*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Most democracies are false. The one we have certainly is. We're still in the fucking EU.

America is not, by and large, "a democracy," rather it's a democratic republic.
By and large, we do not vote on our laws; we vote for the people who vote for us.
By and large, we do not vote for our civil officials; we vote for the people who appoint those officials.

[Poopadoop]

Most democracies are false. The one we have certainly is. We're still in the fucking EU.

Do you mean because they realized all of their options were shit, and so put off leaving the EU? That's the simplest explanation.

Another not-so-subtle point is that public opinion has shifted towards Remain once people became educated on how bad economically leaving the EU would be.

"But, hurr durr we had a referendum 3 years ago that Leave barely won and nothing else matters." This refrain is really dumb. it's like saying we had an election a few years ago and so no-one can ever change their minds and vote for a different party now - the die is cast.

Brexit is not an inevitable outcome of a non-binding referendum.

[OngBonga]

it is an imperial power that fights for economic position through illegal wars

Imperial does not mean fascist.

it supports terrorists and none of this has stopped with Trump.

Agreed, but again, not fascism.

There are leaks of open conversations of Trump saying he wants to invade venezuala for their oil

Please learn the difference between fascism and imperialism.

but most importantly he dehumanizes immigrants daily

Not fascism.

[OngBonga]

Publishing troop movements or military plans is just one simple example of a case where publishing facts not only is but also should be treason.

Fair point, but I hope you're not going to compare the publishing of troop movements in wartime with exposing the corruption of a presidential candidate. You're right though, my language was not the best, there are exemptions. This isn't one of them.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...82316557000704

This whole thing is completely insane. Apparently "CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." is a HATE statement - all caps. And this



is the appropriate reaction.

This is one of Trumps most liked tweets in 2019: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...17144006750209
This is a smash hit with his demographic. Meanwhile "these are not people, these are animals" comments barely make headlines. It appears he's actively looking for his next christchurch shooter.

[oskar]

I don't really care about Assange's role in this. I do think he was clearly partisan and it's very bad journalism to be in communication with the opposing party about how they can most effectively use the story you're about to release for maximum impact in their political campaign, but that's a completely separate topic from the thing that's going on now.

[OngBonga]

I don't really care about Assange's role in this. I do think he was clearly partisan and it's very bad journalism to be in communication with the opposing party about how they can most effectively use the story you're about to release for maximum impact in their political campaign, but that's a completely separate topic from the thing that's going on now.

Yeah no arguments here. It's refreshing that you're capable of separating the issues.

[OngBonga]

"CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."

This statement is patently false. CAIR were founded in 1994.

[oskar]

This statement is patently false. CAIR were founded in 1994.

Your point being?

[oskar]

Picking a minority group to demonize is a pretty big meme with fascists. As is imperialism.

No country ever just stumbled into fascism. It's a slow boil. Calling the press the enemy of the people. Calling all press that is in any way negative towards the leadership fake. The complete loss of the power of oversight by congress - The DOJ is not complying with oversight, IRS is not complying with oversight, McConnell is blocking house oversight. SDNY has outstanding charges on the Trump foundation but cannot indict because all the major players have positions in the white house. This is authoritarianism. The mechanics that are supposed to keep a corrupt leader in check are in place, but they are not working because the crucial positions are compromised.

[OngBonga]

Picking a minority group to demonize is a pretty big meme with fascists. As is imperialism.

They're hardly exclusive to fascists, and certainly don't define fascism. Having a large military is a trademark of fascism, so does that make India fascist? How about South Korea?

Hitler was an artist. So if I paint a picture, am I a Nazi?

[OngBonga]

No country ever just stumbled into fascism. It's a slow boil.

This is better. You're right about this. Does trump have the potential to be a fascist? Perhaps, but just because Trump isn't a very nice man, that doesn't make him a fascist.

Calling the press the enemy of the people.

Yeah I mean this is obviously in the context of politically biased press, which would make it true.

Calling all press that is in any way negative towards the leadership fake.

I think it refers to politically biased press, I don't have a problem with the term "fake news" to describe things like Russiagate and most of the other bollocks I see published about Trump.

[oskar]

They're hardly exclusive to fascists, and certainly don't define fascism. Having a large military is a trademark of fascism, so does that make India fascist? How about South Korea?

Hitler was an artist. So if I paint a picture, am I a Nazi?

Ong, please stop! You're DESTROYING me with FACTS and LOGIC!

Yeah I mean this is obviously in the context of politically biased press, which would make it true.

I don't think there's a relevant outlet that Trump didn't call fake or the enemy of the people. He specifically called CNN and the NYT the enemy of the people. CNN! Gotta-call-Ilhan-Omar-an-antisemite-traitor-to-be-impartial - CNN. Let's-invite-a-creationist-to-a-science-debate - CNN. I don't think there's an outlet that isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch that gets his approval.

Most of the time when he attacks the media, he attacks them for reporting facts. The things that you could summarize under "russiagate" are few and far between and are necessarily backed by sources. Most of the things that the Trump campaign is accused of are completely out in the open. For some reason it apparently doesn't rise to the level of criminality in the eyes of the FBI, so I'll let it go because it won't go anywhere - especially since it's very unlikely that the unredacted Mueller report will be seen by the public before the 2020 election, so that seems like a really bad horse to bet on atm.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It strikes me that it sets a pretty bad precedent to have a public vote on a policy, then to just ignore the vote and not do the thing they voted for.
It may be the best option, though.

The whole Ireland problem seems like a pretty big deal. Whole lotta tanks and bombs and bombs and guns historically associated with dividing Ireland. It doesn't mean that's going to happen again, but Brexit necessarily imposes import/export BS onto the island again... I've not heard anyone talk about it thinking that will just resolve itself.

[OngBonga]

It strikes me that it sets a pretty bad precedent to have a public vote on a policy, then to just ignore the vote and not do the thing they voted for.
It may be the best option, though.

The whole Ireland problem seems like a pretty big deal. Whole lotta tanks and bombs and bombs and guns historically associated with dividing Ireland. It doesn't mean that's going to happen again, but Brexit necessarily imposes import/export BS onto the island again... I've not heard anyone talk about it thinking that will just resolve itself.

I doubt very much we'll see a return to war, whatever happens with Brexit. The Ireland problem is a problem, but I suspect that if the EU enforce a hard border between UK and RoI, then Ireland will simply leave the EU. They came close in the past, it took two referenda if I recall correctly.

