[Politics] Brexit

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Because without FPTP there would be no 'Labour' or 'Tory' party as we see them now. The only reason that Starmer/Corbyn and Stewart/Badenoch ended up in bed together is the idea they could get absolute power over the nation with less than one in five of the electorate voting for them. Proper representation would see the end of those behemoths of ferrets fighting in sacks in search of absolute power

Imagine you being able to vote for Starmer, your brother for Corbyn, Sensible tories for Stewart and Nige and Kemi fighting over the racists, morons and swivel eyed loons.

And I NEVER underestimate the stupidity of the British Electorate

These two parties have steered the UK over the last 100 years.
Won a war. NHS. Nationalization. Privatization. Joined the common market. Left the EU.
There is no reason whatsoever that ditching Fab and appointing the Barnet manager (via PR)
would transform The Albion into a multi league winning machine.

I rest my case.

 

[heathgate]

PR does enable minority parties or individuals with extreme views to get a seat in parliament you are right (provided of course they pass the fit to stand tests). However, that is very different to having power which under PR tends to be a coalition of the reasonable rather than of the racist, mad or corrupt.

Most people who may vote Reform are not racist but (in their view) they have to vote for a party containing racists to get the change they want. If every vote counts it is feasible to get that change by voting for other parties.

If Reform still got 29% of the vote (using this poll example) they would have to moderate their policies in practice or they would not be able to form a coalition and would not be able be part of a government

I would say that every party has a scattering of racists amongst their number, it's the human condition....but as you say, if you want a certain policy set enacted, you are inevitably inclined to vote accordingly....no different to the Albion, I have regularly encountered very unpalatable groups of supporters, so called Brighton fans, who I definitely steer clear of, especially on away trips...doesn't stop me investing my time, energy and money in the club.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Quite right. I also think others could learn from your deal-making expertise. In a similar vein we should have had Rutter join us without having to pay Leeds a fee.

Do you genuinely think that Rutter transferring to Brighton would be to the advantage of both Leeds and Brighton. If it was, then it would be an easy deal.

 

[dsr-burnley]

no this post points out how stupid you are. Did you not read what you wrote before you posted?

The existing fishing deal runs out this year so needed to be agreed. It’s the same as before so no change. One of the problems for uk farmers is the paperwork involved which has now been addresed. Only someone biblically stupid would think this a bad idea.

As a general rule you cant achieve a win-win without negotiation. what world do you live in?

You're working on the default position that all people are stupid unless they agree with you. Obviously that makes sense to you, but not to me. For the record, I don't think that you disagreeing with me makes you a moron, and even if I did think so I wouldn't be rude enough to tell you so. But different boards have different rules, and this is a Brighton board so by all means carry on in the Brighton way.

Why did the fishing deal need agreeing? We had a deal ready in place for next year, that all of Britain's fishing waters would be British as would the conservation rights and quota rights. The question is, whether that needed to be renegotiated.

Defence agreements have been known to work without invoking fishing rights. For example, when Finland and Sweden joined NATO, it was managed without fishing being brought into it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're working on the default position that all people are stupid unless they agree with you. Obviously that makes sense to you, but not to me. For the record, I don't think that you disagreeing with me makes you a moron, and even if I did think so I wouldn't be rude enough to tell you so. But different boards have different rules, and this is a Brighton board so by all means carry on in the Brighton way.

Why did the fishing deal need agreeing? We had a deal ready in place for next year, that all of Britain's fishing waters would be British as would the conservation rights and quota rights. The question is, whether that needed to be renegotiated.

Defence agreements have been known to work without invoking fishing rights. For example, when Finland and Sweden joined NATO, it was managed without fishing being brought into it.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

You're working on the default position that all people are stupid unless they agree with you. Obviously that makes sense to you, but not to me. For the record, I don't think that you disagreeing with me makes you a moron, and even if I did think so I wouldn't be rude enough to tell you so. But different boards have different rules, and this is a Brighton board so by all means carry on in the Brighton way.

Why did the fishing deal need agreeing? We had a deal ready in place for next year, that all of Britain's fishing waters would be British as would the conservation rights and quota rights. The question is, whether that needed to be renegotiated.

Defence agreements have been known to work without invoking fishing rights. For example, when Finland and Sweden joined NATO, it was managed without fishing being brought into it.

