Proof that an expensive private education makes no difference......a moron will always be a moron!
Or wearing a shirt and tie.
If I ever suggested there was a connection between smart dress and intelligence you would have a point. Otherwise your post is a classic example of a straw man argument.
Quick questions that maybe the Brexiteers can help be with. And I mean this in all seriousness, this isn't a trick question or a joke, I'm genuinely interested.
We know that the car industry is massively anti-leave, as is the finance sector/city. I'm sure I can find lots more sectors too, for example, the fishing industry were pro-leave, then realised the problems, and are now asking for exceptions to free movement of people, as is the agriculture sector.
So the question is, which sectors are pro-leave? Which sectors see Brexit as a potential boon rather than anything from a looming risk, to a potential disaster?
I've not see anything in the press, on the BBC (TV, radio or web), even on the trickle (was once a torrent) of pro-Brexit stories on Facebook. Wetherspoons tend to stick propaganda posters above the urinals, but they seem to suggest nothing more than the ability to import beer slightly cheaper (all the examples of beers in their pro-free trade poster are beers we can already get here, usually in Wetherspoons, so clearly being in the EU isn't stopping the import)
If all the industries saying they're worried about Brexit are simple project fear, then where are the industries welcoming Brexit with open arms?
Quick questions that maybe the Brexiteers can help be with. And I mean this in all seriousness, this isn't a trick question or a joke, I'm genuinely interested.
We know that the car industry is massively anti-leave, as is the finance sector/city. I'm sure I can find lots more sectors too, for example, the fishing industry were pro-leave, then realised the problems, and are now asking for exceptions to free movement of people, as is the agriculture sector.
So the question is, which sectors are pro-leave? Which sectors see Brexit as a potential boon rather than anything from a looming risk, to a potential disaster?
I've not see anything in the press, on the BBC (TV, radio or web), even on the trickle (was once a torrent) of pro-Brexit stories on Facebook. Wetherspoons tend to stick propaganda posters above the urinals, but they seem to suggest nothing more than the ability to import beer slightly cheaper (all the examples of beers in their pro-free trade poster are beers we can already get here, usually in Wetherspoons, so clearly being in the EU isn't stopping the import)
If all the industries saying they're worried about Brexit are simple project fear, then where are the industries welcoming Brexit with open arms?
I’m pretty sure the fishing industry is still pro-leave although if they are concerned about movement of people then a Norway deal would allow us to leave, retain free movement and negotiate separate fisheries quotas.
For a while now I have felt that May should simply go cap in hand to Barnier and ask for an extension to Article 50, because there is absolutely no way that the country can be ready for 29 3.19. Have you noticed just how close that date is now?
That's pretty much what Philip Stephens concludes in today's FT. Most of you of course are not subscribers. It's a long article to cut and paste too. But instead I cut and paste some of the comments, because being the FT, several come from across the Channel. You don't hear these voices in the British media, so here are some now.
Francois P 28 minutes ago No thanks, Mr Stephens. We citizens of the EU27 aren’t willing to endure the whining of the British any longer. The sooner this farce comes to a close, the better.
Pasquino 1 hour ago A timeout would be in the UK's interests, but not those of the EU-27. Better to cut off the diseased limb.
Mostly Harmless 1 hour ago On the continent we just want this to be over asap. Honestly, there is not much goodwill left after 4 decades of moaning and insults and 3 years of a particular bipolar disorder of megalomania and hysteria. Brexit was hybris. The sooner it is exposed as such, the better for all involved.
Till S. 1 hour ago No, no, no. Get on and be done with it. No more of this madness. Actions like calling an unnecessary referendum or cluelessly triggering a leave process should have, no must have consequences.
You have been taking Europe for fools long enough. Out you go. You need to feel the (hard) consequences now and - hopefully, even though I wouldn't hold my breath - learn your lesson.
"It should be evident by now that Britain is simply not ready for Brexit"
Tough. Who cares? You had enough time.
The date is indeed just six months away. But why on earth would we want an extension just to enable these punch drunk politicians more time to spout their nonsense. The Tory conference has only been going a couple of days and all it is doing is reaffirming that if one takes the same people and same culture why would anybody expect a different outcome? That is the definition of insanity!
There is a deadline for a reason and that is to act as a guillotine on the debate. Time and time again Tory spokesmen and the various alt-right actors maintain that either the EU will blink or no deal is a good place to go in order to regain sovereignty. At the same time the tension rachets up and we are now seeing some detail on practical dates which must be met - mid January is of particular importance.