[OngBonga]

Notre-Dame Cathedral is on fire. The spire appears to have collapsed, the cathedral looks like it will be ruined. This comes after several weeks of church fires in France.

If this is a deliberate act, it's very, very bad. Especially if it's religiously motivated. I really do hope it is not.

[Poopadoop]

Notre-Dame Cathedral is on fire. The spire appears to have collapsed, the cathedral looks like it will be ruined. This comes after several weeks of church fires in France.

If this is a deliberate act, it's very, very bad. Especially if it's religiously motivated. I really do hope it is not.

Police are treating NDC fire as 'accidental'. There was scaffolding around it and apparently it was being worked on.

Other 10 fires in churches in FR seems a bit much for a coincidence though. Some of them had satanic symbols drawn on them. Nothing about Allah, sorry.

[OngBonga]

Police are treating NDC fire as 'accidental'. There was scaffolding around it and apparently it was being worked on.

Other 10 fires in churches in FR seems a bit much for a coincidence though. Some of them had satanic symbols drawn on them. Nothing about Allah, sorry.

I did see that there was construction going on, but it's way too early for anyone to know if that's the cause.

And I think you've got me all wrong. I don't fucking want it to be Muslims. Do you think that anyone who has a problem with their backwards religion is just itching for a full scale religious war? I can assure you I'm not. I would like nothing more than for everyone to get along.

Satanists, huh? Imagine if I said that I didn't approve of foreign Satanists coming to live in England. Oh wait, I did, and you guys still think it's all about brown skin.

[oskar]

You have probably noticed by now that Trump never says anything specific. All the attacks on the media go like: "They have treated us very unfairly and there are some very bad people and they do very bad things. It is a disgrace, and it's so bad for the american people. The fake news media - I call them - are so dishonest, they truly are the enemy of the people." Stuff like that. So there's no way to tell what he's talking about, which, if you ask Wuf means that he's the smartest man alive, me personally I have a different theory, but either way: this just means whatever it means to whoever is listening. The actual content of what he says is that broadly speaking, regardless of reporting, the media are the enemy of the people, except of course, the only outlet that will spin every single story in his favor and that is everything owned by Rupert Murdoch, One America News and Stormfront.

[OngBonga]

Murdoch is a major player in the mass media, and certainly cannot be trusted over any other source.

Some of the biggest breaks in the russia storyline came because one of his dumbfuck familiy members tweeted it out or because his geriatric TV lawyer blurted it out on live TV. You can literally source it back to official communication of his own inner circle.

Well these people obviously haven't said anything that confirms the wild allegations of collusion in the context that people throw that word about, because Trump is still president. Whatever "collusion" happened is well within the norms of geopolitics and within the limits of law.

This sums up my understanding of the Russia thing. Please feel free to explain what's wrong with this meme...

[oskar]

idk what russiagate is. The Mueller investigation looked into russian election interference, which they found and there's a lot about that on public record and is disputed by pretty much noone. They looked into campaign ties which existed: Corsi, Stone, Manafort, Trump Jr, Kushner all had contacts with russians in regards to the DNC hack. They all lied about it or went the "do not recall" route. In addition the FBI looked into obstruction of justice regarding the russia investigation which they found to be inconclusive - report is said to be out this Thursday, I'm gonna be cynical and predict that you haven't seen that many black pages since... erm... the Notre Dame hymn books. Trying to be topical.

[OngBonga]

I don't think you understand how good it is to be in an economic union and how bad it is to be isolated from one in terms of trade.

I don't think you understand how much bigger the rest of the world is compared to Europe. Currently, we can't agree bilateral trade deals with USA, China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Brazil...

Also, the EU is a great deal more than an economic bloc.

Imagine you're a company who wants to build widgets. Caveat emptor, would you rather put your factory in a market with 1x labor and 1x consumers, or 5x labor and 5x consumers? It's not hard to see why companies are already pulling out of the UK pre-Brexit.

There's this belief that if a company fucks off, that's bad. Well it's not bad for whichever local company fills the void in the market. I don't give a fuck about companies that leave for greater profits elsewhere. Fuck them. I'm not a globalist, I'd prefer companies in this country to be owned by British people who have no intention of taking their business elsewhere because this is their home.

Latest polls have it about 60/40 Remain. That's not even close.

Do you know what the odds were for Brexit about an hour before the polls opened? Around 4/1.

That's 80/20.

Then why have any?

Because sometimes they are necessary. Why are you asking stupid questions?

It's up to them; they can have as many referenda as they want. Times change and so do opinions.

No, they can't have as many as they want. They might be able to have one a decade, but you can't keep asking the same question every three years. These aren't elections.

It seems better than the idea that the populace only ever gets one point in time to make a monumental decision at, and if they get more information and change their minds, tough shit.

I have had to endure my entire life in the EU, thanks to a referendum in the 70's. I had to wait until 3 years ago to vote to fucking leave. And the best thing is, the referendum we had in the 70's was for the EEC, not the EU. It was an economic bloc, not a political one.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think you understand how much bigger the rest of the world is compared to Europe.

All the more reason to be part of a bloc and not try to go it alone.

Also, the EU is a great deal more than an economic bloc.

Like what? Some laws that don't affect you at all? Oh big deal.

There's this belief that if a company fucks off, that's bad. Well it's not bad for whichever local company fills the void in the market. I don't give a fuck about companies that leave for greater profits elsewhere. Fuck them. I'm not a globalist, I'd prefer companies in this country to be owned by British people who have no intention of taking their business elsewhere because this is their home.

Lol, spoken like a true jingoist. "I don't want them damn foreigners bringing jobs to my country!"

Do you know what the odds were for Brexit about an hour before the polls opened? Around 4/1.

That's 80/20.

Guess BBC was lying then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-36271589

Because sometimes they are necessary. Why are you asking stupid questions?

But why let a popular vote given to largely uninformed (or misinformed) and uneducated people decide a complex issue? This isn't about what they name the next royal baby; it's actually something important.

No, they can't have as many as they want. They might be able to have one a decade, but you can't keep asking the same question every three years. These aren't elections.

Pretty sure there is no such rule.

I have had to endure my entire life in the EU, thanks to a referendum in the 70's. I had to wait until 3 years ago to vote to fucking leave. And the best thing is, the referendum we had in the 70's was for the EEC, not the EU. It was an economic bloc, not a political one.

We should have a referendum on NATO too - I'm tired of being part of an alliance.

We should have a referendum on whether or not we decide important things by referendum.

