I think this is another perfect example of brexiteer mentality.
In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.
This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion". But if all were doing is spewing crap, doesn't that harm actual discussion? Isn't that exactly the sort of fact free, reality rejecting, cultism that I claimed originally? You're sort of making my point for me.
So what happens next, maybe there is a point here with some content?
>Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.
OK, so you're saying we can get a better deal without the EU? That isn't what you said before so you're changing position, but maybe there is something in that.
So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that. I suspect that's because that would involve facts and details and involve some comparison of the UK (a larger service economy) and Iceland (a tiny economy that mainly exports fish and aluminium).
Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal. This is a bad deal and you do give reasons: it allowed to much fishing damaging fisheries and it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality. You believe we can get a "better deal", but that deal would have to increase and decrease fishing at the same time. Great. You've also missed that the fisheries deal was negotiated not to be perfect, but to better than the free for all previously imposed. Or that the multiple UK governments have repeatedly refused to reopen the matter or to use any of the protection permitted under the deal.
This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault, you don't have a solution because there isn't one, so we have to leave the EU, because you want the people who setup the system you don't like to have less oversight from Brussels.
Also, FYI, Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU. Again, facts bro!
> In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.
I don't see how? The current EU membership demands CFP, AGP among other things. This is why Greenland is not in the EU and is actually one of the big reasons why Iceland refuses to become a member.
> This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion".
I'm no intellectual, so you can stick your assumptions on my knowledge of etiquette where the sun doesn't shine.
You can see above I'm not being disingenuous. But, after having read your entire post and the previous posts, I believe you genuinely are being disingenuous with me. You have repeatedly addressed an audience instead of me either directly or indirectly. No matter what class you are, that's rude.
> Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal.
> So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that.
I mean, literally didn't go into it because it was already a long comment, who you acknowledged. But.... It's a minimal agreement that does not impose any additional tarifs on the exchange of goods and just requires that each country meets each one's internal standards for sale, no sales tax. Comparatively, the EU despite having a 'free trade deal', is imposing import VAT for protectionism (Iceland does not). Meanwhile, both Chinese citizens and organisations can buy EU goods at lower rates than EU citizens can because they do not impose an import sales tax. Much like how the rest of the world is able to purchase 'excess' (or 'quota') food from the EU cheaper than the EU citizens do.
> it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality.
So, you're going to assume I've left reality because I didn't go out of my way to explain how the Total Allowable Catch works and that basically, they're set without sufficient understanding of the environment which leads to overfishing. Then the UK government, knowing how bad it is, restricts our own people from fishing to save the environment (under their interpretation of TAC) without us actually being in violation of TAC. This is worsened by the fact that roughly half of our local fishing companies are actually owned by foreign companies now, which are some of the same ones that are getting good use of out of the poor TAC policy via other countries. TAC is set by the European Commission, now this might sound confusing because they actually get data from ICES, but what the EC does not have to follow any of ICES recommendations and the only ones who can make proposals is the EC. So if the EC wants to push something through, they can just not propose any better alternatives. EC does the same thing in parliament too and if they want something, they can force it regardless. But, you should know that already, being that you're such a pompous arse towards anyone who holds the 'wrong' view point and you have succeeded in getting under my skin.
> This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault
I have earnestly tried to engage with you, but you have chosen to completely ignore all the issues raised, quickly dismiss arguments by any convenient means possible, including, complaining about not flooding a post with a bunch of links, because you posted a single link that didn't actually show the cost of membership.
> Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU.
Greenland is a self autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark and it isn't part of Denmark for trade purposes in the EU, it's heritage is older than the EU...
> Again, facts bro!
Since you want to address an audience, I will do the same.
There is a reason why us in the working class won't engage with middle class/university people/intellectuals (regardless if brexiteer or remainer), they dance around us like we're trash and try to slip us up on petty etiquette instead of actual engagement. They twist everything we say through manipulation as being too ‘simple’ to understand, simply because we don’t have the right articulation and they genuinely don’t really care about our issues, I don’t know what their motives are. We are just disposable subhumans to them, emotional punching bags that they can blame.
Regardless of why I think the EU is bad, I’m certain people voted brexit in a majority, it was because they were massively unhappy, it wasn’t a protest, it was just an attempt to change things for the better, because they are not good right now. Both the EU and UK government failed their citizens. They should have done a better job and unfortunately, remainers are so stuck that on the idea the EU is great, they refuse to acknowledge this very simple fact. What’s worse is that I tried to demonstrate this in my posts and you can see the complete blindness to it, the utter refusal to acknowledge anything could be wrong.
You're right that I address the wider audience rather than you directly. I apologize if that seems rude. There are a few reasons for this:
* First, it's not personal. I am sure you're a lovely person. Addressing the audience instead of you makes it easier to keep that in mind. And they are the ones who will be convinced or not by anything either of us say.
* Second, this isn't about brexit as a subject. It's about people's justification of brexit. That's what my first comment said. I didn't say brexit was right or wrong, I said people supported it for illogical reasons. Go back and look. Your comments are literally evidence of that from your own mouth. So what am I meant to say? I provided simple rebuttal with citation. You replied with very familiar brexiter discussion strategies:
* You didn't cite anything, you just made claims (Greenland is a nation?)
* You added subjects that were not under discussion (Greece and Goldmans?)
* You wrote at great length (a whole paragraph on fisheries, without addressing my question: how will brexit let us fish more without fishing more?)
So what am I meant to do? Keep pointing out that Greenland is not a nation and does fall under EU trade law (citation below)? And then work through all the other issues? Including anymore you add to the list (sovereignty, immigration, CAP)? Plus all the articles you piled in as sources (4 articles about greek debt and goldman sachs)? Or assume that you are trying to "bury me in paperwork"? What is anyone to do faced with all this? I could reasonably call this disingenuous but I don't (see later in this comment).
I am not offended by any of this, nor do I imagine you will change your mind or that if I did we could somehow prevent brexit. I think you're clearly reasonable, you write well, you do NOT seem to be trolling or otherwise acting disingenuously. Quite the opposite: I think you honestly believe what you said ("What's better, the EU or rest of world?") despite evidence to the contrary. I think your rational capable brain is pursuing the bullet points above as a defense mechanism against being proven wrong ("losing" an argument is such a crap phrase because there is nothing too lose on here is there?)
So how does a reasonable person come to this position? How are beliefs formed and what makes them stick in the face of evidence? Is this facit of the human mind being abused (Cambridge analytics etc)? what does it mean for democracy and our society, based on the assumption of rational decision making? That's what I am addressing. That's why I am asking open questions. I've had this exact same discussion before. The same feeling comes when I watch a junior politician defend a party position he argued against last week or when Jehovah's witnesses come to my door or trump supporters railing against Obama. What drives people to need to believe something they don't really believe?
I think this is another perfect example of brexiteer mentality.
In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.
This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion". But if all were doing is spewing crap, doesn't that harm actual discussion? Isn't that exactly the sort of fact free, reality rejecting, cultism that I claimed originally? You're sort of making my point for me.
So what happens next, maybe there is a point here with some content?
>Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.
OK, so you're saying we can get a better deal without the EU? That isn't what you said before so you're changing position, but maybe there is something in that.
So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that. I suspect that's because that would involve facts and details and involve some comparison of the UK (a larger service economy) and Iceland (a tiny economy that mainly exports fish and aluminium).
Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal. This is a bad deal and you do give reasons: it allowed to much fishing damaging fisheries and it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality. You believe we can get a "better deal", but that deal would have to increase and decrease fishing at the same time. Great. You've also missed that the fisheries deal was negotiated not to be perfect, but to better than the free for all previously imposed. Or that the multiple UK governments have repeatedly refused to reopen the matter or to use any of the protection permitted under the deal.
This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault, you don't have a solution because there isn't one, so we have to leave the EU, because you want the people who setup the system you don't like to have less oversight from Brussels.
Also, FYI, Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU. Again, facts bro!