Let me make it clear; the Treeza Rant thread

1235737

Comments

  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    I agree in principle - but who would be included in this All-party group? The revolutionary anti-royalist Green party? UKIP?
    It doesn't matter. If it includes more than two Brextremists the group will be locked in an insoluble ideological battle that will mean it never gets anywhere. Hopefully letting the rest of us get on with our lives of being citizens of the European Union.

    You seem to assume that everyone agrees with you, except politicians.
  • And, almost half the catch of UK boats is landed elsewhere in Europe (and a lot of those other European boats land their catch in the UK). Because the whole system is intertwined, so it's going to be an expensive and time consuming task to negotiate and implement a removal of the UK from the CFP. All for the sake of only a few more people than the number of young people taking advantage of Erasmus+ every year.

    More to the point, a huge proportion of fish landed in the UK is then sold for export to EU countries. I apologise that I don't have the figures to hand but
    BRITISH FISHING WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM CATCHING MORE FISH IF THEY CAN'T SELL IT!!!

    I apologise for shouting but every time fish is mentioned in the EU debate, this fact and the truth that the real issue with fishing in the UK is how the BRITISH government allocates quotas needs to be said by every interviewer. A complete failure of our media.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    I agree in principle - but who would be included in this All-party group? The revolutionary anti-royalist Green party? UKIP?
    It doesn't matter. If it includes more than two Brextremists the group will be locked in an insoluble ideological battle that will mean it never gets anywhere. Hopefully letting the rest of us get on with our lives of being citizens of the European Union.

    You seem to assume that everyone agrees with you, except politicians.

    No, I work on the assumption that no one, especially politicians, agrees with anyone else. Is it that unreasonable that with 600+ MPs there are 600+ opinions on Brexit?
  • And, almost half the catch of UK boats is landed elsewhere in Europe (and a lot of those other European boats land their catch in the UK). Because the whole system is intertwined, so it's going to be an expensive and time consuming task to negotiate and implement a removal of the UK from the CFP. All for the sake of only a few more people than the number of young people taking advantage of Erasmus+ every year.

    More to the point, a huge proportion of fish landed in the UK is then sold for export to EU countries. I apologise that I don't have the figures to hand but
    BRITISH FISHING WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM CATCHING MORE FISH IF THEY CAN'T SELL IT!!!

    I apologise for shouting but every time fish is mentioned in the EU debate, this fact and the truth that the real issue with fishing in the UK is how the BRITISH government allocates quotas needs to be said by every interviewer. A complete failure of our media.

    I used to live in an English fishing port and I was once told that the majority of the catch went to be sold at the wholesale market Boulogne (in France) because... actually I don't know why.

    I do know that people in the UK generally have a strange taste in fish and so don't actually like the stuff that is landed here very much. Also I understand that that wholesale markets are reducing and there aren't many processing factories.

    So in a Brexit scenario, we might well have a lot of fish but no easy way to do anything with them. We could, presumably, process and sell a lot more into the world market, but we'd have to invest a lot more into building factories and processing plants. Which might well be difficult to justify if there were potential problems in the future with accessing consumers in Europe.
  • I think the likelihood is that the British fishing industry will go into steep decline - and the Navy will be occupied in silly skirmishes with foreign fishing vessels for no net gain. And the fish will simply go uncaught.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I used to live in an English fishing port and I was once told that the majority of the catch went to be sold at the wholesale market Boulogne (in France) because... actually I don't know why.
    Because Brits don't eat as much fish as is landed, and in the rest of Europe they eat more fish than is landed there. It's not really all that complicated.
    So in a Brexit scenario, we might well have a lot of fish but no easy way to do anything with them. We could, presumably, process and sell a lot more into the world market, but we'd have to invest a lot more into building factories and processing plants. Which might well be difficult to justify if there were potential problems in the future with accessing consumers in Europe.
    The first thing that will happen is that currently quite a lot of the fish landed in the UK is caught by non-UK boats. Those boats will land their fish in France, Denmark, Ireland or elsewhere in the EU - far more efficient than landing their catch in the UK where the fish then gets held up in bureaucratic red tape before it can reach consumers in the EU. Which will hit jobs in the British ports, and reduce the demand for factories and processing plants.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    And the fish will simply go uncaught.
    Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The CFP was formulated to protect jobs in the fishing industry, and the stock conservation measures are there primarily to maintain medium term industry protection. For long term conservation of fish stocks and the birds and animals that feed on them the CFP has largely been a failure, allowing more fish to be caught than is genuinely sustainable.
  • Ok well I just found the statistics. Foreign ships landed 60,000 tonnes of fish in British ports in 2013, 72,000 in 2014, 46,000 in 2015.