The choice is and always has been one of the following: 1) Revoke Article 50 and remain - politically impossible back in 2017 but now emerging as a possibility with the impending deadline and the shift in Labour policy on a referendum including REmain as an option. 2) Cut a deal with the EEA to remain in the CU and SM - extremely simple to administer as the same regulatory framework as today - and not a million miles away from that which Labour is proposing. And this ensures no border issues in Ireland nor Kent. This option is completely unacceptable to Rees-Mogg, Johnson and the rest for it's essentially calling their bluff on the original Leave campaign and represents a philosophical defeat for them. 3) No deal or Canada which wreaks havoc with the economy plus risking issues in N.Ireland. The EU27 are yet to see an acceptable proposition which covers the basic topics agreed for the agenda some 18 months ago.
As May appears unable to go with options 1 nor 2, the simplest path now is for the Tory Titanic to sink having hit this Brexit iceberg. Then Labour to cut a Brexit deal with a long, long transition period. As per a recent piece by Paul Mason in the Guardian there is now a clear path. Labour didn't change much during their conference but they have changed the landscape and options to be considered by the other main players in this poker game.
Naturally there is risk - to the UK economy and also the housing market. And this will edge up every week this chaos continues. A March Brexit ideally requires agreement in the next couple of months. Unless May signs up to whatever M.Barnier has prepared (And she can't!) the Tories will not cut a deal. And there is no deal outside a Norway style deal which accommodates the Irish border and is not disruptive.
Rees Mogg at al appear to have played a great hand (as per question time the other week) but they are going to have to fold soon. They either support May or they sink the Tories - it's that simple! That's why we need a deadline.
Alternatively the opposition has Sir Keir Starmer who is one of the few to have mastered the brief - he would cut an EEA deal overnight if Labour were in power. The question is whether that happens before or after March. And the fact is we don't have to have the full arrangement agreed by March for there is already an agreed transition period until end 2020. Let us be very clear that the transition option rests upon the UK government agreeing a Brexit deal very soon.
So what happens next in the time available? Will the Tory remainers bring the government down - or will it be the ERG which caves in? Or will the government collapse. May is trying to play them all off, but she is a long way from what is acceptable to Europe - and her Cabinet and "colleagues" may have burnt so much political capital with the EU that her position is already blown to bits?
It's painful to watch but then again it is what it is! And has been entirely predictable ever since the 2017 election.
Proof that an expensive private education makes no difference......a moron will always be a moron!
Or wearing a shirt and tie.
If I ever suggested there was a connection between smart dress and intelligence you would have a point. Otherwise your post is a classic example of a straw man argument.
Mmmm. Well for someone who only a few posts earlier was espousing the Tory party for looking fit for government based on their ability to turn up at conference with a shirt and tie I think it’s you who have the straw man argument.
Proof that an expensive private education makes no difference......a moron will always be a moron!
Or wearing a shirt and tie.
If I ever suggested there was a connection between smart dress and intelligence you would have a point. Otherwise your post is a classic example of a straw man argument.
Mmmm. Well for someone who only a few posts earlier was espousing the Tory party for looking fit for government based on their ability to turn up at conference with a shirt and tie I think it’s you who have the straw man argument.
Don't know what you mean by espousing the Tories. Essentially I suggested when you are asking the public to give you the job of running the government it might be an idea to dress like 99.99% of professionals would typically dress when attending a job interview to work in business or a government department.
I did not suggest that wearing a shirt and tie would turn a moron into a non moron. Only if I suggested that would your post make any sense.
I have quoted the wiki definition of the term Straw Man Argument below.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
As a fence-sitter in the referendum lead-up, may I point out what an utter imbecile Theresa May is. She had one bargaining chip of note - triggering Article 50 - she could have used this to force concessions from the EU who were scared at the thought of a protracted Brexit - instead she sacrificed the UK to the Conservative Party conference two years ago when she arbitrarily triggered it, leaving all the cards with a suddenly EUphoric EU. They have nothing now to gain from giving the UK any concessions, as far as the EU is now concerned BREXIT MEANS BREXIT suckers. We have been shafted, and Theresa may is solely to blame, and as such she is probably the worst prime minister in history. Sure apx. 16% of their trade is affected (9% for Germany), but it's about 50% for us, they are not going to give us diddly squat because doing so risk another country thinking they can have their cake and eat it. What a pathetic basket case we have become in two short years.
PS Surely Armando Ianucci did do the script for this, right?!
