The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...46 47 48 49 50 ...54 55 56 · >>
nooneinparticular On October 19, 2020




, Hawaii
#706New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 10:31:22
@shadowen Said

OMG


Fair dinkum. The PM is always an MP from the party (or coalition of parties) who has been ELECTED by the people. Now you tell me, did the people of the EU elect von der Leyen? Did they elect Juncker?

Unreal.


I believe I answered this already.

Quote:

Really? They are responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties and managing the day-to-day business of the EU. So what, not important?


I never said they weren't important, simply that you put undue consideration on their scope and power as a body.

Quote:

Are you saying that the EU commission should be elected by the people? That they should be held accountable to the people? Or do you think the UK executive shouldn't be elected by, and held accountable to, the people?


I'm not saying either really. Because of the nature of how the EU is set up, it makes electing an overarching body rather difficult and sticky. As I said earlier, IF the EU were to run Presidential elections, then what country would vote for a candidate other than the one their own country nominated? And if we assume that that will be the case, then the candidates who get the most votes will end up being from France and Germany.

As the Brexiteers like to point out all the time, lots of people don't believe in the 'European Integration' and would much prefer promoting nationalistic interests. In light of an open election, what does this mean? Well it means that the countries with the biggest population will likely be the determiners of the race, and everyone else will likely be effectively ignored. Is that the situation that people would prefer?

Quote:



Oh good, you found my response.
nooneinparticular On October 19, 2020




, Hawaii
#707New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 10:39:22
@shadowen Said

The UK government isn't a third party to contracts btw French fishermen and their government. You could argue that the EU is but the UK have FA to do with it other than deciding to be in or out of the EU.


Which makes them, by definition, a third-party source. They are partly providing the 'service' that the first parties are dealing with.

Quote:

It has everything to do with it. You have long argued that the difference btw the amount of fish UK fishermen catch in UK waters compared to the number of fish EU fishermen catch in UK waters isnt down to the CFP when obviously it is.


So what does that have to do with "how much money was injected into the UK economy by the selling of the quotas that created such disparity in the first place"?
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#708New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 13:16:01
@nooneinparticular Said

There's a difference between saying that civil servants are supposed to help implement government policy and that failing to implement said policy is partly the fault of the civil servants.

Do you read what you write? So you concede the civil service are there to (among other things) help 'implement' government policy. You then imply that if they don't do so then it's not their fault! So who's fault is it then? For example, if Parliament pass new laws on fishing and the civil service don't support the government in implementing these new laws how is that not their fault?

Now the reality is that the civil service attempt to obstruct/delay/stall government policy all the time. They aren't meant to but they do.

@nooneinparticular Said

Neither did I, but I wasn't the one arguing against the notion that the Brexit dream was at risk because of it.

I never argued that Brexit wasnt in danger of not being realised due to the actions of Parliament in general and TM's government in particular. Quite the opposite in fact.

@nooneinparticular Said

I said that the UK taking back control of her waters MIGHT result in the voiding of contracts between UK fishermen and EU fishermen, and that HMG would be the instigator of that violation.

First up very few 'UK' fishermen sell a part of their quota to foreign fishermen.

Anyway, the UK government have already said that they will honour all existing contracts with 'UK' fishermen. So, let's say a UK fisherman on sells 5% of his quota to a French fisherman. Come 2021 the UK fisherman is still receiving (as a min) the same quota as before. So he can continue to on sell 5% of this quota to the French fisherman. So why exactly would the contract btw the UK and the French fisherman be voided by the UK taking back control of her waters? How exactly would HMG be the instigator of any violation? How?

@nooneinparticular Said

So what? Just because the borders weren't internationally recognized, they didn't exist or matter? Is that what you're arguing here?

You have been trying to link the UK taking back control of her waters with the cod wars. The HUGE difference though is that the UK under the UN's Laws of the Sea has an internationally recognised EEZ. This was never the case with Iceland. The difference matters.

@nooneinparticular Said

I find it funny that when talking about whether or not an 'escalation is basically inevitable', you say that you don't know and can't predict how things will go, but when asked about 'a resurgence of UK domestic fishing', you basically take the same logical steps that I used to reach your conclusions.

I'm just confused why you wonder how I can say such things, when you've clearly used the same thought process yourself.

Let's see. I said i thought it likely that there would be an increase in fish landed by UK fishermen come 2021 (unless the government sell them out). I said I thought it likely that UK fishermen would land more fish outside of the CFP than what they do currently. This is based on the very simple fact that if you look at the total amount of fish caught in the UK's EEZ, and then look at the total number of fish caught by UK fishermen under the CFP in waters outside of the UK's EEZ, the figures show that UK fishermen will gain far more than they lose. Again, this is provided that the government don't sell them out. So my conclusion is based on simple, verifiable facts. On the other hand your contention that poaching in the UK's waters will increase once the transition phase is over is based on what? The anger of French fishermen? A hunch? Again, my opinion is based on verifiable data, yours isnt. Do you see the difference?

@nooneinparticular Said

You and I understand what 'the cod wars were all about' veeeeeerrrrryyyy differently from each other.

So what exactly do you think they were about then? I would have thought the reasons for the cod wars were fairly straightforward.

By the way, have you looked up NATO's role?


No, it wouldn't be at all unusual.
0
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#709New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 13:22:50
@nooneinparticular Said

I never really thought about it that way. My main thought when saying that was to simply think of other scenarios that could result in what was seen in the data that don't necessarily lead to the conclusion being presented.

Again, it staggers me how you can now accept that the difference btw landed catches by countries, fishermen and species in the Channel is down to the CFP but you magically think the CFP isnt the reason why other fishing areas covered by the CFP have the same consistent differences re landed catches when it comes to countries, fishermen and species. Unbelievable.

@nooneinparticular Said

You would if the government successfully blamed the CFP for their own failings.

Ah yes, the fishermen are like all Brexiteers. They are stupid, ill informed and easily fooled. Sorry, I forgot.
0
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#710New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 13:42:14
@nooneinparticular Said

Which makes them, by definition, a third-party source. They are partly providing the 'service' that the first parties are dealing with.

No they are not. The UK government arent providing any service in this situation...

The EU determine quotas in all EU waters. National governments then sell their quotas to fishermen registered in their country. So in the case of French fishermen the EU allocate to France a quota. The French government then sell this quota to fishermen registered in France. The primary parties are the French government and the fishermen. The EU (who allocate the quota) are the third party. Again, other than simply deciding to be a member, or not be a member, of the EU, the UK government have FA to do with the contracts btw the primary parties, and nor are they responsible for the quota.

I guess however I shouldn't be surprised that you see the UK government as a third party as by your own definition you would maintain that Durban and Ottawa are in close proximity to one another.

@nooneinparticular Said

So what does that have to do with "how much money was injected into the UK economy by the selling of the quotas that created such disparity in the first place"?

FFS, the disparity is the result of the CFP. Seriously, how many times do we have to go over this? As an example, the disparity in the amount of cod caught by French fishermen in the Channel compared with the amount landed by UK vessels is down to the bloody CFP. This is CFP 101. It staggers me that you are still trying to claim the difference isn't down to the CFP.
0
nooneinparticular On October 19, 2020




, Hawaii
#711New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 17:30:38
@shadowen Said

Do you read what you write? So you concede the civil service are there to (among other things) help 'implement' government policy. You then imply that if they don't do so then it's not their fault! So who's fault is it then? For example, if Parliament pass new laws on fishing and the civil service don't support the government in implementing these new laws how is that not their fault?

Now the reality is that the civil service attempt to obstruct/delay/stall government policy all the time. They aren't meant to but they do.


No, remember what I said earlier? That unreasonable or unfeasible promises made by politicians should not then become the responsibility of the the civil service to implement, and the blame shouldn't fall on their heads IN THAT CASE.

Yes, you said that whether or not something can be defined as unreasonable or unfeasible is largely subjective, and while I don't believe that, let's accept it for the sake of argument. Such promises neither have to be practical nor possible in order for them to be made, yes? And that in such an event, the civil service should not be held to account for the politicians running their mouths, yes? Or does the civil service share blame with the politicians even in this scenario?

Quote:

First up very few 'UK' fishermen sell a part of their quota to foreign fishermen.

Anyway, the UK government have already said that they will honour all existing contracts with 'UK' fishermen. So, let's say a UK fisherman on sells 5% of his quota to a French fisherman. Come 2021 the UK fisherman is still receiving (as a min) the same quota as before. So he can continue to on sell 5% of this quota to the French fisherman. So why exactly would the contract btw the UK and the French fisherman be voided by the UK taking back control of her waters? How exactly would HMG be the instigator of any violation? How?


That's news to me.

Quote:

You have been trying to link the UK taking back control of her waters with the cod wars. The HUGE difference though is that the UK under the UN's Laws of the Sea has an internationally recognised EEZ. This was never the case with Iceland. The difference matters.


How? I legitimately do not understand this point you keep making. Why does that matter here?

Quote:

Let's see. I said i thought it likely that there would be an increase in fish landed by UK fishermen come 2021 (unless the government sell them out). I said I thought it likely that UK fishermen would land more fish outside of the CFP than what they do currently. This is based on the very simple fact that if you look at the total amount of fish caught in the UK's EEZ, and then look at the total number of fish caught by UK fishermen under the CFP in waters outside of the UK's EEZ, the figures show that UK fishermen will gain far more than they lose. Again, this is provided that the government don't sell them out. So my conclusion is based on simple, verifiable facts. On the other hand your contention that poaching in the UK's waters will increase once the transition phase is over is based on what? The anger of French fishermen? A hunch? Again, my opinion is based on verifiable data, yours isnt. Do you see the difference?