    British ships landed 405,000 tonnes in 2013, 449,000 in 2014, 415,000 in 2015.

    Foreign ships landing fish in the UK ports is not a particularly big deal.

    In contrast EU fishing ships catching fish in British waters and landing in EU ports is a far bigger deal - 683,000 tonnes in 2015.

  • Mark Betts wrote: »

    I agree in principle - but who would be included in this All-party group? The revolutionary anti-royalist Green party? UKIP?

    All parties with MPs. So "cross party". If - when - they realised that they were never ever going to find an answer, they would have to take an alternative route - a new election, a set of proposals to be put to a vote.

    Surely that is what parliamentary democracy is about? As it is, the 48% do not have any input - and they are also important. The people who wanted a soft brexit are ignored. Those who have a different set of red lines are ignored.

    And in such a cross-party group, the criminal actions of the leave campaign might have been properly challenged.

    Of course, all of this would completely defeat the purpose of brexit, which is to make the richest 1% even richer. Nothing else. May is selling the UK to her friends.
  • Mark BettsMark Betts Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    didn't mean to comment here - but can't delete it.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    Nobody has mentioned Margaret Thatcher. Treeza may be anything but strong and stable but Thatcher was the other way round. Brought the country to its knees because she wanted to. There has never been a worse PM.
    Trying to work out a Cameron/pigs ear joke but failing.

    But if Margaret Thatcher was the worst, then wouldn't you think that the subsequent PMs would reverse some of her policies? But they didn't, instead they added to them and made things worse. I include Tony Blair of course.

    In principle I agree, however the New Labour government did bring in a proper minimum wage which replaced the suggested minimum wage under the previous Tory government. This meant no one could be paid £1:50 an hour as some were. I remember a newspaper cartoon with Blair sat on a big Version of his name and he was cutting the right hand leg off the N in Tony.
    He was certainly more right wing than the current labour leader.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    ...would have to take an alternative route - a new election, a set of proposals to be put to a vote...

    Ah yes - you mean keep having a rerun of the election, until they get the right answer? The Church of England does that.

    Oh shut up you miserable turd. FFS, you are a one-trick, one braincell pony.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ...would have to take an alternative route - a new election, a set of proposals to be put to a vote...

    Ah yes - you mean keep having a rerun of the election, until they get the right answer? The Church of England does that.

    Oh shut up you miserable turd. FFS, you are a one-trick, one braincell pony.

    OK - stop being an idiot just for half a minute. I decided against posting the above and it has been deleted. As you were.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ...would have to take an alternative route - a new election, a set of proposals to be put to a vote...

    Ah yes - you mean keep having a rerun of the election, until they get the right answer? The Church of England does that.

    Oh shut up you miserable turd. FFS, you are a one-trick, one braincell pony.

    OK - stop being an idiot just for half a minute. I decided against posting the above and it has been deleted. As you were.

    Nobody was talking about the Anglican church until you came here with your muddy boots and stuck them where they are not wanted.

    Because you are an absolute tool. A total spanner.

    Who thinks that everyone else here is interested in your breathless declarations about other people, their churches and beliefs.

    There's the door, piss off out if it.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ...would have to take an alternative route - a new election, a set of proposals to be put to a vote...

    Ah yes - you mean keep having a rerun of the election, until they get the right answer? The Church of England does that.

    Oh shut up you miserable turd. FFS, you are a one-trick, one braincell pony.

    OK - stop being an idiot just for half a minute. I decided against posting the above and it has been deleted. As you were.

    Nobody was talking about the Anglican church until you came here with your muddy boots and stuck them where they are not wanted.

    Because you are an absolute tool. A total spanner.

    Who thinks that everyone else here is interested in your breathless declarations about other people, their churches and beliefs.

    There's the door, piss off out if it.

    Like I said, you are an idiot. I TOLD YOU I decided to delete it because it wasn't really relevant. I can't be bothered with all this childish crap. Does it make you feel big to swear? Just shut up.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ...would have to take an alternative route - a new election, a set of proposals to be put to a vote...

    Ah yes - you mean keep having a rerun of the election, until they get the right answer? The Church of England does that.

    Oh shut up you miserable turd. FFS, you are a one-trick, one braincell pony.

    OK - stop being an idiot just for half a minute. I decided against posting the above and it has been deleted. As you were.

    Nobody was talking about the Anglican church until you came here with your muddy boots and stuck them where they are not wanted.

    Because you are an absolute tool. A total spanner.

    Who thinks that everyone else here is interested in your breathless declarations about other people, their churches and beliefs.

    There's the door, piss off out if it.

    Like I said, you are an idiot. I TOLD YOU I decided to delete it because it wasn't really relevant. I can't be bothered with all this childish crap. Does it make you feel big to swear? Just shut up.

    But you DECIDED TO POST IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    You seem to enjoy disparaging other people, using the most disgusting slurs. Is it cos you is thick?

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ...would have to take an alternative route - a new election, a set of proposals to be put to a vote...

    Ah yes - you mean keep having a rerun of the election, until they get the right answer? The Church of England does that.

    Oh shut up you miserable turd. FFS, you are a one-trick, one braincell pony.

    OK - stop being an idiot just for half a minute. I decided against posting the above and it has been deleted. As you were.

    Nobody was talking about the Anglican church until you came here with your muddy boots and stuck them where they are not wanted.

    Because you are an absolute tool. A total spanner.

    Who thinks that everyone else here is interested in your breathless declarations about other people, their churches and beliefs.

    There's the door, piss off out if it.

    Like I said, you are an idiot. I TOLD YOU I decided to delete it because it wasn't really relevant. I can't be bothered with all this childish crap. Does it make you feel big to swear? Just shut up.

    But you DECIDED TO POST IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    You seem to enjoy disparaging other people, using the most disgusting slurs. Is it cos you is thick?

    Gosh, real Parliamentary language here at last!
  • Back to Mrs May; her spokesman just told Ms Sturgeon she could sling her hooks with regard to participation in a TV debate - because, apparently, this is a decision only for MPs in Westminster.

    So.. if that's the case, why is she so keen on a TV debate at all?
  • It's just the normal Westminster sidelining of Scotland. Do what the people of Scotland have repeatedly said is a reason to seek independence, while saying they're Unionists. What's the word for actions which don't match words ... starts with 'h'

    Roll on the next Independence Referendum so we can get rid of these bastards who care nothing for the land north of Hadrians Wall.
  • Not just Scotland. They don't appear to hear be a monkeys about anyone outside of the South-East of England.

    That the rest of us will disproportionally feel the pain has not registered.

    Or possibly it has and they don't give a shit.
  • It's just the normal Westminster sidelining of Scotland. Do what the people of Scotland have repeatedly said is a reason to seek independence, while saying they're Unionists. What's the word for actions which don't match words ... starts with 'h'

    Roll on the next Independence Referendum so we can get rid of these bastards who care nothing for the land north of Hadrians Wall.

    Do you remember what happened last time Ms Sturgeon went all out for a second Independence Referendum?
  • You'll have to remind me when anyone went all out for an independence referendum after 2014 (when Ms Sturgeon took over the SNP leadership). Because, I never noticed. Pro-independence parties have a majority in Parliament, and it wouldn't take much time to update the existing white paper to account for changes in circumstances, and after a public consultation and a decent debate in Parliament and amendment it would be possible to put that to the people. It would be refreshing to once again see a referendum as a democratic exercise (as opposed to the anti-democratic mess of 2016), and this time round we won't have anyone claiming that the only way to guarantee Scotland stays in the EU is to stay in the UK.

    The sticking point is that Mrs May has said she will block a referendum. Though, if she actually does defy a Parliamentary decision to call for a vote then that makes the case for independence stronger.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    That was before the latest unveiling of the pigs breakfast.
  • You'll have to remind me when anyone went all out for an independence referendum after 2014 (when Ms Sturgeon took over the SNP leadership). Because, I never noticed. Pro-independence parties have a majority in Parliament, and it wouldn't take much time to update the existing white paper to account for changes in circumstances, and after a public consultation and a decent debate in Parliament and amendment it would be possible to put that to the people. It would be refreshing to once again see a referendum as a democratic exercise (as opposed to the anti-democratic mess of 2016), and this time round we won't have anyone claiming that the only way to guarantee Scotland stays in the EU is to stay in the UK.

    The sticking point is that Mrs May has said she will block a referendum. Though, if she actually does defy a Parliamentary decision to call for a vote then that makes the case for independence stronger.

    I was talking about the last General Election. OK, maybe "all out for" wasn't quite true, but the undercurrents lost her a lot of seats. She thought she spoke for the Scottish people, but democracy showed her otherwise and she lost a lot of seats.
  • Pro-indy parties still form a Parliamentary majority, and have done without interruption since 2007. That's democracy, repeated votes for parties well known to support a particular policy giving them the seats to form a government. Even for the Westminster elections, the SNP had almost all seats in 2015, a position they were always going to fail to repeat but 2017 still returned 5x the number of SNP MPs compared to 2010. Hardly a resounding rejection of Independence. Unlike the idiots in the Tory party, Nicola knows that calling a referendum requires a lot of preparation to be democratically meaningful, a full Parliamentary debate to confirm Parliamentary approval of the government policy for a start, and that takes time - and, that policy couldn't easily be formulated prior to knowing what relationship the rest of the UK would seek with the EU (eg: if the rest of the UK remains in the single market and customs union then that will require a different plan for Scottish independence than one where the rest of the UK is outside both). So, there is sense in waiting until the Brexit deal is clearer otherwise the government will spend a year on independence policy only to have to start again on some parts of it.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    That was before the latest unveiling of the pigs breakfast.

    Probably clear, but this was a comment on Mark Betts' post above it, rather than Alan's intervening post. I agree with Alan's analysis.
  • She's now turned down the Opposition's offer of support for a Norway-type deal on the grounds that it wouldn't end Freedom of Movement.

    It's becoming increasingly clear that it's her loathing for Johnny Foreigner that drives everything she says and does; and yet she - almost alone of world leaders in Buenos Aires - is willing to shake the hand of that vile Saudi bastard and hold talks with him.

    I suppose that in her book foreigners are all right if you can sell them arms to kill other foreigners with.
  • Andras wrote: »
    She's now turned down the Opposition's offer of support for a Norway-type deal on the grounds that it wouldn't end Freedom of Movement.

    It's becoming increasingly clear that it's her loathing for Johnny Foreigner that drives everything she says and does; and yet she - almost alone of world leaders in Buenos Aires - is willing to shake the hand of that vile Saudi bastard and hold talks with him.

    I suppose that in her book foreigners are all right if you can sell them arms to kill other foreigners with.

    I'm not sure it is hers - so much as that she's a ruthless political operators and she thinks bashing foreigners will win votes.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Free movement was a big topic during the run up to the vote, and has been a high priority since. She would have no chance of Brexiteers going with any plan that included free movement. It would sink badly.
    I am not against a Norway type option. It just seems stupid that have to have all the stuff that comes with it and not be able to have a say.
  • It's not about whether free movement is a hit with Brextremists. We know it's not. It's that she's pandered to them so far, and she still can't raise a majority in parliament.

    A sensible, pragmatic person would look at the landscape and ask what might. Norway-plus would. But she's set her face against it, and so will fail.
  • Wet KipperWet Kipper Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    I was talking about the last General Election. OK, maybe "all out for" wasn't quite true, but the undercurrents lost her a lot of seats. She thought she spoke for the Scottish people, but democracy showed her otherwise and she lost a lot of seats.

    I recall the only people talking about "IndyRef2" at the last General Election were Labour and the Conservatives - each proclaiming themselves to be the only way to prevent Indyref2 and stop Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP "further ruining Scotland"
    - as if the makeup of Scottish MPs in the Westminster Parliament was actually going to have a bearing on the likelihood of Holyrood going ahead with Indyref2,
    - and as if that was the most important item that the UK wide government was needing to take care of.

    and for the Conservatives, campaigning in that manner seemed to work
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    It's not about whether free movement is a hit with Brextremists. We know it's not. It's that she's pandered to them so far, and she still can't raise a majority in parliament.

    A sensible, pragmatic person would look at the landscape and ask what might. Norway-plus would. But she's set her face against it, and so will fail.

    Norway plus is probably the best outcome for the country but would split her party and cause the likes of JRM's head to explode ... Some of us would see that as a win but May wouldn't.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    It's not about whether free movement is a hit with Brextremists. We know it's not. It's that she's pandered to them so far, and she still can't raise a majority in parliament.

    A sensible, pragmatic person would look at the landscape and ask what might. Norway-plus would. But she's set her face against it, and so will fail.

    This.

    May has appeased and appeased and (entirely predictably) it has failed. If she can't get her deal through she has to consider other options.

    She won't. Obstinancy is her only quality.

    AFZ
  • Or the political reality of her situation is that she can only garner support for a softer brexit if she can convincingly claim she went hell for leather for this deal but parliament wouldn't wear it - and therefore she's got to go for something else. (Which may also be a tiny bargaining chip with the EU - as in look, I told them there'd be nothing else but it still went phut bang so ...)
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Free movement was a big topic during the run up to the vote, and has been a high priority since.
    It was a big topic. But, there wasn't anything on the ballot to say "end free movement", and no defined position for Leave. So, there's no way to be certain that all of the 52% were voting to end free movement. Thus, no way that any politician can claim that ending freedom of movement is the expressed will of the people.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Free movement was a big topic during the run up to the vote, and has been a high priority since.
    It was a big topic. But, there wasn't anything on the ballot to say "end free movement", and no defined position for Leave. So, there's no way to be certain that all of the 52% were voting to end free movement. Thus, no way that any politician can claim that ending freedom of movement is the expressed will of the people.

    The only free movement that people wanted to stop was that of foreigners coming to the UK; the thought that they wouldn't be able to retire to the Algarve probably never entered their stupid little skulls.
  • More than that, some people wanted to stop the "free movement" of Asians/Muslims into the UK. The idea that their Polish builder or cleaner wouldn't be able to stay wasn't in their minds. The idea that they wouldn't be able to carry on going wherever they like didn;t cross their minds.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    In the media and in a lot of conversations I had with colleagues at the time free movement was almost THE issue. It is stupid but it was,
  • And now Treeza's accused of being in contempt of Parliament. What a lovely lady she is, to be sure.
  • There is something weird going on. Nobody seems to have any idea why she is putting forward an idea that has no hope of success.
  • Andras wrote: »
    And now Treeza's accused of being in contempt of Parliament. What a lovely lady she is, to be sure.
    It's another strange event. It is very unusual for legal advice given to governments to be released, even when relevant to a Parliamentary debate, and indeed it's common for governments to refuse to release such advice.

    But, there was a motion in Parliament asking the government to release that advice, and the government chose not to oppose that motion. That was the time for the government to make the arguments about why the advice should not be released, and they didn't. Refusing to follow the will of Parliament when they refused to challenge the motion at the appropriate time can't really be anything other than contempt ... and, incompetence.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    There is something weird going on. Nobody seems to have any idea why she is putting forward an idea that has no hope of success.
    British politics has disappeared into a rabbit hole to a place where nothing makes sense anymore. When the government is trying to enact a policy that very few ministers actually support is bizarre beyond belief. Normally, of course, the party of government would have argued out the issues and reached a position that the majority support before going to the electorate in a general election, without having done that the whole fiasco is pretty much inevitable. And, by following the route of a referendum in 2015 David Cameron threw the democratic rule book out of the window, and set the country on a course where no one can work out what "democracy" really means anymore.
  • I am sorry, but as a fan of Alice, I find the reference to "down a rabbit hole" offensive.

    Wonderland makes more sense than our politics these days.
  • From what Gove said on the Marr show - if they lose the vote there will probably be another referendum - and the pm touring and talking about tv debates, I think the government is positioning for a second vote (which they will ask the EU for an extension for). From May's perspective, she has to lose the vote in order to be able to make the case to the party, country and EU for a second vote. That vote will be her deal, no deal, no brexit is my guess.
  • From May's perspective, she has to lose the vote in order to be able to make the case to the party, country and EU for a second vote. That vote will be her deal, no deal, no brexit is my guess.
    If she gets a three-option referendum, what does she campaign for? We know she supported remaining in the EU three years ago, so does she campaign for what she seems to really believe in? Or, does she campaign for her deal even though everyone knows she's a remainer?

  • Maybe she's hoping that the no deal and no brexit options will cancel each other out leaving only her plan.

    If that's it, she's dafter than I thought.
  • And how does a three way vote play? Because should the vote result in, say, 36% for no Brexit on a much lower turnout, with 32% each for hard Brexit and the May deal. Which one has won? The Brexiteers would argue Brexit, but with no indication as to which version.
  • And how does a three way vote play?
    That is a question Parliament will need to decide - a simple FPTP with the most popular the winner? Some form of transferable vote?

    Parliament will also need to define the options. May's deal is already outlined, though it's a very skeletal outline (compared to, say, the 670p the Scottish government produced for the 2014 independence referendum). A remain option shouldn't be too difficult to define, although it will need to recognise that this isn't where we were three years ago. Any chances of those advocating some form of "no deal" agreeing what they'll want?
  • Does Treeza suffer from some sort of Messiah Complex?

    That would explain why she never needs to listen to anyone else, why everyone else is always wrong while she is always right, and why she's willing to put up with all the abuse she gets with a sad smile, because she knows that she will be justified in the end - indeed, the more she takes on the mantle of the 'suffering servant' the greater will be her heavenly reward.

    If this is indeed the case, then she really does need clinical help.
  • "There's no Messiah here! There's a mess alright, but no Messiah!"
This discussion has been closed.