The fishing agreement is basically what we have in place. It’s included in with the rest because it would need to be formally agreed. If it’s not formally agreed then it doesn’t happen. It’s not linked to the rest ( farming and defence) but included as this acts as a contracting mechanism. They could of course has two sessions, one for the fishing rights and one for the rest but to save time they covered both.
The issue here is that the deal is a good one (certainly compared to what has gone before) which is why you and the rest of the right are having a meltdown.
Putin must be livid. How are you with Nathan Gill on charges of corruption for pushing putin’s rhetoric ( anti EU) whilst a BREXIT MEP. Sounds a bit like a traitor don’t you think? No wonder farage is quiet., they were good mates and had similar messaging …

 

[dsr-burnley]

The fishing agreement is basically what we have in place. It’s included in with the rest because it would need to be formally agreed. If it’s not formally agreed then it doesn’t happen. It’s not linked to the rest ( farming and defence) but included as this acts as a contracting mechanism. They could of course has two sessions, one for the fishing rights and one for the rest but to save time they covered both.
The issue here is that the deal is a good one (certainly compared to what has gone before) which is why you and the rest of the right are having a meltdown.
Putin must be livid. How are you with Nathan Gill on charges of corruption for pushing putin’s rhetoric ( anti EU) whilst a BREXIT MEP. Sounds a bit like a traitor don’t you think? No wonder farage is quiet., they were good mates and had similar messaging …

The fishing deal did not need to be agreed. The default position was that the fishing grounds would all be British and that's what Starmer had as a starting point to give away, in exchange for paperwork rules that benefit both us and them, and also a promise that they will think about letting us use egates at busy times next summer.

Not happy about anyone being charged with corruption. Whether it be an MEP or a government minister in charge of stopping corruption, a charge of corruption is bad news.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

The fishing deal did not need to be agreed. The default position was that the fishing grounds would all be British and that's what Starmer had as a starting point to give away, in exchange for paperwork rules that benefit both us and them, and also a promise that they will think about letting us use egates at busy times next summer.

Not happy about anyone being charged with corruption. Whether it be an MEP or a government minister in charge of stopping corruption, a charge of corruption is bad news.

From Gov website
The UK and EU have also reached a new twelve year agreement that protects Britain's fishing access, fishing rights and fishing areas with no increase in the amount of fish EU vessels can catch in British waters, providing stability and certainty for the sector.

Perhaps you could point out the disasters in this.

If the stories are true then Putin was one of the main instigators for the Brexit

The fishing deal did not need to be agreed. The default position was that the fishing grounds would all be British and that's what Starmer had as a starting point to give away, in exchange for paperwork rules that benefit both us and them, and also a promise that they will think about letting us use egates at busy times next summer.

Not happy about anyone being charged with corruption. Whether it be an MEP or a government minister in charge of stopping corruption, a charge of corruption is bad news.

Care share where Starmer has given everything away? I’ve looked at can’t find it. Tice could pin point it either.

Just to emphasise those that pushed Brexit may very well have been funded by Putin.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You're working on the default position that all people are stupid unless they agree with you. Obviously that makes sense to you, but not to me. For the record, I don't think that you disagreeing with me makes you a moron, and even if I did think so I wouldn't be rude enough to tell you so. But different boards have different rules, and this is a Brighton board so by all means carry on in the Brighton way.

Why did the fishing deal need agreeing? We had a deal ready in place for next year, that all of Britain's fishing waters would be British as would the conservation rights and quota rights. The question is, whether that needed to be renegotiated.

Defence agreements have been known to work without invoking fishing rights. For example, when Finland and Sweden joined NATO, it was managed without fishing being brought into it.

The fishing deal did run until next year. but there was not an agreement in place, as you claim.
What has happened is the present deal, which works well, has been extended to 2038 unchanged.

What our 600 fishermen catch isn't consumed by British people but exported to Europe. British people tend to eat cod and haddock which aren't caught in British waters.
Yes, there are just 600 fishermen in the country, a similar number of tattoo artists, yet the media make such a loud noise about their rights. Funnily enough, they had an MEP to care of their rights, but out of 43 meetings in the EU Parliament, he could only be bothered to turn up to one of them.

 

[dsr-burnley]

From Gov website
The UK and EU have also reached a new twelve year agreement that protects Britain's fishing access, fishing rights and fishing areas with no increase in the amount of fish EU vessels can catch in British waters, providing stability and certainty for the sector.

Perhaps you could point out the disasters in this.

If the stories are true then Putin was one of the main instigators for the Brexit

Care share where Starmer has given everything away? I’ve looked at can’t find it. Tice could pin point it either.

Just to emphasise those that pushed Brexit may very well have been funded by Putin.

I suppose if you shout "Putin, Putin, Putin" often enough it negates the need to prove anything. Putin doesn't fund Reform and Farage doesn't like Putin.

Until this week, the entire fish stocks and fish conservation control over UK waters in 2026 and beyond would belong to the UK. Now it doesn't. Can you not see the difference?

 

[The Clamp]

The fishing deal did run until next year. but there was not an agreement in place, as you claim.
What has happened is the present deal, which works well, has been extended to 2038 unchanged.

