Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
Possibly not, but that is not a food shortage, it is refusing to eat something else that is a perfectly acceptable substitute.

If there is no cod or haddock available for people to buy, that's a food shortage.

If there are no fish fingers in Tesco that's a food shortage.

And as has already been pointed out there is no guarantee that the domestic fish will just switch over seamlessly or be affordable.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/no-deal-brexit-birds-eye-14013943

20% increase in the price of fish fingers once things settle down? That's fairly significant for someone on minimum wage.
 
Did you read any of the rest of my post?

Did you read ANY of mine?

There is no way any Brexiteer would accept a Norway deal unless they are totally stupid. The Norway deal is exactly the same as being in the EU except we don’t have any control over EU policy.

Brexiteers are TOTALLY STUPID but anyway, it's a sensible 1st step to complete exit that doesn't tank the economy. That's why you accept it if you want to leave.

Personally, I would be ok with it if it was that or a more radical Brexit, but I’d still want to know why don’t we just stay in.

Because the majority voted to leave would be the answer.

You seem to think that we need to find a permanent solution to this in one phase. There is absolutely no need for that.
 
The Sun puts up its two fingers to the rule of law,
Today's editorial
Why should the Government promise to enact some as-yet-unwritten and arguably illegitimate law being cooked up by Remainers with their rogue Speaker? The Government runs the country, not a cross-party rabble
 
To be fair, Gove didn't exactly give a straight answer when asked if the government would respect such a vote, and Johnson today pretty much spelled out that he'd rather dissolve parliament than do so, so why should the ScumSun?

Incidently, the text of the bill is available here: https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1168560598650621953

I'm slightly curious though, I have a faint memory of reading somewhere, that even if the bill was to pass the House of Commons, it would most likely be filibustered in the House of Lords (there was even a suggestion of Johnson 'packing' the latter with Brexiteer peers, in order to stop legislation he didn't want passing). Couldn't the same thing happen again to the Benn bill?
 
No, since the fish markets and trading routes have been going on since forever.

The EU, as in the free market it provided has made that trade simpler and that is going to stop.

The EU has made the trade simpler, but we can't be having that, not if Johnny Foreigner is involved.

Can somebody please tell me the ways in which my life is going to improve that are going to offset me having to live on a diet of turnips, apply for a visa to work in the EU, watch all my friends lose their jobs as their companies relocate to Europe and see several of my friends suddenly become illegal residents?

Please, will one of you Brexiteers tell me why this **** show is worth it. And don't give me any of that ******** about taking back control. Our current PM has decided to cancel parliament rather than let us take back control.
 
If there is no cod or haddock available for people to buy, that's a food shortage.

If there are no fish fingers in Tesco that's a food shortage.

Only of that food. If there is other fish for sale, that is a not a true food shortage where we should be genuinely concerned.

And as has already been pointed out there is no guarantee that the domestic fish will just switch over seamlessly or be affordable.

The issue, as you have already acknowledged, is that some people are fussy about their fish.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/no-deal-brexit-birds-eye-14013943

20% increase in the price of fish fingers once things settle down? That's fairly significant for someone on minimum wage.

I am not arguing the issue of supply is totally problem free. I am arguing that people not being prepared to try other forms of fish is not a genuine food shortage.
 
Did you read ANY of mine?
Yep. It only referred to the first sentence of my post, so I assumed you ignored the rest.

Brexiteers are TOTALLY STUPID
I'd like to remind you they beat us in a referendum.

but anyway, it's a sensible 1st step to complete exit that doesn't tank the economy. That's why you accept it if you want to leave.
Do you think the EU is going to let us have a Norway type deal if we are not negotiating in good faith?

Because the majority voted to leave would be the answer.
We are entirely too hung up on the result of the referendum. Part of the problem we have is that very few politicians have the balls to say "don't care what the referendum said, this is a bad idea".

You seem to think that we need to find a permanent solution to this in one phase. There is absolutely no need for that.

The problem is that I'd rather have a zero phase solution: namely stay in the EU. I think the majority of the British public agrees with me too (I checked some recent opinion polls). Another problem is to quote you: "Brexiteers are TOTALLY STUPID". Well they're not, but I do think there is a cultish fervour amongst some of them that would make them believe a multi phase solution is a betrayal and our politicians are scared of them.
 
I'm slightly curious though, I have a faint memory of reading somewhere, that even if the bill was to pass the House of Commons, it would most likely be filibustered in the House of Lords (there was even a suggestion of Johnson 'packing' the latter with Brexiteer peers, in order to stop legislation he didn't want passing). Couldn't the same thing happen again to the Benn bill?