The fishing industry will be as dead as all the fish in a few years anyway
So will the fish. The amount of fish that have to be poured back into the sea dead because of EU regulations is insane.
You are absolutely right that the quota system does result in tons of fish going back into the ocean and that is not good. However what we have at the moment is better than not having a quota system and stocks being ravaged in a quite literal race to the bottom. What's needed is an intelligent planned approach to fishing and fish-farming. Something that can never happen if those parties that could do the planning are split into competing units. It would be far better for the future of the industry and for the future of fish species to remain within the EU and campaign for a more effective protection mechanism than to turn our backs and engage in a brutal and temporary free for all.
The fishing industry will be as dead as all the fish in a few years anyway
So will the fish. The amount of fish that have to be poured back into the sea dead because of EU regulations is insane.
You are absolutely right that the quota system does result in tons of fish going back into the ocean and that is not good. However what we have at the moment is better than not having a quota system and stocks being ravaged in a quite literal race to the bottom. What's needed is an intelligent planned approach to fishing and fish-farming. Something that can never happen if those parties that could do the planning are split into competing units. It would be far better for the future of the industry and for the future of fish species to remain within the EU and campaign for a more effective protection mechanism than to turn our backs and engage in a brutal and temporary free for all.
and something the EU has spectacularly failed to achieve in any of the EU fishing grounds.
The fishing industry will be as dead as all the fish in a few years anyway
So will the fish. The amount of fish that have to be poured back into the sea dead because of EU regulations is insane.
You are absolutely right that the quota system does result in tons of fish going back into the ocean and that is not good. However what we have at the moment is better than not having a quota system and stocks being ravaged in a quite literal race to the bottom. What's needed is an intelligent planned approach to fishing and fish-farming. Something that can never happen if those parties that could do the planning are split into competing units. It would be far better for the future of the industry and for the future of fish species to remain within the EU and campaign for a more effective protection mechanism than to turn our backs and engage in a brutal and temporary free for all.
and something the EU has spectacularly failed to achieve in any of the EU fishing grounds.
Blockchain? There is a kind of bitter poetry in that word. But no solution.
It's all rather pointless, you could come up with the most brilliant and perfect technical solution, there's simply no time left to even start to implement it.
If we're heading for Brexit, not only will it be no deal, it'll be no infrastructure, no planning, no laws, no beauracracy and no hope.
It is true that only 26% of European fish stocks are in good health in meeting both of EU's two key measures. The real question is how much worse would things be if there was a free for all? Quotas dumping make for good headlines amongst those that want unfettered access to the oceans because the raw numbers look quite alarming. Compared to the overall size of the catch they do not appear quite as significant - indeed changes to policy mean that by 2019 all catches will have to be landed anyway. Far more needs to be done to protect the fish, but that simply won't happen outside of the EU, which if nothing else ensures that those two key measures are monitored.
If Chequers doesn't cut the mustard, what does? It's very easy to say it's dead - as almost everyone seems to be doing - but where's its replacement? Specifically, where is its replacement that is not illegal?
We are being encouraged to believe that, if we fail to secure a deal with the EU, we simply adopt WTO rules. Only there's a snag which no-one seems to have given much thought to.
If we are trading on WTO rules, we will be expected to maintain a robust customs border. Not necessarily a "hard", policed, 499km brick wall, with checkpoints and detention centres. But, at the very least, a full customs border where goods can be verified and tariffs applied. However, we are not allowed to build one.
We are strictly forbidden to create a new border between our external UK border and the EU. A law, that's been written specifically to prevent a border going up between N Ireland and the Republic. Imagine! The UK being told what they can and can't do with their own borders! Typical bloody EU, right?
Only it's not the EU who came up with the law. Or the WTO. It was the UK Government. So what is this ancient piece of legislature that is going to restrict us being able to trade with anyone in the sake of a no-deal? The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Section 10 of said Act includes the following clauses:
In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must - [a] act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and [b)] have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
and
Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which - [a] diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or [b] create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
We (the UK) have passed an Act, (within our sovereign Parliament), which prevents us from altering the border after "exit day" (29 March 2019). So, even if we can get the WTO to agree to us trading within their rules - unlikely - we will be prevented from doing so by an Act that we, as a sovereign nation, passed. We've painted ourselves into a corner. And we do not have Parliamentary time to pass a new Act before "exit day".
I don't know that it's particularly fair to blame the CFP alone. I'm fairly certain that, in recent years, the numbers of fish in the North Sea for example have been recovering. Overfishing did not begin with the CFP and there is certainly still the problem that overall EU fishing fleets are too large. However, the proportion of quota allocated to the UK is what UK Governments negotiated, and it is they that allowed the quotas be concentrated in a small number of large operators, and the sale of UK quotas to non-UK operators.
The CFP today, as I understand it, is a very different beast from its introduction, and it seems to seek to minimise discards (certain fish - basking sharks, for example, must be discarded), so that unintentional catches of commercial stocks should now be landed.
It is undoubtedly less successful than it might be, but it is clearly aiming for sustainability, including providing additional funding to assist small inshore fishing traditions be able to remain, and not just have fleets of mega trawlers.
Perhaps, if the EU Commission had the kind of powers that some allege, the CFP could be amended further and faster than it has to date - but it doesn't, so any change has been down to horse trading abilities in Council meetings.
It's clearly imperfect and has never been perfect, but is a policy introduced at a time of significant change, and reduction in capacity, for European fishing fleets, first really presaged by the Cod Wars.
PS Discards are not unique to quotas associated with EU fisheries or fleets. Millions of tonnes of fish (and dolphins, etc.), often immature, are discarded every year.
So Stig and NI. You think fish stocks have been better protected by EU regs than would have been the case if each nation protected its own stocks? Fair play to you. Have European fish stocks remained the same since the E U took control of them?
From what I can see from the various graphs and reports available, fish stock have increased since 2006 and mortality rates have fallen, so it would seem the CFP is doing its job. Of course there's plenty of debate to be had around how well it's doing its job, and the consequences of that, but the situation with cod in particular has massively improved over the last decade.
Comments
We know that the car industry is massively anti-leave, as is the finance sector/city. I'm sure I can find lots more sectors too, for example, the fishing industry were pro-leave, then realised the problems, and are now asking for exceptions to free movement of people, as is the agriculture sector.
So the question is, which sectors are pro-leave? Which sectors see Brexit as a potential boon rather than anything from a looming risk, to a potential disaster?
I've not see anything in the press, on the BBC (TV, radio or web), even on the trickle (was once a torrent) of pro-Brexit stories on Facebook. Wetherspoons tend to stick propaganda posters above the urinals, but they seem to suggest nothing more than the ability to import beer slightly cheaper (all the examples of beers in their pro-free trade poster are beers we can already get here, usually in Wetherspoons, so clearly being in the EU isn't stopping the import)
If all the industries saying they're worried about Brexit are simple project fear, then where are the industries welcoming Brexit with open arms?
The amount of fish that have to be poured back into the sea dead because of EU regulations is insane.
There is a deadline for a reason and that is to act as a guillotine on the debate. Time and time again Tory spokesmen and the various alt-right actors maintain that either the EU will blink or no deal is a good place to go in order to regain sovereignty. At the same time the tension rachets up and we are now seeing some detail on practical dates which must be met - mid January is of particular importance.
The choice is and always has been one of the following:
1) Revoke Article 50 and remain - politically impossible back in 2017 but now emerging as a possibility with the impending deadline and the shift in Labour policy on a referendum including REmain as an option.
2) Cut a deal with the EEA to remain in the CU and SM - extremely simple to administer as the same regulatory framework as today - and not a million miles away from that which Labour is proposing. And this ensures no border issues in Ireland nor Kent. This option is completely unacceptable to Rees-Mogg, Johnson and the rest for it's essentially calling their bluff on the original Leave campaign and represents a philosophical defeat for them.
3) No deal or Canada which wreaks havoc with the economy plus risking issues in N.Ireland. The EU27 are yet to see an acceptable proposition which covers the basic topics agreed for the agenda some 18 months ago.
As May appears unable to go with options 1 nor 2, the simplest path now is for the Tory Titanic to sink having hit this Brexit iceberg. Then Labour to cut a Brexit deal with a long, long transition period. As per a recent piece by Paul Mason in the Guardian there is now a clear path. Labour didn't change much during their conference but they have changed the landscape and options to be considered by the other main players in this poker game.
Naturally there is risk - to the UK economy and also the housing market. And this will edge up every week this chaos continues. A March Brexit ideally requires agreement in the next couple of months. Unless May signs up to whatever M.Barnier has prepared (And she can't!) the Tories will not cut a deal. And there is no deal outside a Norway style deal which accommodates the Irish border and is not disruptive.
Rees Mogg at al appear to have played a great hand (as per question time the other week) but they are going to have to fold soon. They either support May or they sink the Tories - it's that simple! That's why we need a deadline.