Your data definitely doesn't say what you keep saying it does. The data itself isn't bad, but the conclusions you attempt to draw from them are not supported by said data at all.

Quote:

So what exactly do you think they were about then? I would have thought the reasons for the cod wars were fairly straightforward.

By the way, have you looked up NATO's role?


No, it wouldn't be at all unusual.


As I said already, I think the cod wars were about the fishing resources themselves and access. The border issue was just something Iceland used to try and get the UK out of those waters.
0
nooneinparticular On October 19, 2020




, Hawaii
#712New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 17:38:47
@shadowen Said

Again, it staggers me how you can now accept that the difference btw landed catches by countries, fishermen and species in the Channel is down to the CFP but you magically think the CFP isnt the reason why other fishing areas covered by the CFP have the same consistent differences re landed catches when it comes to countries, fishermen and species. Unbelievable.


Riddle me this then. What were the fishing habits of the countries right before they created, and were bound by, the CFP? Keep in mind that two of the CFP's criteria are to consider relative stability of the market, and traditional fishing locations for every country.

The thing about mandating a market is that if you use what they were doing already as a base, then if it disappears, then they'll most likely go back to what they were doing before. However, if what they were doing before was similar to that state already then there won't be much movement.

Quote:

Ah yes, the fishermen are like all Brexiteers. They are stupid, ill informed and easily fooled. Sorry, I forgot.


It's a possibility. Hence why I say verify everything, no matter where it comes from. If you want to take it as a slight against Brexiteers intelligence, then fine. I clearly can't convince you otherwise anyway.
0
nooneinparticular On October 19, 2020




, Hawaii
#713New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 17:50:16
@shadowen Said

No they are not. The UK government arent providing any service in this situation...

The EU determine quotas in all EU waters. National governments then sell their quotas to fishermen registered in their country. So in the case of French fishermen the EU allocate to France a quota. The French government then sell this quota to fishermen registered in France. The primary parties are the French government and the fishermen. The EU (who allocate the quota) are the third party. Again, other than simply deciding to be a member, or not be a member, of the EU, the UK government have FA to do with the contracts btw the primary parties, and nor are they responsible for the quota.

I guess however I shouldn't be surprised that you see the UK government as a third party as by your own definition you would maintain that Durban and Ottawa are in close proximity to one another.


Whether or not they are responsible for the quota has FA to do with whether or not they might be considered third-parties.

Quote:

FFS, the disparity is the result of the CFP. Seriously, how many times do we have to go over this? As an example, the disparity in the amount of cod caught by French fishermen in the Channel compared with the amount landed by UK vessels is down to the bloody CFP. This is CFP 101. It staggers me that you are still trying to claim the difference isn't down to the CFP.


I'm simply saying that, in the absence of evidence, we don't know whether or not the removal of CFP regulations will matter in the end.
0
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#714New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 20:28:46
@nooneinparticular Said

No, remember what I said earlier? That unreasonable or unfeasible promises made by politicians should not then become the responsibility of the the civil service to implement, and the blame shouldn't fall on their heads IN THAT CASE.

It's not for the bloody civil service to decide what is reasonable. Furthermore, if they think a directive in not feasible then they can say so and explain why. However, having done this they still have an obligation to do the best they can. Their own bloody website concedes this. If what they are being asked to do is legal then they have a duty to do it. Of course the civil service often seek to delay, obstruct or simply torpedo government directives. Again, by their own admission they shouldn't but they do it anyway.

@nooneinparticular Said

Yes, you said that whether or not something can be defined as unreasonable or unfeasible is largely subjective, and while I don't believe that

How the hell is determining what is unreasonable NOT subjective. Seriously...

@nooneinparticular Said

Such promises neither have to be practical nor possible in order for them to be made, yes? And that in such an event, the civil service should not be held to account for the politicians running their mouths, yes? Or does the civil service share blame with the politicians even in this scenario?

I have gone over the role of the civil service and even quoted directly from their own webpage what their role is...and it's not what you seem to think.

@nooneinparticular Said

That's news to me.

What is exactly?


@nooneinparticular Said

How? I legitimately do not understand this point you keep making. Why does that matter here?

I've explained this multiple times and I'm not going to simply keep repeating myself. If you seriously can't understand the difference then so be it.


@nooneinparticular Said

Your data definitely doesn't say what you keep saying it does. The data itself isn't bad, but the conclusions you attempt to draw from them are not supported by said data at all.

How does it not? It's simple maths. If you take the total fish caught in the UK's EEZ by foreign fishermen and compare that with the total fish caught by UK fishermen in waters controlled by the CFP (excluding British waters) you end up with a HUGE difference favouring foreign fishermen. In other words, even if UK fishermen lost ALL access to EU waters they would still come out well in front. Again, this is assuming the UK government don't rubber d*** them. So guess what, the simple maths agrees with me, disagrees with you.

By the way, other than gut feel what do you base your view that poaching in the UK's waters will inevitable increase? What exactly is that view based on?

@nooneinparticular Said

As I said already, I think the cod wars were about the fishing resources themselves and access. The border issue was just something Iceland used to try and get the UK out of those waters.

They didnt 'just' use their border claims. Their border claims were absolutely integral to their attempts to control fishing in 'their' waters. No border claims means no way of realistically controlling their fishing resources. So their border claims were absolutely critical to the cod wars.
0
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#715New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 20:38:03
@nooneinparticular Said

Riddle me this then...

If you want to insist that the reason why in different areas under the control the the CFP the reason why year in year out the same percentage of fish species are caught by fishermen from specific countries isnt down to the CFP which species each nations quota (by species and area) then good for you. Maybe you could contact the EU and tell them there is in fact no need for their highly contentious quotas.

@nooneinparticular Said

It's a possibility. Hence why I say verify everything, no matter where it comes from.

If you bothered to watch interviews with UK fishermen or read articles put out by fishing co-operatives you find that they are very much aware of the different issues and what is down to the CFP and what is down to the policies of UK governments over the years. Dare I suggest they are significantly better informed about the various fishing issues than either of us. But hey, if you want to insist they don't know what's going on and they were easily fooled then good for you.

@nooneinparticular Said

Hence why I say verify everything, no matter where it comes from.

What, like how the CFP works? Like how the said CFP's quota system operates? Like the role NATO played in the cod wars? That sort of thing...
0
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#716New Post! Apr 29, 2020 @ 20:47:28
@nooneinparticular Said

Whether or not they are responsible for the quota has FA to do with whether or not they might be considered third-parties.

Whatever.

@nooneinparticular Said

I'm simply saying that, in the absence of evidence, we don't know whether or not the removal of CFP regulations will matter in the end.

One way or the other I think we can be pretty confident that the removal of CFP control of UK waters will be significant. Something EU fishermen are very much aware of.

Having said that we don't know what exactly the future will hold. Oops, I forgot you do eg poaching. Anyway, the future impact of the removal of CFP regulations is of course unknown. We do however know what impact the CFP has in the present, and we know what impact it has had in the past.
0
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#717New Post! May 01, 2020 @ 12:45:27
A good day for Arron Banks...
0
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#718New Post! May 11, 2020 @ 11:40:58
Quite amusing watching the current stoush btw Germany and the EU Commission, the ECB and the ECJ. In essence the Germans are arguing that the EU is answerable to the member states (esp Germany) whilst the EU are adamant that it's the other way around.
0
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#719New Post! May 11, 2020 @ 11:47:27
The EU's attempts to blame the UK for the lack of progress in trade talks is also interesting. Image for a moment that the situation were reversed. Imagine if the UK and EU were in trade talks where the UK was the one insisting on having access to EU fisheries on it's terms. If the UK were the one insisting that the EU had to follow UK laws, judgements and policies. If the UK were the one insisting that the EU had to accept that UK courts were superior to the ECJ with the later having to accept UK rulings. Would anyone think that the EU's refusal to accept these conditions was a sign that they didnt want a FTA? I don't think so. And yet the EU and remoaners/rejoiners seem to think that the UK is duty bound to bend over and let the EU do as they wish.
0
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#720New Post! May 11, 2020 @ 11:51:58
By the way, someone needs to tell the EU that unlike the W.A the political declaration is not in any way legally binding. It' simply a document that outlines what the future relationship btw the UK and the EU MIGHT look like.
0
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...46 47 48 49 50 ...54 55 56 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
First unread post Brexit - People's Vote NOW.
Sun Dec 09, 2018 @ 00:19
44 2633
New posts   Relationships
First unread post Why do people prefer live-in -relationship to marriage
Mon Oct 05, 2009 @ 10:50
20 1954
New posts   Woman Talk
First unread post For the Ladies: Which Body Type Do You Prefer?
Fri Nov 14, 2008 @ 20:44
34 1448
New posts   Politics
First unread post Reports say child's body found in Hudson case
Tue Oct 28, 2008 @ 02:35
22 865
New posts   Random
First unread post Which part of your body do you prefer?
Fri Apr 25, 2008 @ 19:24
79 2122