[OngBonga]

I have had to endure my entire life in the EU, thanks to a referendum in the 70's. I had to wait until 3 years ago to vote to fucking leave. And the best thing is, the referendum we had in the 70's was for the EEC, not the EU. It was an economic bloc, not a political one.

More on this. I know people who voted to join the EEC in the 70's, and voted leave this time around. Their reason? They resented being lied to in the 70's about the nature of the community we were joining. Everyone agrees trade deals with foreign states is mutually beneficial, the EEC was sold as an economic bloc, hence the name European Economic Community. Had they known it was to become a political union, they would never have been on board.

We were sold a bill of good in the 70's and now we're being stitched up again because undemocratic remainers are making a shit ton of noise.

[Poopadoop]

More on this. I know people who voted to join the EEC in the 70's, and voted leave this time around. Their reason? They resented being lied to in the 70's about the nature of the community we were joining. Everyone agrees trade deals with foreign states is mutually beneficial, the EEC was sold as an economic bloc, hence the name European Economic Community. Had they known it was to become a political union, they would never have been on board.

We were sold a bill of good in the 70's and now we're being stitched up again because undemocratic remainers are making a shit ton of noise.

ya I know people who think it's barely a political union at all. It's not like there's a common foreign policy or really much that's common besides free trade and labour.

[OngBonga]

If remain won, I would not be demanding another referendum. I'd be satisfied that I at least got to vote on it during my life, and respect the democratic will of the people.

I might still call remainers idiots, but that would be the limit of my fury.

[OngBonga]

All the more reason to be part of a bloc and not try to go it alone.

You seem to be missing the point. Out of the EU, we are free to negotiate. Within the EU, we are not. How is it better to be trapped in a continental bloc when there's a world out there?

Like what? Some laws that don't affect you at all? Oh big deal.

Don't affect me? Are you being willfully ignorant or something?

Here's some reading for you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law

I know you won't read it, I can't be fucked to either, but you might note how long the article is, and each section has its own link to its own page for further detail.

Lol, spoken like a true jingoist. "I don't want them damn foreigners bringing jobs to my country!"

I like how you say "spoken like a true jingoist" and then change my quote so it sounds like a true jingoist. You disingenuous twat.

Guess BBC was lying then.

There's a surprise.

But why let a popular vote given to largely uninformed (or misinformed) and uneducated people decide a complex issue? This isn't about what they name the next royal baby; it's actually something important.

This is pretty insulting to the country you have migrated to. You think British people are only qualified to talk about shit like Royal babies? You think we're uneducated and too stupid to be allowed democracy? With all due respect, which is none, fuck off.

Pretty sure there is no such rule.

No, but there are financial and practical limitations.

We should have a referendum on NATO too - I'm tired of being part of an alliance.

Fuck yes. NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russian body which ceases to have real purpose if Russia is not actually an enemy. Hence, constant propaganda maintaining the threat Russia pose. NATO causes more problems than it solves.

ya I know people who think it's barely a political union at all. It's not like there's a common foreign policy or really much that's common besides free trade and labour.

Are you aware how the EU has evolved over time? They're talking about a joint army now. That will result in joint foreign policy. You think it's all trade and labour? And here you call British people uneducated and misinformed.

[Poopadoop]

You seem to be missing the point. Out of the EU, we are free to negotiate. Within the EU, we are not. How is it better to be trapped in a continental bloc when there's a world out there?

Nvr mind, you're right.

I think we should also have some tariffs and borders between counties. I'm sick of people from Yorkshire coming here taking jobs and selling me their shit.

Don't affect me? Are you being willfully ignorant or something?

Here's some reading for you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_law

Name me one of those laws that directly affects you. Explain how it's had a negative impact on your life.

I know you won't read it, I can't be fucked to either,

So calling me willfully ignorant was just you projecting?

I like how you say "spoken like a true jingoist" and then change my quote so it sounds like a true jingoist.

Well, that's pretty much what you said. Except you couched it in terms like foreign business investment was somehow bad for the people who live here.

ONG-ANA.jpg

There's a surprise.

Why do you have data that says Remain was way ahead? Like 80-20 ahead?

This is pretty insulting to the country you have migrated to. You think British people are only qualified to talk about shit like Royal babies? You think we're uneducated and too stupid to be allowed democracy?

I think the British people are collectively about the same as people in every other country. There's some with above average intelligence and an equal number with below average intelligence. There's also a fair share of people who don't understand the issues they're voting on. If you think the UK is somehow special in that regard, then that is jingoistic.

ONG-ANA.jpg

Ok ong-bananga.

No, but there are financial and practical limitations.

The same applies to elections. Why should they happen so much more frequently? What happened to democracy?

Fuck yes. NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russian body which ceases to have real purpose if Russia is not actually an enemy. Hence, constant propaganda maintaining the threat Russia pose. NATO causes more problems than it solves.

Not sure if you're aware or not, but Russia just recently invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. So apparently they are something of a threat.

Are you aware how the EU has evolved over time? They're talking about a joint army now. That will result in joint foreign policy. You think it's all trade and labour? And here you call British people uneducated and misinformed.

ya, talking and doing and two different things. Also, I'm pretty sure membership in the joint army would not be mandatory.

Moreover, the various members of the EU have often taken independent lines of foreign policy. Some went to Iraq War II and some didn't, for example.

[Jack Sawyer]

Git off me lawn chaps

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/NYPDCT/status/1117852001885392898

Don't worry, Ong!
The fuzz is on it!

[Poopadoop]

Hahahahaha. NYPD counter-terrorism. Keeping NYC safe from fires in Europe.

I love how all the comments are just trolling the guy.

[Poopadoop]

I hope the Birmingham cops are out in force tonite to squelch the coming jihad.

[Poopadoop]

Looks like NDC was 'saved'.

But not before Captain Retard had some words of advice.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...44987293487104

[OngBonga]

If you truly believe in democracy, then you simply have no choice but to put your faith in the public's collective ability to make the right decision.

Or learn from the wrong decisions. Which is what a lot of people have done. That's why older people voted to leave. They were around when we last voted on this issue. They believe it was a mistake to join. If you disagree with them, fair enough. But if you disagree with the collective will of the people, then you either have to admit you're wrong, or accept the public have made a mistake they need to learn from.

We probably won't know if this was a mistake for a decade.

[OngBonga]

Name me one of those laws that directly affects you. Explain how it's had a negative impact on your life.

I'm not selfish when it comes to my vote. This isn't about me. This is about what I think is good for the UK. If you want an example of an EU law that I think is bad for the UK and bad for British communities, then the obvious one is fishing quotas. Fishermen in England were unable to fish British territorial waters because of EU law. This has a negative impact on the British economy, especially in coastal communities. And yes it does impact me, come to think of it; it means my fish and chips costs more. A minor problem for me, but like I say, I'm not selfish. It's a major problem for the coastal communities. That's why the North East voted en masse to leave. It's not because they're racist. It's because they're relatively poor, by British standards, and are seeing their core industry being raided by other European nations. All in the name of trade agreements.

Well, that's pretty much what you said. Except you couched it in terms like foreign business investment was somehow bad for the people who live here.

It's not what I said. It's how you interpreted it. That's a you problem, not a me problem. You're the one that defaults to jingoism whenever anyone shows any shred of preference for locals. I would prefer British people to own British companies because it means less money leaves the country, which is good for the economy. And it means more tax, which means improved services. It also means the company is less likely to fuck off, leaving people out of work. Local people have closer ties to the community, and accept greater responsibility when it comes to local economies. This isn't jingoism.

Why do you have data that says Remain was way ahead? Like 80-20 ahead?

I made a bet on betfair exchange. I got roughly 4/1. That's not a bookmaker. That's another actual person accepting my bet at those odds. I know you'll laugh at this, but that's real people putting their actual money on the line, not a state sponsored entity publishing propaganda. That for me is better evidence.

I think the British people are collectively about the same as people in every other country. There's some with above average intelligence and an equal number with below average intelligence. There's also a fair share of people who don't understand the issues they're voting on. If you think the UK is somehow special in that regard, then that is jingoistic.

Every other country? No. Every other western nation? Closer. No, I don't think the UK is special, I just recognise that we have world class education, which puts us in the top bracket, along with other nations with similar education standards. But this is besides the point. The point is that if you can't trust the public to make democratic decisions, then what is the point of democracy in the first place? If you truly believe in democracy, then you simply have no choice but to put your faith in the public's collective ability to make the right decision. If you don't have that faith, democracy isn't for you. You're basically saying that people are collectively too stupid for democracy. To suggest that for the UK, you might as well go right ahead and apply it to the rest of the world.

The same applies to elections. Why should they happen so much more frequently? What happened to democracy?

Elections have to happen regularly. 5 years is about right. If we have referenda every five years, that's going to have a negative impact on the economy, and cause social division. I mean, if we vote again now, and we vote to remain, does that mean we get another vote in three years? And then after another three years? Every three years? The EU won't tolerate this uncertainty indefinitely, will they? It is impractical to keep voting on this issue. It is not impractical to have an election every five years.

Not sure if you're aware or not, but Russia just recently invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. So apparently they are something of a threat.

Yeah. They are a "threat" to any region that actually wants to be part of Russia.

ya, talking and doing and two different things. Also, I'm pretty sure membership in the joint army would not be mandatory.

Moreover, the various members of the EU have often taken independent lines of foreign policy. Some went to Iraq War II and some didn't, for example.

Currently, foreign policy is a matter for member states, and is not subject to common policy. That will change, you'll see. If you want evidence, do some fucking research. Learn about what the EEC was, how it evolved into what it has become, and understand why it is a great deal more than trade and labour. Then perhaps you might understand that people like me are not racist, we are not jingoistic, we simply value culture, community, and above all, independence.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not selfish when it comes to my vote. This isn't about me. This is about what I think is good for the UK. If you want an example of an EU law that I think is bad for the UK and bad for British communities, then the obvious one is fishing quotas. Fishermen in England were unable to fish British territorial waters because of EU law. This has a negative impact on the British economy, especially in coastal communities. And yes it does impact me, come to think of it; it means my fish and chips costs more. A minor problem for me, but like I say, I'm not selfish. It's a major problem for the coastal communities. That's why the North East voted en masse to leave. It's not because they're racist. It's because they're relatively poor, by British standards, and are seeing their core industry being raided by other European nations. All in the name of trade agreements.

That's the best you got? Pretty lame.

For one, fisheries have been in decline for > 100 years.

For another, NE England has been poor relative to the South for much longer than the EU has been around. Whether individuals there blame it on the EU is irrelevant; if they are using the same logic as you it's positively misguided. Also, people in Scotland also fish and yet they voted overwhelmingly for Remain.

Show me actual proof that this policy has hurt UK fishing AND that this outweighs the benefits of the common market.

I would prefer British people to own British companies because it means less money leaves the country, which is good for the economy. And it means more tax, which means improved services. It also means the company is less likely to fuck off, leaving people out of work. Local people have closer ties to the community, and accept greater responsibility when it comes to local economies.

None of this is supported by evidence.

I made a bet on betfair exchange. I got roughly 4/1. That's not a bookmaker. That's another actual person accepting my bet at those odds. I know you'll laugh at this, but that's real people putting their actual money on the line, not a state sponsored entity publishing propaganda. That for me is better evidence.

Funny that you bristled at me for calling people dumb and then use their stupidity as evidence of a 'poll'. The fact you got such good odds on Leave only suggests people think polls are either/or propositions and don't understand margins of error.

The point is that if you can't trust the public to make democratic decisions, then what is the point of democracy in the first place? If you truly believe in democracy, then you simply have no choice but to put your faith in the public's collective ability to make the right decision.

One thing you can trust is for people to make better decisions the better informed they are. People are now better informed than they were 3 years ago; that's why another referendum makes sense.

You're basically saying that people are collectively too stupid for democracy. To suggest that for the UK, you might as well go right ahead and apply it to the rest of the world.

Not what I said at all.

Elections have to happen regularly. 5 years is about right. If we have referenda every five years, that's going to have a negative impact on the economy, and cause social division.

The referendum reflected social division. It doesn't cause it anymore than an election does.

I mean, if we vote again now, and we vote to remain, does that mean we get another vote in three years? And then after another three years? Every three years? The EU won't tolerate this uncertainty indefinitely, will they? It is impractical to keep voting on this issue. It is not impractical to have an election every five years.

The problem is that a 52/48 split is hardly an overwhelming majority. They basically won by a whisker. If it had been 60/40 or higher I would have said 'ok fuck it they won'. But 52/48 suggests it could easily go the other way next time. And unless you have a clear majority you shouldn't start fucking around with things that most of the voters didn't really understand when they voted the first time anyways.

Yeah. They are a "threat" to any region that actually wants to be part of Russia.

According to who? The referendum where Russian soldiers watched the people vote? Yea that was fair.