What our 600 fishermen catch isn't consumed by British people but exported to Europe. British people tend to eat cod and haddock which aren't caught in British waters.
Yes, there are just 600 fishermen in the country, a similar number of tattoo artists, yet the media make such a loud noise about their rights. Funnily enough, they had an MEP to care of their rights, but out of 43 meetings in the EU Parliament, he could only be bothered to turn up to one of them.

It’s such a shame this sort of insight isn’t more widely known.


“More widely known”

That scans as bad English but I can’t think of another way of writing it.

 

[nicko31]

The fishing deal did run until next year. but there was not an agreement in place, as you claim.
What has happened is the present deal, which works well, has been extended to 2038 unchanged.

What our 600 fishermen catch isn't consumed by British people but exported to Europe. British people tend to eat cod and haddock which aren't caught in British waters.
Yes, there are just 600 fishermen in the country, a similar number of tattoo artists, yet the media make such a loud noise about their rights. Funnily enough, they had an MEP to care of their rights, but out of 43 meetings in the EU Parliament, he could only be bothered to turn up to one of them.

Correction the nicotine stained fellow did turn up to one meeting.

 

[nicko31]

I suppose if you shout "Putin, Putin, Putin" often enough it negates the need to prove anything. Putin doesn't fund Reform and Farage doesn't like Putin.

Until this week, the entire fish stocks and fish conservation control over UK waters in 2026 and beyond would belong to the UK. Now it doesn't. Can you not see the difference?

Fish is 0.04% of UK economic output. Brexit lost 100 times that

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I suppose if you shout "Putin, Putin, Putin" often enough it negates the need to prove anything. Putin doesn't fund Reform and Farage doesn't like Putin.

Until this week, the entire fish stocks and fish conservation control over UK waters in 2026 and beyond would belong to the UK. Now it doesn't. Can you not see the difference?

Where is your reference for that?

 

[JBizzle]

 

[BBassic]

Just checked out his podcast The Truth (in my opinion) based off that and it's pretty good. Short 5 minute snippets of the news through a "let's skewer the miserablists lens"

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I suppose if you shout "Putin, Putin, Putin" often enough it negates the need to prove anything. Putin doesn't fund Reform and Farage doesn't like Putin.

Until this week, the entire fish stocks and fish conservation control over UK waters in 2026 and beyond would belong to the UK. Now it doesn't. Can you not see the difference?

You don't seem to be able to find the reference, so here is BBC Verify to explain the deal (Including fishing) There is absolutely nothing in to say the entire fish stocks in 2026 would've belonged to the UK. Nothing, nil, nada.

UK-EU agreement: Who are the winners and losers?

A deal between the UK and European Union (EU) has been agreed at a post-Brexit leaders summit in London.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[dsr-burnley]

You don't seem to be able to find the reference, so here is BBC Verify to explain the deal (Including fishing) There is absolutely nothing in to say the entire fish stocks in 2026 would've belonged to the UK. Nothing, nil, nada.

UK-EU agreement: Who are the winners and losers?

A deal between the UK and European Union (EU) has been agreed at a post-Brexit leaders summit in London.

www.bbc.co.uk

Nor is there anything to say that without a deal, UK fisherman wouldn't be able to fish in EU waters. As a general rule, countries own the fishing rights in their own national waters unless they have agreed otherwise. Youmight not remember the so-called Cod War with Iceland, or the spat about the UK claiming Rockall as UK territory thus extending the UK fishing zone, but they did happen; and the reason they happened was because ownership of national waters conferred the fishing rights over those waters.

International fishermen are not allowed to fish in UK waters unless the UK allows them to, just as UK fishermen can't fish in EU or Norwegian or Icelandic waters unless the EU or Norway or Iceland allows them to.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The fishing deal did not need to be agreed. The default position was that the fishing grounds would all be British and that's what Starmer had as a starting point to give away, in exchange for paperwork rules that benefit both us and them, and also a promise that they will think about letting us use egates at busy times next summer.

Not happy about anyone being charged with corruption. Whether it be an MEP or a government minister in charge of stopping corruption, a charge of corruption is bad news.

So let's be clear. In your opinion:
Brexit has been brilliant.
Starmer plans to ruin it all, and has already begun.
O...........K..........

 

[JBizzle]

Nor is there anything to say that without a deal, UK fisherman wouldn't be able to fish in EU waters. As a general rule, countries own the fishing rights in their own national waters unless they have agreed otherwise. Youmight not remember the so-called Cod War with Iceland, or the spat about the UK claiming Rockall as UK territory thus extending the UK fishing zone, but they did happen; and the reason they happened was because ownership of national waters conferred the fishing rights over those waters.

International fishermen are not allowed to fish in UK waters unless the UK allows them to, just as UK fishermen can't fish in EU or Norwegian or Icelandic waters unless the EU or Norway or Iceland allows them to.

But international waters are a lot bigger than UK waters, right? So access to EU waters is just as beneficial, if not more so, than just UK fishing lanes to UK fishermen?