Alternatively the opposition has Sir Keir Starmer who is one of the few to have mastered the brief - he would cut an EEA deal overnight if Labour were in power. The question is whether that happens before or after March. And the fact is we don't have to have the full arrangement agreed by March for there is already an agreed transition period until end 2020. Let us be very clear that the transition option rests upon the UK government agreeing a Brexit deal very soon.
So what happens next in the time available? Will the Tory remainers bring the government down - or will it be the ERG which caves in? Or will the government collapse. May is trying to play them all off, but she is a long way from what is acceptable to Europe - and her Cabinet and "colleagues" may have burnt so much political capital with the EU that her position is already blown to bits?
It's painful to watch but then again it is what it is! And has been entirely predictable ever since the 2017 election.
Mmmm. Well for someone who only a few posts earlier was espousing the Tory party for looking fit for government based on their ability to turn up at conference with a shirt and tie I think it’s you who have the straw man argument.
I did not suggest that wearing a shirt and tie would turn a moron into a non moron. Only if I suggested that would your post make any sense.
I have quoted the wiki definition of the term Straw Man Argument below.
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
A border solution at last.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45725572
She had one bargaining chip of note - triggering Article 50 - she could have used this to force concessions from the EU who were scared at the thought of a protracted Brexit - instead she sacrificed the UK to the Conservative Party conference two years ago when she arbitrarily triggered it, leaving all the cards with a suddenly EUphoric EU. They have nothing now to gain from giving the UK any concessions, as far as the EU is now concerned BREXIT MEANS BREXIT suckers. We have been shafted, and Theresa may is solely to blame, and as such she is probably the worst prime minister in history.
Sure apx. 16% of their trade is affected (9% for Germany), but it's about 50% for us, they are not going to give us diddly squat because doing so risk another country thinking they can have their cake and eat it.
What a pathetic basket case we have become in two short years.
PS Surely Armando Ianucci did do the script for this, right?!
There is a kind of bitter poetry in that word.
But no solution.
If we're heading for Brexit, not only will it be no deal, it'll be no infrastructure, no planning, no laws, no beauracracy and no hope.
We are being encouraged to believe that, if we fail to secure a deal with the EU, we simply adopt WTO rules. Only there's a snag which no-one seems to have given much thought to.
If we are trading on WTO rules, we will be expected to maintain a robust customs border. Not necessarily a "hard", policed, 499km brick wall, with checkpoints and detention centres. But, at the very least, a full customs border where goods can be verified and tariffs applied. However, we are not allowed to build one.
We are strictly forbidden to create a new border between our external UK border and the EU. A law, that's been written specifically to prevent a border going up between N Ireland and the Republic. Imagine! The UK being told what they can and can't do with their own borders! Typical bloody EU, right?
Only it's not the EU who came up with the law. Or the WTO. It was the UK Government. So what is this ancient piece of legislature that is going to restrict us being able to trade with anyone in the sake of a no-deal? The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Section 10 of said Act includes the following clauses:
In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must -
[a] act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and
[b)] have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
and
Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which -
[a] diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
[b] create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
We (the UK) have passed an Act, (within our sovereign Parliament), which prevents us from altering the border after "exit day" (29 March 2019). So, even if we can get the WTO to agree to us trading within their rules - unlikely - we will be prevented from doing so by an Act that we, as a sovereign nation, passed. We've painted ourselves into a corner. And we do not have Parliamentary time to pass a new Act before "exit day".
The CFP today, as I understand it, is a very different beast from its introduction, and it seems to seek to minimise discards (certain fish - basking sharks, for example, must be discarded), so that unintentional catches of commercial stocks should now be landed.
It is undoubtedly less successful than it might be, but it is clearly aiming for sustainability, including providing additional funding to assist small inshore fishing traditions be able to remain, and not just have fleets of mega trawlers.
Perhaps, if the EU Commission had the kind of powers that some allege, the CFP could be amended further and faster than it has to date - but it doesn't, so any change has been down to horse trading abilities in Council meetings.
It's clearly imperfect and has never been perfect, but is a policy introduced at a time of significant change, and reduction in capacity, for European fishing fleets, first really presaged by the Cod Wars.
PS Discards are not unique to quotas associated with EU fisheries or fleets. Millions of tonnes of fish (and dolphins, etc.), often immature, are discarded every year.
You think fish stocks have been better protected by EU regs than would have been the case if each nation protected its own stocks?
Fair play to you.
Have European fish stocks remained the same since the E U took control of them?
Clue.
No, they haven't.
So that's a measure of success then?