Currently, foreign policy is a matter for member states, and is not subject to common policy. That will change, you'll see.

Oh you're psychic now?

If you want evidence, do some fucking research.

Yeah, cause obviously I'm not to going to get any from you lol.

[oskar]

I asked my uncle who follows UK politics what the deal was with brexit because I honestly still don't get any of it. He started droning on about how they're selling polish sausage on Oxford street or whatever, and I just zoned out. Meanwhile Ong is worried about fish & chips. I think it's time to concede that this is something I'll never get my head around.

Looks like NDC was 'saved'.

But not before Captain Retard had some words of advice.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...44987293487104

It still surprises me that Trumples aren't deeply embarrassed by stuff like that.

But then I remember:

https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/st...57842566815746
https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/s...60297388572673 (Glenn Beck: I'm not saying it's muslims, but if it is muslims, they'll never say it's muslims, so it's muslims)
https://removeddit.com/r/The_Donald/...xru/?context=1 (almost every single comment is blaming muslims, these are the highlights)

[OngBonga]

Meanwhile Ong is worried about fish & chips.

I'm not worried about fish and chips, I'm concerned about people's livelihoods. I couldn't give a fuck about Polish sausage being sold on Oxford Street.

Show me actual proof that this policy has hurt UK fishing AND that this outweighs the benefits of the common market.

True colours shown here, socialist. So if you send me £600 a month, I promise to stop claiming benefits. That means it's a net gain for the economy, even though it's obviously a net loss for you. So you should do it, just like fishermen in Grimsby should accept EU quotas for the benefit of whoever the fuck it is that is actually better off thanks to the EU. People who work in the City I guess.

For one, fisheries have been in decline for > 100 years.

So? It's in even more decline than it should be. That's because a lot of fish from British waters are not being sold at British markets.

For another, NE England has been poor relative to the South for much longer than the EU has been around.

True. But you seem to think this means that the EU is not making them poorer. If they are poorer, then they should be supported, not abandoned.

One thing you can trust is for people to make better decisions the better informed they are. People are now better informed than they were 3 years ago; that's why another referendum makes sense.

It doesn't make sense. It would be political, economic and social madness, more so than what we're witnessing. And, like I said yet you completely ignored, the EU will not tolerate indefinite uncertainty, it is not practical to keep voting on this issue. It might make sense in your undemocratic world, but in mine we have made a decision and we must accept it, whether we think it is right or not.

Not what I said at all.

Oh, you don't like it when people twist your words to make it sound worse than what you intended? Don't do it to other people then.

The referendum reflected social division. It doesn't cause it anymore than an election does.

There's an element of truth to this, but at the same time the referendum amplified that social division. More so than elections do. I can't ever remember an election causing this much division.

The problem is that a 52/48 split is hardly an overwhelming majority.

It doesn't matter. It is a majority. You once again imply that you do not subscribe to democracy.

And unless you have a clear majority you shouldn't start fucking around with things that most of the voters didn't really understand when they voted the first time anyways.

So in your democratic world, 60% is the winning line for referenda? What if it's 59.99%? Is that no longer a clear enough majority for you?

According to who? The referendum where Russian soldiers watched the people vote? Yea that was fair.

They speak Russian. Their culture is Russian. They are historically Russian. It's a lot easier for me to believe a region of Russian speakers would vote in a referendum to become part of Russia, than it is to believe they prefer to remain part of Ukraine, who were treating them as second class citizens because they spoke Russian and identified with Russian culture. If you think they were actually coerced into it against their true will, you've been seduced by anti Russian propaganda.

Oh you're psychic now?

You'd have said the same to me if we had this discussion in 1995, and I said they were moving towards a common currency. That happened. Fortunately we managed to stay the fuck away from that.

The EU is a superstate, it is not an economic bloc like it used to be. It exerts authority over a great deal more things than economics. It would be nice if you knew this, considering you're trying to patronise me about the EU.

Yeah, cause obviously I'm not to going to get any from you lol.

I did my research when I was considering my vote. I'm not here to spoon feed you. If you want to understand why people voted to leave, do your research. If you can't be bothered or don't give a fuck, stop treating people who voted to leave like they are stupid and made a mistake, and instead accept the democratic will of the people.

[Poopadoop]

So basically Ong, you have nothing to back up your statements but your own assurances.

We've been down this path before; if you want to make an argument you need to be able to back up your claims with evidence. It's not the other person's job to do the research to prove you're just talking shit again, so you can go 'hurr durr i was trolling haha'.

[OngBonga]

No. If you want evidence, do your fucking research. I've done mine. I can't be bothered to google on your behalf.

[Poopadoop]

Ya, I know how you feel. I've done research that proves the Earth is flat and Hillary is a lizard queen. If you want to see the evidence, go find it yourself.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No. If you want evidence, do your fucking research. I've done mine. I can't be bothered to google on your behalf.

That's not an intelligent discourse. That's a copout.

The so-called facts you've provided are contrary to your audience's expectations. You haven't shown them any reason to believe it's a reliable report on the factors at hand.
Which is fine, unless your goal is to be understood.

If you want to be understood, then you need to share your motivations and sources. You need to listen to the skeptics and take them seriously. You don't combat ignorance with, "Go figure it out."
You get that, right? If you say something that goes against my understanding if physics, I don't condescend you and tell you to go figure it out. Why would you?
You don't change someone's mind by saying, "lol. look how dumb you are."

[oskar]

You don't change someone's mind by saying, "lol. look how dumb you are."

... but it's the next best thing.

[oskar]

I know it's bad how much I look at T_D, you don't need to tell me, but just look at this shit:



... endless comedy!

[boost]

I know it's bad how much I look at T_D, you don't need to tell me, but just look at this shit:



... endless comedy!

to be fair, this is an awful headline that can easily be read either way. If you read it with a coma after "measure", it means what they think it means.

[oskar]

great take on why charitable billionaires are a bad thing. Case in point with Notre Dame imho. Should that really be a priority? I get it's sad, but you can do a lot more with 400 million than put a roof on a church. In any case, if you do it right, it wouldn't cost $400 million. Brutalists already on the job:

[Poopadoop]

I would laugh if they spent 400 million to rebuild it and then it got hit by a meteor the next day.

[OngBonga]

What does poop even want "evidence" for? That the EU quotas are actually hurting fishermen? Here's as much googling as I can be bothered with.



That's Sir Fucking Bob flicking the v's at Nigel Farage on the River Thames. Nigel was part of a protest fleet of fishermen who had sailed down from the North East to protest at EU quotas. Now why in the fuckity fuck would these fishermen go to all this trouble if they're not pissed off? And to be greeted by a rich mortherfucker with a fucking titled name, a corrupt piece of shit who made millions off famine, and his rich cunt buddies, challenging their democratic right to protest, daring to treat hard working people like they are the enemy, then maybe you can begin to understand why they voted "fuck off".

For what it's worth, this single image might have swung the referendum.

You guys seem to think this is a court of law. It's not. We're having a discussion. Poop challenged me with regards to the EU. He responded to my comment by patronising me about why the EU is good, as though he's an authority on the matter. He's since demonstrated that he believes it is "trade and labour", thus proving himself to be completely out of his depth. He needs to do his fucking research, or withdraw from such conversations. I will not spoon feed him. I'm not here to prove anything to anyone, I'm here to tell poop to respect my democratic dignity and that of 52% of the country. It is not his place to say it's not enough of a majority. We cannot keep voting on this issue until we get a 60/40. He's talking bollocks about a subject he knows fuck all about, and expects me to do his googling. Sorry but no.

[Poopadoop]

ONG-ANA.jpg

This is why discussing things with you is pointless. You got asked for evidence that the EU was definitely hurting fishermen's livelihood and you respond with a picture of Bob Geldof and a big rant. Like that proves anything.

Even assuming these fishermen were so angry about quotas that they organized a protest in London with Farage doesn't itself prove the EU hurt them. The protest only (assuming it's actually true and you have the details straight, which is a big 'if' about anything you claim since you never seem to consider providing any hard evidence) shows they THINK the EU is bad for them. It's kind of like saying the Nazi rallies at Nuremberg proved that Jews were bad for Germany because wow look at all those people.

[OngBonga]

And this idea that people have changed their mind. Have you any idea how many times I've made a bad mvoe in chess and want to take it back? Or the times I've raised when I wished I folded?

You don't get to change your mind in such matters. That's not how it works. Be informed when you make your decision. I pretty much knew I was going to vote to leave, but that didn't stop me from researching. I had to be as sure as I could be that I wasn't making a mistake. And if right now I felt I had made a mistake, I wouldn't have the fucking neck to demand I get to change my mind.

Honestly, I still don't know if I made a mistake by voting leave. But I'm more sure now than I was when I voted. I'll know for sure in a decade.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Brexit isn't some game. That seems pretty core to your argument. Comparing it to a game seems to dilute the differences between global politics and leisure activities.

People do change their minds. Laws change to reflect public sentiment over time. All kinds of laws. Some as big of a deal as slavery. Some as little of a deal as tax rates on cakes.


Sure.. we shouldn't set a precedent of having the voters vote on something, then politicians don't do it. We shouldn't set a precedent that voters vote one way, then politicians don't like it so they hold more votes until they get the vote they want. That's terrible, and you're right.

However... this was a clusterfuck from the start. As I understand it, most of it was fallout from someone writing some lies on a bus and driving it around.
Even the pro-Brexit politicians had no actual plan if the vote went in their favor. That pretty much tells me that even they didn't expect it to go their way, that they were bluffing.


A lot of information has come to light in the past 3 years that was not known. The difficulty of striking any favorable deals as the UK leaves the EU must change the minds of people who originally voted thinking otherwise. 3 years of stalled movement with no compromises is enough to pull over to the side of the road and make sure you've got the right map, and that you're heading the right direction.


I've no vested interest in this. Whether or not you /should/ take another vote or press on with the last one is not for me to say. It just strikes me that there is a compelling argument to be made that this is not a scam, that the first vote was the scam, and the constituency is far more informed now than they were back when.

[Poopadoop]

I mean obviously you can't boil down the + and - of membership in the EU into a simple number. But you can do better than just say 'look at these angry people' and 'omfg i don't get a takeback in chess why should the UK get a takeback in whether it's in the EU or not?'

So simplifying the problem by saying let's look at fishermens' livelihoods (not that they're somehow more important than anyone else in the UK, but just to narrow the issue a bit) is one place to start. Are they better or worse off under the EU? If all you can offer is 'it seems a lot of them think not' that's not evidence for reasons I've already explained. There may be other factors at play in their livelihoods than EU fishing quotas like depleted stocks (which, as I understand it, is the main purpose of having a quota in the first place, so the next generation can still have something to fish). What they believe is irrelevant to what the facts are. People believe all kinds of stupid things, sometimes en masse.

So you'll have to do better than that, sorry.

[OngBonga]

Brexit isn't some game.

No, but democratic actions are not something you can simply change your mind about shortly afterwards.

Sure.. we shouldn't set a precedent of having the voters vote on something, then politicians don't do it. We shouldn't set a precedent that voters vote one way, then politicians don't like it so they hold more votes until they get the vote they want. That's terrible, and you're right.

We also shouldn't set a precedent that 52/48 is not a a majority. We also shouldn't set a precedent that we have repeat votes for the benefit of people who may have changed their mind. It's a simple case of "tough shit". I think the American way of saying that is "deal with it".

You want a better analogy, how about changing your mind about nailing that blonde piece after your wife finds out. It's a bit late.

However... this was a clusterfuck from the start. As I understand it, most of it was fallout from someone writing some lies on a bus and driving it around.

This is ridiculous. Brexit happened because there was a social appetite for it.

Even the pro-Brexit politicians had no actual plan if the vote went in their favor. That pretty much tells me that even they didn't expect it to go their way, that they were bluffing.

I don't doubt some were. Others would argue the plan is simply to leave and adapt, take the initial hardship while rebuilding our economy for the better. We used to be the world's largest economy, we started the industrial revolution. Now 80% of our GDP comes from the services sector. We're a nation of bankers and retail assistants. Very few people now work in agriculture or industry. We make fuck all. That needs to change. We need to create British products that people around the world want to buy. Like cars, to throw out one example. Some would call that a plan.

A lot of information has come to light in the past 3 years that was not known. The difficulty of striking any favorable deals as the UK leaves the EU must change the minds of people who originally voted thinking otherwise.

This is nonsense. Everyone who voted leave expect the Europeans to be bloody difficult. And everyone also knew that it was impossible for us to negotiate trade deals with other countries until we had actually left. So we all expected a clusterfuck of uncertainty. It's the price we were willing to pay.

To the minority of people who naively thought it would be easy and now regret their choice, tough shit., You don't get to change your mind because you weren't informed when you voted.

It just strikes me that there is a compelling argument to be made that this is not a scam, that the first vote was the scam, and the constituency is far more informed now than they were back when.

The first vote wasn't a scam. Do you want to remain in the EU or leave? There isn't a "wait to see what happens and then make a decision". There's obviously new information that comes to light. That works both ways. What if we vote to remain, and then they start building an army? We vote again? We can't keep doing this, how is that not obvious?

If there's still appetite for it in a decade, maybe.But for now, we have made our choice, and we must follow it through to completion. Only after we have adapted (or not) can we know if we made a mistake. Maybe then we can vote again.

[Poopadoop]

You want a better analogy, how about changing your mind about nailing that blonde piece after your wife finds out. It's a bit late.

This is weak sauce, comparing a referendum to adultery. What a reach.

How about an analogy being you ask 100 people in your neighborhood if they want some deal and 52 say yes. You tell them ahead of time it's not a legally binding vote. Later information comes in that makes the deal look worse than it did when they voted. Are you going to say 'well fuck it 52% of us wanted it, so let's go ahead anyways regardless of whether it's now 40% now that more is known about the deal'? Seems kinda dumb.

[Poopadoop]

I don't doubt some were. Others would argue the plan is simply to leave and adapt, take the initial hardship while rebuilding our economy for the better. We used to be the world's largest economy, we started the industrial revolution. Now 80% of our GDP comes from the services sector. We're a nation of bankers and retail assistants. Very few people now work in agriculture or industry. We make fuck all. That needs to change. We need to create British products that people around the world want to buy. Like cars, to throw out one example. Some would call that a plan.

What a delusional argument this is. Not only is this an unrealistic plan, there's no reason to think Brexit would help it become a reality. We're not going to lead the world's economy anymore, get over it. Learn Mandarin and deal with the fact that times change.

[Poopadoop]

What if we vote to remain, and then they start building an army?

Lol, such a paranoid fantasy that we're going to lose our sovereignty because we're in the EU.

[OngBonga]

not that they're somehow more important than anyone else in the UK, but just to narrow the issue a bit

I'm sorry if I give more of a fuck about a fisherman who risks his life to feed his family and the nation than I do about a banker who gets a bonus for fucking the economy. And it's not just jobs. It's entire communities that suffer. Go to Grimsby, and fishing is what it's all about. There's basically fuck all else in Grimsby. If fishing suffers, the town suffers. That happens all around the coast. When fishing is suffering because the Dutch are fishing British waters, there's a problem. And the problem isn't the Dutch. It's the agreement that allows it to happen.

(which, as I understand it, is the main purpose of having a quota in the first place, so the next generation can still have something to fish)

Partly, but we've been fishing sustainably for a very long time. We don't need sustainability quotas imposed on us from others. But that isn't what these quotas are about. At the time of the vote, the Dutch were fishing these waters. So it's not like it was a matter of sustainability.

So you'll have to do better than that, sorry.

You need to do better. You once again show you're out of your depth by suggesting these quotas are about sustainability. You think it's the leave campaign that is misinformed, while blinded to your own ignorance.

[Poopadoop]

I'm sorry if I give more of a fuck about a fisherman who risks his life to feed his family and the nation than I do about a banker who gets a bonus for fucking the economy.

Well if we're dividing up the population in terms of who is most important, then that doesn't sound like democracy to me.

Further, what about the firemen who risk their lives to save some div who leaves the oven on and sets their houses on fire? Should they have to pay more for everything and have a worse standard of living so you can get local made fish and chips?

And it's not just jobs. It's entire communities that suffer. Go to Grimsby, and fishing is what it's all about. There's basically fuck all else in Grimsby. If fishing suffers, the town suffers. That happens all around the coast.

Again, you've presented no evidence the decline in the fishing economies is due to the EU.

When fishing is suffering because the Dutch are fishing British waters, there's a problem. And the problem isn't the Dutch. It's the agreement that allows it to happen.

Partly, but we've been fishing sustainably for a very long time. We don't need sustainability quotas imposed on us from others. But that isn't what these quotas are about. At the time of the vote, the Dutch were fishing these waters. So it's not like it was a matter of sustainability.

Oh there's more to the story. It was the Dutch fishing in UK waters that caused Grimsby (and by proxy NE England) to vote Leave, is that it now?

Your talent for oversimplification to suit your whims is astounding.

You need to do better. You once again show you're out of your depth by suggesting these quotas are about sustainability. You think it's the leave campaign that is misinformed, while blinded to your own ignorance.

You think the quotas are there so the Dutch fishermen can prosper at the expense of the UK. That's what funny about you suggesting I'm out of my depth. Your arguments don't even pass the laugh test. I guess that's why you can't be bothered to provide evidence.

[Poopadoop]

Well,there's a fucking surprise.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-pinching-our-fish/

The UK’s share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU.

And another:

Total Allowable Catches are intended to ensure that fishing is sustainable within each fishing zone and that the areas are not overfished. There are doubts within the industry as to whether or not the EU’s fishing policy has actually achieved this. But, some species, such as North Sea cod, seem to be recovering and an assessment is underway to determine whether or not it is now sustainable.

Shock/horror

If we left the EU it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the situation would improve. The House of Commons Library has said that “many of the underlying issues that affect fisheries management would remain unchanged.”

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, no misinformation campaign there

https://fullfact.org/europe/vote-lea...acts-leaflets/

[Poopadoop]

I don't know about you, but I'd be happy to be £850-1700/yr poorer just to save me from being drafted into the Imperial European Army.

https://fullfact.org/europe/stronger...aflet-leaving/

[Poopadoop]

So I heard the cost to rebuild NDC is going to be $1bn. Yes, one billion fucking dollars. And the plan is to do it. Is it just me or are there better things to spend a billion on?

[OngBonga]

The UK’s share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU.

Oh, so British fishing isn't in decline? Great news. Problem solved. Point to random figures off some random site, and ignore actual fishermen who were protesting as we built up to the referendum.

I'm literally going to bed. I'll give those figures the benefit of the doubt for now and dig tomorrow, What I'd ask now is this... how much of the EU's marine territory is British? How much is our share relative to this figure? If we cut loose, will our fishing haul go up, or down? Then you can tell me if there's anything to be gained for the fishing industry in the UK by leaving the EU.

[Poopadoop]

Point to random figures off some random site

Are you saying they just made those up? Not impossible but then what are the real figures?


This quote is from the House of Commons Library.

If we left the EU it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the situation would improve. The House of Commons Library has said that “many of the underlying issues that affect fisheries management would remain unchanged.”

Makes me wonder what some of those underlying issues are. Obviously it's not as simple as 'they're stealing our fish'.

and ignore actual fishermen who were protesting as we built up to the referendum.

Like I said, you don't have to be right to be a protester.

If we cut loose, will our fishing haul go up, or down? Then you can tell me if there's anything to be gained for the fishing industry in the UK by leaving the EU.

Another question might be who will buy our fish with a 20% tariff?

[Jack Sawyer]

Overfishing is a thing

[OngBonga]

Overfishing is a thing

Says Greenpeace? That's rather like NATO telling us Russia is a threat. Whatever it takes to get a large budget.

Overfishing is a thing, but we're not engaged with such activities. We've been sustainably fishing for a long, long time. Don't get me wrong, we've had our problems over the years, like 3 "Cod wars" with Iceland, which ultimately they won. That was the beginning of fishing decline in the UK. We had to conceded large swathes of marine territory because Iceland threatened to pull out of NATO. Did we start overfishing the waters we can fish? No, because we're not stupid.

We don't need to be partonised about such issues, not least from fucking Greenpeace. I note the words "UK", "Britain" and "England" are not part of the article which admittedly I didn't read.

[Poopadoop]

I note the words "UK", "Britain" and "England" are not part of the article which admittedly I didn't read.

Do you see it in this article?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...r-overfishing/

[OngBonga]

Do you see it in this article?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp...r-overfishing/

A think-tank has placed the UK at the top of an international league table of overfishing.

I read that and couldn't be bothered any more. A think tank? Utter bollocks. We've been fishing for centuries. I also noted Scottish Fishing has something to say about it. The Scottish want to remain in the EU, so naturally they jump on anything that supports their case.

And this is still besides the point. If this is about sustainability, then nobody should be fishing those waters. That isn't what's happening, or at least it wasn't when we voted. I actually don't know what's going on there now, I haven't researched this in depth since the vote.

[OngBonga]

Are you saying they just made those up? Not impossible but then what are the real figures?

I'm not saying it's made up any more than you're saying these fishermen are liars. If fishing is going up, then it's not in decline, and there's no problem.So why is fishing in decline, and why do we have a problem?

Another question might be who will buy our fish with a 20% tariff?

British people. We eat a lot of fish.

If we left the EU it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the situation would improve.

I don't think anyone pretends to be certain things will improve. How can anyone know? People are just willing to take the risk. 52% of people, in fact.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not saying it's made up any more than you're saying these fishermen are liars. If fishing is going up, then it's not in decline, and there's no problem.So why is fishing in decline, and why do we have a problem?

Overfishing is the simplest explanation. see link posted by jack.

British people. We eat a lot of fish.

People don't suddenly start stuffing themselves with certain foods because their country can no longer export it due to tariffs. They might eat more if the price goes down (a price drop which is bad for fishermen) due to lack of trade, but in aggregate that won't make the fishermen better off. Catch more fish and sell it cheaper is not a solution.

I don't think anyone pretends to be certain things will improve.

Certain enough to support Brexit though, that's the problem.

Here's some idea of how complicated the single issue of fishing is re: Brexit. Best case scenario is we get a trade deal similar to one we have now, which seems pretty unlikely given we'd be giving them two fingers up. Worst is we get treated like every other riff raff country. How many of those well-informed protesters and/or Leavers read this report I wonder (or an analogous report, assuming one exists, for NE England)? Of the ones who did, how many had the level of intelligence/training to understand it? It's pretty dense and complicated.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/ec...-exit/pages/6/

[Poopadoop]

Well, that's interesting. They don't like the quotas but they like the free trade. Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/n...seafood-736984

[Poopadoop]

This whole nostalgia for fishing in Grimsby strikes me as similar to the nostalgia for the glory days of coal in West Virginia. While I'm sympathetic to people losing employment opportunities because times have changed and missing the good old days, they have to understand that we can't just turn back the clock and make everything better. They might have to go find something else to do.

[OngBonga]

I missed your post above when I replied to Jack, I was about to go out.

Overfishing is the simplest explanation. see link posted by jack.

Overfishing is not the reason why you allow somebody else to fish particular waters. That doesn't make sense.

People don't suddenly start stuffing themselves with certain foods because their country can no longer export it due to tariffs.

We eat a lot of fish. I don't know how much we export, and who to, but tariffs are something we can negotiate after we leave. Maybe New Zealand will buy our fish and we'll buy their lamb. I have no idea, that's for when we actually leave. That's not a choice we made, we literally cannot negotiate these things until we leave.

Certain enough to support Brexit though, that's the problem.

You're the one who thinks leaving the EU is a problem. I don't. I agree it's a clusterfuck, but it's not a problem until it is clear that we are worse off. That won't be clear for a long time, there are still many obstacles to overcome, such as trade deals with other countries.

Best case scenario is we get a trade deal similar to one we have now, which seems pretty unlikely given we'd be giving them two fingers up. Worst is we get treated like every other riff raff country.

Your focus here is the EU. That's your problem, it's like you think they're the only people we can trade with. If we get a similar trade deal while not being politically integrated into their superstate, that's great,perhaps even optimal. If they treat us like riff-raff, fuck them. Hello USA, hello New Zealand and Australia, hello China.

[Poopadoop]

Your focus here is the EU. That's your problem, it's like you think they're the only people we can trade with. If we get a similar trade deal while not being politically integrated into their superstate, that's great,perhaps even optimal. If they treat us like riff-raff, fuck them. Hello USA, hello New Zealand and Australia, hello China.

Yeah I'm sure all these countries are just hoping we'll leave the EU so they can have our fish all to themselves. You think the moment we lose one market we gain another? It doesn't work that way.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...-imported.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...theres-a-catch


They're unlikely to give us a good deal if we leave the EU. They won't even give Norway a good deal and it's in the EEA.

Also, the actual source I cited took into account our ability to trade with other countries. It's not like they're fucking clueless . If you actually scanned over the report you'd realise they know more about it than you or me.

And oh yea, the fishing industry isn't just about some hardasses on a boat. There's also processing, which is heavily invested in the EU.

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...om/78/7811.htm

[Poopadoop]

We eat a lot of fish. I don't know how much we export, and who to, but tariffs are something we can negotiate after we leave.

I've learned more in a half hour of scanning links than you ever knew about the whole question.

Glad you've done the research to back up your opinion.

What exactly are your reasons for backing Brexit? I mean specifically, not just vague things about 'fishermen protesting' and 'superstate' and 'imperial army' shit. What good do you expect to come from it?