simply not interested in access to those waters. All you did was annoy us with another act of hostility.
And for your information; the only thing that will help so-called 'fishing communities' isn't trying to keep out foreign trawlers (which you aren't capable of to start with; but to enforce, in cooperation with the EU a fisheries policy that will give smaller trawlers and advantage over bigger ones. The alternative which you seem to think is a smart way of doing business is a wide avenue towards destruction for the fishing fleet of the UK; the almost automatic reaction would be to slam a tariff on British fish products resulting in fishing becoming even more of a losing proposition for British fishers than it already is today.
Mark my words Randy; the very moment we're going to talk about where the fish are, you are not going to say anything at all that sounds like you're going to not allow us to fish where-ever the hell we want. You're going to sit up and roll over, just like during the initial talks.
Last edited by Hazir; 07-05-2017 at 05:45 PM.
Congratulations America
Interesting:
https://www.economist.com/news/brita...ing-case-study
I hadn't considered fishing rights beyond those governed by treaties.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
While it mostly sounds right it fails to mention more EU ships fish in the British zone than vice versa (at least according to my newspaper) so while the UK might import a significant amount of EU fish, a good portion is fished in UK waters. Unfortunately i do not have numbers for that.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It's a bit of a cross polination; but at the end of the day most of all fish caught goes to the EU. Regardless of where it is caught. The British zone is also significantly bigger because of the simple fact that in the North Sea it's not crowded out by neighboring states also having rights. Which brings me back to my assertion that there is no way the Brits are going to be able to have control over the fish grounds. The investments for a more intensive guarding of the 200mi zone would easily strip out the entire returns of British fishing. And without a deal we're sure as hell aren't going to police our fishers in their waters.
Congratulations America
Brexit negotiations: summary of Phase 1 so far:
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The Brexit rapporteur for the EP has indicated that if the final deal resembles the British offer on citizen's rights the EP will reject it. And without consent of the EP there is no deal.
Congratulations America
So be it.
Reminder; no deal is your worst deal. I still don't get how Mummy May thought that worst somehow is better than bad.
Congratulations America
Don't be ridiculous. Lots of nations trade perfectly happily with no deal and of course it'd be possible to have worse deals than no deal.
If a deal was offered of lets say: ECJ to have jurisdiction over all laws, free movement continues unchanged but only from Europe to the UK, trade deal fees of £60bn per year, banks lose the financial passport, clearing gets repatriated to the Eurozone etc then would that be better or worse than no deal?
How likely is it, in your opinion, for such a deal to be offered?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Minimal. Unless extremists naively believe that the UK would be dumb enough to believe any deal is better than no deal in which case it becomes more likely.
In that case I propose we limit the discussion and our arguments to scenarios that are at least remotely realistic.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That particularly scenario may be unrealistic but it is possible and ridicules the notion that any deal is better than no deal. Furthermore if some fools keep shouting out and honestly believing that "any deal is better than no deal" then it makes perfect sense for the EU to demand outrageous demands in the mistaken belief that they will be automatically accepted -which could lead to a scenario where a deal has to be rejected and thus ending up with no deal which is bad for everyone.
I agree that keeping realistic is preferable but realism demands we acknowledge that bad deals could be possible and our worse than no deal - and from there we need to work out what a good deal is so that everybody is a winner. No deal is not the worst possible deal.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40556872
The best and the brightest on the side of Brexit.
Hope is the denial of reality
Oh good, he's not a racist because he has friends.He insisted he is not racist and told the court: "I know a number of Muslims who are dear friends.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Yes, even that deal would be better than no deal. Because no deal is not business as usual, as when you were capable of ensuring with a EU-veto, but literally NO DEAL on anything. It wouldn't be nice for us either, but we'll survive the extra costs for banking services a lot easier than you would having the heart janked out of your financial system overnight.
Congratulations America
I don't have the exact numbers but I believe extremely few--if any--developed economies engage in trade without any deals.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Best and brightest? Let's be honest: I'd never heard of this guy until you posted that link. When had you first heard of him?
He gained notoriety when the disgusting comments were first made.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Precisely. He's known for what he said. Big whoop, someone somewhere said something dumb.
Best and brightest my arse.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40555639
More best and the brightest.
Hope is the denial of reality
He was previously known for being a stupid criminal. Now he's known for creating a situation where an innocent person is subjected to death threats on a daily basis, presumably by the future of Britain.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Members of Britain's ruling class are periodically required to prove their classical white upper class credentials.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There was no malice in her use of the idiom 'nigger in a woodpile'.
She is right when discussing the report published which states that 7% of FIs would be affected by Brexit to which she refers when making her comments, the real nigger in the woodpile is indeed what happens if there is no deal. Financial services are likely to suffer the greatest impact to the UK in sterling terms of no deal being struck.
Anne Marie Morris was stupid and naive to use such an inflammatory term, while in political office or otherwise, and has been dealt with accordingly in withrawal of the whip. But that's all it was, insensitive use of an archaic term.
Compare this to the disgusting comments Viscount Rhodri Colwyn Phillips made, which Loki posted before this, where malice, racism and direct threats abound.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 07-11-2017 at 07:48 AM.
I didn't imply malice on her part.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If the said 'nigger' is actually refering to an African American in the source material though it' s not so hard to understand why using the term would be considered racist as it is a racial slur. Not much different than saying something nice like 'Jewing down'. Not intending malice is not enough of a defense against spicing up your speech with racist slurs.
Congratulations America
So Randy, you think Ryanair's confirmation that it will move planes out of the UK and will cancel UK EU flights after Brexit, is just for laughs ?
In other news, Barniers has demanded that the UK states its position on the single financial settlement in principle. That means the headlines in British newspapers probably will be about either May or Davis saying that the UK will pay.
Last edited by Hazir; 07-12-2017 at 08:36 PM.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote