|
Post by Jim on Mar 4, 2021 13:00:57 GMT
yorkshirebylines.co.uk/hapless-defra-secretary-eustice-humiliated-and-schooled-by-the-eu/Who would belief this nonsense, utter effwittery, who voted for him? I await a robust defence from his mates. Here's a few "He is tired and emotional" "Starmer distracted him" "It's staunch hard working remainer's fault for voting the wrong way, not believing the lies" "it's in a Yorkshire rag, they see all say all know nowt" "I blame Jezzer" "give it 10 years" "but red diesel duty is frozen"
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 4, 2021 13:36:43 GMT
I suspect a trap was laid for him into which he went head first ..... yes disgusting lack of forethought. Either he or his advisors should have spotted it before hand
On the other hand it was just the kind of petty nastiness that could be expected from the EU. Shellfish for many years has been shipped live to the continent where they have large facilities for cleaning ..... and let's be totally honest, deciding that the minute Brexit came into effect this was impossible because of hygene standards was .... well just about what you would expect.
Now the interesting point is that foreign vessels fishing (legally) in UK waters are able to land exactly the same shellfish in the EU.
If there is now no international market for those shellfish if caught by the UK maybe an extension of marine conservation areas to encompass parts of these fishing grounds prohibiting fishing by anyone might be in order?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 13:49:25 GMT
is there any way to stop threads in the politics section showing up on Recently updated?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 4, 2021 14:07:12 GMT
is there any way to stop threads in the politics section showing up on Recently updated? probably not .... but all you need to do is look at who started the thread ..... and then just ignore it
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 4, 2021 14:09:00 GMT
yorkshirebylines.co.uk/hapless-defra-secretary-eustice-humiliated-and-schooled-by-the-eu/Who would belief this nonsense, utter effwittery, who voted for him? I await a robust defence from his mates. Here's a few "He is tired and emotional" "Starmer distracted him" "It's staunch hard working remainer's fault for voting the wrong way, not believing the lies" "it's in a Yorkshire rag, they see all say all know nowt" "I blame Jezzer" "give it 10 years" "but red diesel duty is frozen" p.s. have you listened to Yanis yet ?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 4, 2021 14:25:01 GMT
yorkshirebylines.co.uk/hapless-defra-secretary-eustice-humiliated-and-schooled-by-the-eu/Who would belief this nonsense, utter effwittery, who voted for him? I await a robust defence from his mates. Here's a few "He is tired and emotional" "Starmer distracted him" "It's staunch hard working remainer's fault for voting the wrong way, not believing the lies" "it's in a Yorkshire rag, they see all say all know nowt" "I blame Jezzer" "give it 10 years" "but red diesel duty is frozen" p.s.Β have you listened to Yanis yet ? Yes, I too agree with a lot of what he says. But I didn't realise he'd defended EUseless EUstace. Missed that. So you approve of him then, or not?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 4, 2021 14:56:17 GMT
p.s. have you listened to Yanis yet ? Yes, I too agree with a lot of what he says. But I didn't realise he'd defended EUseless EUstace. Missed that. So you approve of him then, or not? If you go back to when all the discussions were going on before the vote you will find me quoting him. He talks a hell of a lot of sense. It is well worth watching his lectures, I have not seen one that hasn't sent me away with a better understanding of how things actually work as opposed to how we are generally told they work ..... very interesting character. More so when you realise he never intended to get involved with politics, he was a well known and respected economist and University lecturer who was personally asked by a new Prime Minister to become his Finance Minister ....... Not your ordinary run of the mill parliamentry hack by any means.
My biggest point of disagreement with him is that I believe the EU is impossible to change from the inside because of the way the power of the council is set up. He believes it is possible to change the EU from the inside to make it into what it should have been. That is why he argued against Brexit, as he said back then, the only country in the EU that has an ethos of trading with the world and not a view of restricting trade outside the bloc was the UK. The Uk tends to believe in de-centralising, the EU believes in greater central control. He believed that the UK within the EU acted as a moderating influence. So his reason for arguing against Brexit was more on the damage it would do to the long term health of the EU rather than if the UK was better off in or out. I think you have always misunderstood and thought the anti EU feeling as being just economic. it wasn't, a very large amount was due to the way we were being forced to go politically (and I don't mean Left or Right) I mean from the point of view of decentralisation or total central government control .... the one rule fits everybody mentality of the EU (which is one reason why I do not understand the SNP, which ias a parliament itself a product of de-centralization, being so keen to cuddle up to the EU and give up the soveriegnty it has achieved).
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 4, 2021 15:23:35 GMT
Yes, I too agree with a lot of what he says. But I didn't realise he'd defended EUseless EUstace. Missed that. So you approve of him then, or not? If you go back to when all the discussions were going on before the vote you will find me quoting him.Β He talks a hell of a lot of sense. It is well worth watching his lectures, I have not seen one that hasn't sent me away with a better understanding of how things actually work as opposed to how we are generally told they work ..... very interesting character. More so when you realise he never intended to get involved with politics, he was a well known and respected economistΒ and University lecturer who was personally asked by a new Prime Minister to become his Finance Minister ....... Not your ordinary run of the mill parliamentry hack by any means.
My biggest point of disagreement with him is that I believe the EU is impossible to change from the inside because of the way the power of the council is set up. He believes it is possible to change the EU from the inside to make it into what it should have been. That is why he argued against Brexit, as he said back then, the only country in the EU that has an ethos of trading with the world and not a view of restricting trade outside the bloc was the UK.Β The Uk tends to believe in de-centralising, the EU believes in greater central control. He believed that the UK within the EU acted as a moderating influence. So his reason for arguing against Brexit was more on the damage it would do to the long term health of the EU rather than if the UK was better off in or out. I think you have always misunderstood and thought the anti EU feeling as being just economic. it wasn't, a very large amount was due to the way we were being forced to go politically (and I don't mean Left or Right) I mean from the point of view of decentralisation or total central government control .... the one rule fits everybody mentality of the EU (which is one reason why I do not understand the SNP, which ias a parliament itself a product of de-centralization, being so keen to cuddle up to the EU and give up the soveriegnty it has achieved).
All well and good JohnV, but you are dissembling off topic again. I take it you are embarrassed by EUstace.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 4, 2021 15:24:31 GMT
is there any way to stop threads in the politics section showing up on Recently updated? No. Oops sorry π€£π€£π€£π€£
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 4, 2021 15:50:02 GMT
If you go back to when all the discussions were going on before the vote you will find me quoting him. He talks a hell of a lot of sense. It is well worth watching his lectures, I have not seen one that hasn't sent me away with a better understanding of how things actually work as opposed to how we are generally told they work ..... very interesting character. More so when you realise he never intended to get involved with politics, he was a well known and respected economist and University lecturer who was personally asked by a new Prime Minister to become his Finance Minister ....... Not your ordinary run of the mill parliamentry hack by any means.
My biggest point of disagreement with him is that I believe the EU is impossible to change from the inside because of the way the power of the council is set up. He believes it is possible to change the EU from the inside to make it into what it should have been. That is why he argued against Brexit, as he said back then, the only country in the EU that has an ethos of trading with the world and not a view of restricting trade outside the bloc was the UK. The Uk tends to believe in de-centralising, the EU believes in greater central control. He believed that the UK within the EU acted as a moderating influence. So his reason for arguing against Brexit was more on the damage it would do to the long term health of the EU rather than if the UK was better off in or out. I think you have always misunderstood and thought the anti EU feeling as being just economic. it wasn't, a very large amount was due to the way we were being forced to go politically (and I don't mean Left or Right) I mean from the point of view of decentralisation or total central government control .... the one rule fits everybody mentality of the EU (which is one reason why I do not understand the SNP, which ias a parliament itself a product of de-centralization, being so keen to cuddle up to the EU and give up the soveriegnty it has achieved).
All well and good JohnV , but you are dissembling off topic again. I take it you are embarrassed by EUstace. I said it was unforgivable in my initial reply Jim, If a senior minister is incompetant it is extremely bad and especially as he had written about it, that was unforgivable and I think he should be replaced. (and I have a set of rusty, blunt castigators that Boris can borrow if he needs)
(but like IKB I am bloody glad we didn't have the alternative of Corbyn et al ( not with go with the EU central purchase of vaccines and imagine the help of the mathmatical genius in the finance dept)
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 5, 2021 9:57:23 GMT
Yes, I too agree with a lot of what he says. But I didn't realise he'd defended EUseless EUstace. Missed that. So you approve of him then, or not? If you go back to when all the discussions were going on before the vote you will find me quoting him. He talks a hell of a lot of sense. It is well worth watching his lectures, I have not seen one that hasn't sent me away with a better understanding of how things actually work as opposed to how we are generally told they work ..... very interesting character. More so when you realise he never intended to get involved with politics, he was a well known and respected economist and University lecturer who was personally asked by a new Prime Minister to become his Finance Minister ....... Not your ordinary run of the mill parliamentry hack by any means.
My biggest point of disagreement with him is that I believe the EU is impossible to change from the inside because of the way the power of the council is set up. He believes it is possible to change the EU from the inside to make it into what it should have been. That is why he argued against Brexit, as he said back then, the only country in the EU that has an ethos of trading with the world and not a view of restricting trade outside the bloc was the UK. The Uk tends to believe in de-centralising, the EU believes in greater central control. He believed that the UK within the EU acted as a moderating influence. So his reason for arguing against Brexit was more on the damage it would do to the long term health of the EU rather than if the UK was better off in or out. I think you have always misunderstood and thought the anti EU feeling as being just economic. it wasn't, a very large amount was due to the way we were being forced to go politically (and I don't mean Left or Right) I mean from the point of view of decentralisation or total central government control .... the one rule fits everybody mentality of the EU (which is one reason why I do not understand the SNP, which ias a parliament itself a product of de-centralization, being so keen to cuddle up to the EU and give up the soveriegnty it has achieved).
I suspect Scotland's weird, hypocritical desire to leave one union and jump into the arms of another says a lot about the character of the nationalists amongst them. 'Scotland the brave' is the message they put out, they they can be this strong, proud, successful nation, free from the damaging constraints of the Union. However the fact that they wish to join another union dispels this notion. So where does this leave things? I'd suggest the wish to join another union is partly because 'Scotland the fearful' is more apt. Another factor: Many people, left wing extremists in particular, have planted the notion in others' minds that the wish to be outside unions is racist. This notion was widespread during the Brexit debate and appears to have stuck, at least in the minds of some Scots. From this we can say that the mind of a nationalist is the mind of a racist. There is no other word in the English language to describe someone who feels they are superior to someone from a different nation (regardless of the colour of their skin), so racist it is. Now we've established that we're dealing with racism here we can develop our thinking by examining this racism in action. First, many Scots hate the English. That's something I'm suggesting, without any supporting facts. However, the devolved government there (nationalist/ racist) has enshrined its racism in law. For example, during the time when Britain was in the EU a student from Belgium, Poland, Bulgaria etc. could study at a university in Scotland, with the tab being picked up by the tax payer. English? sorry, you must pay. If this isn't racism, what is? All of this leaves Scottish nationalists in a difficult position. History shows us that the record of National Socialists parties is somewhat chequered, to say the least. This might worry folk, prevent them giving the SNP their vote. Nay worry thought the SNP, let's just add the tag 'progressive' to our mission statement. People, being stupid, mostly, have accepted the term progressive to mean 'good'. Any party can do whatever they like, provided that it's 'progressive'. And so, despite the mind set of the SNP sharing much with the Third Reich it will all be OK, because the SNP is a progressive party. So to sum up: Scottish nationalists are a bunch of cowardly racists who manipulate generally decent honest people into supporting them by drawing out the bitterness from conflicts lost centuries ago, together with the judicious use of buzz words and phrases.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 7, 2021 15:57:03 GMT
If you go back to when all the discussions were going on before the vote you will find me quoting him.Β He talks a hell of a lot of sense. It is well worth watching his lectures, I have not seen one that hasn't sent me away with a better understanding of how things actually work as opposed to how we are generally told they work ..... very interesting character. More so when you realise he never intended to get involved with politics, he was a well known and respected economistΒ and University lecturer who was personally asked by a new Prime Minister to become his Finance Minister ....... Not your ordinary run of the mill parliamentry hack by any means.
My biggest point of disagreement with him is that I believe the EU is impossible to change from the inside because of the way the power of the council is set up. He believes it is possible to change the EU from the inside to make it into what it should have been. That is why he argued against Brexit, as he said back then, the only country in the EU that has an ethos of trading with the world and not a view of restricting trade outside the bloc was the UK.Β The Uk tends to believe in de-centralising, the EU believes in greater central control. He believed that the UK within the EU acted as a moderating influence. So his reason for arguing against Brexit was more on the damage it would do to the long term health of the EU rather than if the UK was better off in or out. I think you have always misunderstood and thought the anti EU feeling as being just economic. it wasn't, a very large amount was due to the way we were being forced to go politically (and I don't mean Left or Right) I mean from the point of view of decentralisation or total central government control .... the one rule fits everybody mentality of the EU (which is one reason why I do not understand the SNP, which ias a parliament itself a product of de-centralization, being so keen to cuddle up to the EU and give up the soveriegnty it has achieved).
I suspect Scotland's weird, hypocritical desire to leave one union and jump into the arms of another says a lot about the character of the nationalists amongst them. 'Scotland the brave' is the message they put out, they they can be this strong, proud, successful nation, free from the damaging constraints of the Union. However the fact that they wish to join another union dispels this notion. So where does this leave things? I'd suggest the wish to join another union is partly because 'Scotland the fearful' is more apt. Another factor: Many people, left wing extremists in particular, have planted the notion in others' minds that the wish to be outside unions is racist. This notion was widespread during the Brexit debate and appears to have stuck, at least in the minds of some Scots. From this we can say that the mind of a nationalist is the mind of a racist. There is no other word in the English language to describe someone who feels they are superior to someone from a different nation (regardless of the colour of their skin), so racist it is. Now we've established that we're dealing with racism here we can develop our thinking by examining this racism in action. First, many Scots hate the English. That's something I'm suggesting, without any supporting facts. However, the devolved government there (nationalist/ racist) has enshrined its racism in law. For example, during the time when Britain was in the EU a student from Belgium, Poland, Bulgaria etc. could study at a university in Scotland, with the tab being picked up by the tax payer. English? sorry, you must pay. If this isn't racism, what is? All of this leaves Scottish nationalists in a difficult position. History shows us that the record of National Socialists parties is somewhat chequered, to say the least. This might worry folk, prevent them giving the SNP their vote. Nay worry thought the SNP, let's just add the tag 'progressive' to our mission statement. People, being stupid, mostly, have accepted the term progressive to mean 'good'. Any party can do whatever they like, provided that it's 'progressive'. And so, despite the mind set of the SNP sharing much with the Third Reich it will all be OK, because the SNP is a progressive party. So to sum up: Scottish nationalists are a bunch of cowardly racists who manipulate generally decent honest people into supporting them by drawing out the bitterness from conflicts lost centuries ago, together with the judicious use of buzz words and phrases.Β Β Β So let's all not vote. For anarchy. Anarchy would work as long as its organised and controlled responsibly.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 7, 2021 16:07:26 GMT
] I suspect Scotland's weird, hypocritical desire to leave one union and jump into the arms of another says a lot about the character of the nationalists amongst them. 'Scotland the brave' is the message they put out, they they can be this strong, proud, successful nation, free from the damaging constraints of the Union. However the fact that they wish to join another union dispels this notion. So where does this leave things? I'd suggest the wish to join another union is partly because 'Scotland the fearful' is more apt. Another factor: Many people, left wing extremists in particular, have planted the notion in others' minds that the wish to be outside unions is racist. This notion was widespread during the Brexit debate and appears to have stuck, at least in the minds of some Scots. From this we can say that the mind of a nationalist is the mind of a racist. There is no other word in the English language to describe someone who feels they are superior to someone from a different nation (regardless of the colour of their skin), so racist it is. Now we've established that we're dealing with racism here we can develop our thinking by examining this racism in action. First, many Scots hate the English. That's something I'm suggesting, without any supporting facts. However, the devolved government there (nationalist/ racist) has enshrined its racism in law. For example, during the time when Britain was in the EU a student from Belgium, Poland, Bulgaria etc. could study at a university in Scotland, with the tab being picked up by the tax payer. English? sorry, you must pay. If this isn't racism, what is?
All of this leaves Scottish nationalists in a difficult position. History shows us that the record of National Socialists parties is somewhat chequered, to say the least. This might worry folk, prevent them giving the SNP their vote. Nay worry thought the SNP, let's just add the tag 'progressive' to our mission statement. People, being stupid, mostly, have accepted the term progressive to mean 'good'. Any party can do whatever they like, provided that it's 'progressive'. And so, despite the mind set of the SNP sharing much with the Third Reich it will all be OK, because the SNP is a progressive party. So to sum up: Scottish nationalists are a bunch of cowardly racists who manipulate generally decent honest people into supporting them by drawing out the bitterness from conflicts lost centuries ago, together with the judicious use of buzz words and phrases. You are somewhat contradicting yourself here. Those who want to leave a Union are racist, you say. How about those who want to rejoin one? Still racist in your book, it seems! (Leaving aside the different meanings you ascribe to "Union")This was a result of EU rules that citizens of another EU country could not be treated differently from those of the home country. I agree it ended up as a bit of an invidious situation, and I'm pretty sure that had the English education minister taken a case to the ECJ, they'd have found in his favour. No interest from Westminster, though. You seem to be suggesting that the SNP employs Brexiter tactics!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Mar 7, 2021 19:28:54 GMT
Now the interesting point is that foreign vessels fishing (legally) in UK waters are able to land exactly the same shellfish in the EU. If there is now no international market for those shellfish if caught by the UK maybe an extension of marine conservation areas to encompass parts of these fishing grounds prohibiting fishing by anyone might be in order? There's very little demand for shellfish in the eu at the moment because restaurants, particularly in Spain where most shellfish ends up, are closed because of lockdown. If there was a shortage of a product which was in huge demand in an eu member state, its import would be facilitated as far as possible. I have no doubt that shellfish exports from Norway to the eu tell the same story.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 8, 2021 2:14:04 GMT
I saw a programme on fishing and shellfish.
Sounded quite complicated, whilst the European won't ban any imports i know the French were very vocal in the fact that they won't buy any unless they can fish here.
Telling us that we can't eat enough of the catch.
I'm sure the E.U. Will be delighted with the French. So were stuck.
Might read the article in full later.
|
|