Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    British fishermen have no issue with quotas to protect fish population numbers, which the EU has not done. 75% of commercial stocks are overfished despite 42 years of the CFP. That's an epic failure.
    this basically means that fishing quotas should have been even stricter
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What they have issue with is policies such as the requirement to tip dead fish overboard if they are not of the species the Trawler is meant to be catching. In some areas this amounts to about 13% of the catch. The CFP also favours industrial trawlers fleets, while smaller more sustainable boats have no chance of surviving.
    a good example of how the discussion quickly becomes technical, and difficult for the general public to understand and decide

    would a referendum on the EU fisheries policy be a sensible solution ? no. There is no way that the general public could make a reasoned, well-informed decision

    Governments and directly-elected Parliaments are there for a reason
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    British fishermen have no issue with quotas to protect fish population numbers, which the EU has not done. 75% of commercial stocks are overfished despite 42 years of the CFP. That's an epic failure.
    What they have issue with is policies such as the requirement to tip dead fish overboard if they are not of the species the Trawler is meant to be catching. In some areas this amounts to about 13% of the catch. The CFP also favours industrial trawlers fleets, while smaller more sustainable boats have no chance of surviving.
    BIB: this is a tricky situation because technically without this requirement quotas would be unenforceable because people could claim it was an accident when it wasn't and just ignore the quotas. so you do have to look at both sides of the argument for that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    this basically means that fishing quotas should have been even strictera good example of how the discussion quickly becomes technical, and difficult for the general public to understand and decide

    would a referendum on the EU fisheries policy be a sensible solution ? no. There is no way that the general public could make a reasoned, well-informed decision

    Governments and directly-elected Parliaments are there for a reason
    Overly-technical? I'm talking about how the fishermen voted. I'm sure they understand how their own industry regulation works.
    I sort of understand your general gist though, although it's dangerous territory. I'm of the opinion that Governments and directly elected Parliaments are there to implement the will of the people. Like literally, that's their only purpose. It doesn't matter if they think they know better. By all means attempt to persuade otherwise, but the only reason there's such voter discontent is entirely because they believe the establishment is marginalising and ignoring their views.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    BIB: this is a tricky situation because technically without this requirement quotas would be unenforceable because people could claim it was an accident when it wasn't and just ignore the quotas. so you do have to look at both sides of the argument for that.
    Yeah fair one, I suppose you could have a cod trawler catching unlimited amounts of every other fish.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manchester_123)
    The electorate chose the wrong decision in the last 2 elections as well and the last 2 referendums. Eventually we got to consider if voting should be allowed in the first place, if they keep picking the wrong answer, what's the point? We need a system like they had before parliament came into being
    That's your opinion; I'm not a fan of the Tories, but I prefer them to Milliband's and Corbyn's labour. General elections are a lot different to referendums, because we have one every 5 years.

    Are you referring to the AV referendum in 2011? I agree the public made the wrong decision. Something as complex as the EU or voting reform shouldn't be held to the public; people are too ignorant and uninformed. However, this is a democracy, and we need a democracy. What other system of government would you propose? Ultimately, people should have the right to vote on matters that effect them. Overall, I think referendums are fine for issues which aren't too complex, but when something as complex as the EU is at stake, I think it should be left to the MPs to decide. People let their ignorance blind them, are easily manipulated by the media and are unable to think critically.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    wth bro i am not arguing with you - i am agreeing with you. You have clearly demonstrated you are the fountain of "truth" and "objectivity" (Cos u said so above)

    I suggested you could decide whats best for all 65 million people of UK because you are objective and full of truth
    See you continue to prove just how useless you are in this matter, you're not worth my time of discussion fgs
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The patronising condescension is in your notion that only Remainers have been objective, only Remainers have appreciated facts and done research. Because of your self-righteous belief that Remain was the inherently correct decision, you're unable to grasp the possibility that Leave voters also put some thought into their decision but merely came up with a different end result than you.
    Let's look at Remain's arguments. First of all, Leavers are racists and bigots. For obvious reasons, this didn't sway anyone.
    On the economics side, Cameron and Osborne's doomsday predictions were dismissed as desperate and of no credibility. There were indeed credible analysis of more moderate financial gloom, however ultimately these were not enough to sway many people. No one ever thought leaving would instantly turn the UK into a land of gold and honey. Many people however believed that it was a price worth paying to be free of EU bureaucracy. There's a reason that something like 90% of British fishermen voted leave. They have seen first hand the EU destroying their livelihoods.
    Many older Brits were alive way before the EU existed in it's current form of the UK was a member, and so were puzzled by claims that the UK is a tiny island state that needs the EU to survive.
    Immigration was obviously a hot topic. Me personally, I have no issue with large scale immigration so long as the government funds services in line with the increased population. However the jist of the Remain campaigns argument over this was Luvvies and students singing Kumbaya and career politicians telling ordinary people that their problems that they are facing first hand were all imaginary.
    So as you can see, people who voted Leave did indeed weigh up all the facts and made an informed decision. They just, shock horror, came to a different conclusion to you.
    But clearly you haven't weighed up all the facts. Cameron's predictions was not the only prediction! In fact Cameron is the very insignifact part of the whole movement. I strongly advise you research further into this, at least in particular the possible outcomes of leaving the EU as many more have been described negatively compared to remaining in the EU.
    It isn't that were calling the leave voters racist however undeniably many voted leave almost purely because of immigration without researching the impacts of the decision on other, much more important aspects. Also I really hate the idea people are against immigration when it has been repeatedly proven to fuel the country's economy, while bigoted views have been disproved again and again. That's one of the factors that lead me to believe people voted blindly without analysing every other aspect.

    Also the argument about older Brits living in the UK before the EU... I think you're forgetting the reason UK joined the EU is because this was needed. And the need has not ceased! If anything, with factors such as high terrorism alerts, we really do need the EU supporting us. We can develop inside the EU at a rate much higher than we would be able to inside of it, which has been predicted by a considerable number of economists if you have a quick Google search (I'd provide links but I'm sure they're easy to find on your own if you wish to have a glance at least). The older generation is missing the sovereignty however they're not realising the EU has evolved together as one and we have been a part of it and times have quite frankly changed. We're no longer the great British nation invading other countries and colonising whatever land we had a liking for. Those times are long gone before the current generations have even been here so I don't see why we're still attached to those days. It is no longer possible. We are civilised and educated and are looking for prosperity on our land which is an easier target within the EU than outside of it as research by financial experts show.
    Voting by the older generation in this manner is trying to make a no longer existing dream come true, and personally I don't agree with it, which is my opinion of course, but if you do research enough you will see why such voting with this way of thinking is nonsensical, similarly to voting purely based on immigration.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yeah fair one, I suppose you could have a cod trawler catching unlimited amounts of every other fish.
    and that's why that rule was introduced. It isn't a perfect solution by any means but it's the best solution to act as a disincentive.

    (Original post by drowzee)
    That's your opinion; I'm not a fan of the Tories, but I prefer them to Milliband's and Corbyn's labour. General elections are a lot different to referendums, because we have one every 5 years.

    Are you referring to the AV referendum in 2011? I agree the public made the wrong decision. Something as complex as the EU or voting reform shouldn't be held to the public; people are too ignorant and uninformed. However, this is a democracy, and we need a democracy. What other system of government would you propose? Ultimately, people should have the right to vote on matters that effect them. Overall, I think referendums are fine for issues which aren't too complex, but when something as complex as the EU is at stake, I think it should be left to the MPs to decide. People let their ignorance blind them, are easily manipulated by the media and are unable to think critically.
    I completely agree about referendums but then I also think that power should be in the peoples hands to prevent tyranny (changes to voting rights and declarations of independence)
    Personally I believe that benevolent dictatorship or some form of Technocracy is best but not perfect either and are likely to fall to tyranny.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rxns_00)
    See you continue to prove just how useless you are in this matter, you're not worth my time of discussion fgs

    But clearly you haven't weighed up all the facts. Cameron's predictions was not the only prediction! In fact Cameron is the very insignifact part of the whole movement. I strongly advise you research further into this, at least in particular the possible outcomes of leaving the EU as many more have been described negatively compared to remaining in the EU.
    I specifically said there were other financial predictions, but on balance they did not tip the scales. No one has said leaving would instant turn the UK into a land of gold and honey. Most Brexiters knew there would be some financial pain before the supposed reward, and felt it was worth it. Most doomsday scenarios appeared to rely on the idea of the USA and the EU freezing us out in trade deals, and within one day both have said that will not happen.
    This is precisely weighing up facts and making an informed decision. Stop condescendingly dismissing any dissent as uniformed and made without research. You may not intend it as such, but it is condescending as hell.
    Also, when you have working class communities who struggle under the status quo, you can see why the argument that the status quo is required for their prosperity did not hold much weight.

    (Original post by rxns_00)
    It isn't that were calling the leave voters racist however undeniably many voted leave almost purely because of immigration without researching the impacts of the decision on other, much more important aspects. Also I really hate the idea people are against immigration when it has been repeatedly proven to fuel the country's economy, while bigoted views have been disproved again and again. That's one of the factors that lead me to believe people voted blindly without analysing every other aspect.
    What of the strain on social services? Like I said, I'm not against immigration, but there are people out there who first hand have seen the impact of immigration, who are last on the housing queues and have no GP because all the surgeries are full and are struggling to find work. I can understand full well why students and luvvies telling them that actually immigration is great and their problems are imaginary didn't go down too well, and again dismissing their views as being blind and without analysis when they have to live through the issue every single day is condescending.

    (Original post by rxns_00)
    Also the argument about older Brits living in the UK before the EU... I think you're forgetting the reason UK joined the EU is because this was needed. And the need has not ceased! If anything, with factors such as high terrorism alerts, we really do need the EU supporting us. We can develop inside the EU at a rate much higher than we would be able to inside of it, which has been predicted by a considerable number of economists if you have a quick Google search (I'd provide links but I'm sure they're easy to find on your own if you wish to have a glance at least). The older generation is missing the sovereignty however they're not realising the EU has evolved together as one and we have been a part of it and times have quite frankly changed. We're no longer the great British nation invading other countries and colonising whatever land we had a liking for. Those times are long gone before the current generations have even been here so I don't see why we're still attached to those days. It is no longer possible. We are civilised and educated and are looking for prosperity on our land which is an easier target within the EU than outside of it as research by financial experts show.
    'Times have changed' isn't an argument. This is blind rhetoric of the same you dismiss the Leavers of engaging in. Dozens of developed countries survive outside the EU, simply saying 'times have changed, the Empire is over' isn't a convincing argument. No credible argument was presented that the UK would not be able to co-operate with the EU on trade, defence and research etc. only that it would be harder.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    and that's why that rule was introduced. It isn't a perfect solution by any means but it's the best solution to act as a disincentive.
    It hasn't really worked though. Either way the CFP has failed to reduce over-fishing. Better oversight of trawler fleets could have been better. Confiscation of unlicensed catches, fines etc. there are so many other alternatives.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    It hasn't really worked though. Either way the CFP has failed to reduce over-fishing. Better oversight of trawler fleets could have been better. Confiscation of unlicensed catches, fines etc. there are so many other alternatives.
    fines would have to be larger than the worth of the fish, confiscation could work but wouldn't solve the over-fishing problem.
    I'm not saying that the EU is great at this but it is facing attack by large and small alike and it's a very hard balance to strike.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    OP

    It would never happen because those in charge in this country are headless chickens

    Think about it, it's been half a week since the UK voted to leave and we have no flippin' clue what's next

    Unless someone would like to enlighten me?

    I for one pray that we go to General Election, form a Coalition, make a new deal with the EU (the EU remove our £5 billion rebate as a "punishment" and then life carries on

    If the above does happen I will probably jump around the house for a day and smile so much I will require the NHS (where infact 60,000 EU workers help us run our fantastic system)

    But I really doubt my idea above will happen
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katherine9609)
    1 million is not majority. Not when one side is 16m+ and the other 17m+. 3% difference between the vote is also not majority. In fact, the vote is practically equally divided. If for example leave would be 25m and remain 5m then yes, that would be majority. But a 1m/3% difference is not majority.

    The word majority means "over half", do you see "over half" of the voters being on the leave side? Yeah exactly, you don't

    Please go educate yourself before you comment. Sometimes reading a history or politics book is much more beneficial for you than Wikipedia or a calculator 😊
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    What bizarre system are you using. You originally said

    "The word majority means "over half", do you see "over half" of the voters being on the leave side? Yeah exactly, you don't "
    But you do. 51.9% of the voters is over half of the voters. I'll keep repeating this because it keeps being true, I don't know what you're on about.
    What he said lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fenice)
    What he said lol
    It is over 50% so it is a majority . . .

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LionKing1)
    It is over 50% so it is a majority . . .

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes exactly. Exactly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drowzee)
    That's your opinion; I'm not a fan of the Tories, but I prefer them to Milliband's and Corbyn's labour. General elections are a lot different to referendums, because we have one every 5 years.

    Are you referring to the AV referendum in 2011? I agree the public made the wrong decision. Something as complex as the EU or voting reform shouldn't be held to the public; people are too ignorant and uninformed. However, this is a democracy, and we need a democracy. What other system of government would you propose? Ultimately, people should have the right to vote on matters that effect them. Overall, I think referendums are fine for issues which aren't too complex, but when something as complex as the EU is at stake, I think it should be left to the MPs to decide. People let their ignorance blind them, are easily manipulated by the media and are unable to think critically.
    I'm sorry but you are a hypocrite. I want to remain in the EU but I won't be hypocritical, and think some decisions deserve democratic decision and some don't. It's all or nothing. This referendum should be ignored and unlike you I'm no hypocrite so therefore other referendum results and general elections should be ignored in favour of the right result. But unlike you I'm no hypocrite, I don't pick and choose
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I would be happy, is there a great chance for this to happen? 🤔


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    clicc that mf blocc button
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It would be Parliament's Charles I moment.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by george_c00per)
    now u have ur independence ur simply ukp

    will the uk exist after brexit? no

    so ur now p

    p = pee

    pee is bad

    ur party is bad

    checkmate
    The sharp wit and logic of the remain campaign strikes Brexiteers into silence yet again.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    This thread just confirms to me why under 18's should not be able to vote.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.