I gather that The Lords only invest 2 new peers per day, max. It would take too long to weight The Lords in favour of Johnson's insanity.
 
That's a bit of a snide thing to say, given that not only was Swinson not the leader of the Lib-Dems in 2016, she was not even an MP at the time. How much media attention do you think she would have got, even if she had been campaigning?

I expect she had not long given birth to her first child in the run-up to the referendum, which is surely likely to have made campaigning somewhat difficult (yeah, yeah, I know those comments are likely to be stepping into a political minefield, but true nonetheless).
 
Jacob Rees Mogg now admits that Brexit is NOT the will of the people.

We are about to wreck our own country for no reason whatsoever!
He just said we can't have another referendum now that people know more about Brexit, because we'd vote to stop it.
 
Only of that food. If there is other fish for sale, that is a not a true food shortage where we should be genuinely concerned.

I beg to differ. See how people react to it. If people don't want or can't afford what the fishmonger is selling his business will be affected.

The issue, as you have already acknowledged, is that some people are fussy about their fish.

No, that's ONE of the issues. You also have to consider that the domestic fish may continue to be exported if demand is there or that it might be planned to be exported and end up stuck in a port and just go rotten. if the ports become messed up then everything might be stuck there going rotten. Or the French/Spanish fisherman might do something to disrupt the fisheries. Or boats might go out of business.

Unexpected things might happen. It's not unheard of for massive not well mitigated system shocks to f up the system for a while.

I am not arguing the issue of supply is totally problem free. I am arguing that people not being prepared to try other forms of fish is not a genuine food shortage.

You were arguing (or at least agreeing with a fishmonger arguing) that fishmongers won't see much impact from a no-deal Brexit. I think he and you are kidding yourself.

The question is how well the shocks have been planned for and mitigated and I have no faith in the government to have dealt with that properly.
 
Yep. It only referred to the first sentence of my post, so I assumed you ignored the rest.

I'd like to remind you they beat us in a referendum.

Do you think the EU is going to let us have a Norway type deal if we are not negotiating in good faith?

We are entirely too hung up on the result of the referendum. Part of the problem we have is that very few politicians have the balls to say "don't care what the referendum said, this is a bad idea".

The problem is that I'd rather have a zero phase solution: namely stay in the EU. I think the majority of the British public agrees with me too (I checked some recent opinion polls). Another problem is to quote you: "Brexiteers are TOTALLY STUPID". Well they're not, but I do think there is a cultish fervour amongst some of them that would make them believe a multi phase solution is a betrayal and our politicians are scared of them.

And I agreed with you on that last point when I said it wouldn't be enough for some but that doesn't mean it isn't a solution that they should consider seriously and accept if they are sensible. The problem is that they aren't.

There would be nothing wrong with saying we will go to EFTA/EEA for 5 years and then have a second referendum on further moves.

It's worse than staying in, but it's less worse than the other options.
 
I am talking about potential food shortages. If we export 75% of our catch to the EU, then if that cannot be exported, it will stay in the UK and we will have lots of fish for Fridays.

There will be other problems, major ones, just not food shortages.

It's the same thing with cars: if Rolls-Royce suddenly couldn't export cars at a profit, then everyone in Britain would suddenly be driving luxury cars.
 
And the lies of BoJo and the Brexiteers are (again) exposed.













More details at The Guardian.

You don't even need his kind of evidence. If BJ wanted a agreement with the EU before brexit and knew of a credible alternative to the backstop, then why hasn't he published a report clearly showing how it would work in theory and practice? The answer is because there are no credible alternatives and he's just bluffing about his sincerity of securing a agreement.
 
You don't even need his kind of evidence. If BJ wanted a agreement with the EU before brexit and knew of a credible alternative to the backstop, then why hasn't he published a report clearly showing how it would work in theory and practice? The answer is because there are no credible alternatives and he's just bluffing about his sincerity of securing a agreement.

"No credible alternative" is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. You get to define what is and what is not 'credible' and so are able to reject every plan except your own.
 
"No credible alternative" is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. You get to define what is and what is not 'credible' and so are able to reject every plan except your own.

So why hasn't BJ published it in detail? If the EU was somehow refusing to consider these completely reasonable solutions to the Irish border problem why hasn't he shown them? Where are the white papers?

Oh that's right, the white papers say they are not credible alternatives that can be delivered on time. That's why they are not showing them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom