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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Gave up after 15 minutes-

    the thing is, their arguments lead us to conclude that only incredibly small areas (eg city states) can be seen as democratic and would lead to the fragmentation of all the nation states of the EU and certainly the UK and would largely be pointless and would leave us far weaker to the depredations of larger states as well as global economic forces. I notice that they regularly mentioned laws but didn't give any examples- I'll always remember when the mail ran an article criticising the EU for creating a bankers bonus tx and even the Mail readers were in the EUs side




    For a for more educated and nuanced account of the EU, read And the weak suffer what they must? By Yanis Varoufakis, (Im halfway through now- he severely criticises the EU, but shows how leaving it would in fact exacerbate our problems)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rover73)
    Well thats not true. English fishermen are simply not allowed to fish those waters, under rules set by the EU
    Every EU Member State has delineated fishing zones. The trouble is enforcement, as I said - UK fishermen tend to follow the law more, but the Spanish violate it. This problem won't go away - likely worsen - if we left the EU.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by similarBlank)
    Of course this video is telling the truth. You really think it's an entire documentary out of lies simply because you disagree with it? Saying it's not true is a rather pointless argument, like saying "I'm voting Remain because the EU is better." Oh, well, that's a very persuasive, thought out argument.
    What a fallacious argument to make. I've already given my preliminary responses to how much it misrepresents or outright lies. Simply saying 'but it's true, it's a whole documentary!' is no more persuasive than saying the Bible is true because it's really long.

    Government spent £9 million of taxpayer's money on that shi**y leaflet now it's our turn to produce our crowdfunded, low budgeted film that shows our side of the argument.
    Irony is I doubt many will bother to watch an hour long documentary and let much of it sink in. Better tactic is short, sharp factoids and supply further information when interest is shown.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    If we left the EU, we'd have no international mechanism by which we could drag up the Spanish for breaking the law.
    Wrong once again.

    It's called UNCLOS--to which the EU is a signatory and, thus, Spain is party to it.

    http://www.un.org/depts/los/conventi...s/unclos_e.pdf
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rover73)
    Well thats not true. English fishermen are simply not allowed to fish those waters, under rules set by the EU
    (Original post by gladders)
    Every EU Member State has delineated fishing zones. The trouble is enforcement, as I said - UK fishermen tend to follow the law more, but the Spanish violate it. This problem won't go away - likely worsen - if we left the EU.
    Neither of these points are true.

    The British are historically low consumers of fish compared with southern European countries. Since medieval times northern European fishing has been based upon exports to Spain and Italy. The UK consumes 333,000 tonnes of fish a year of which 55,000 tonnes is salmon (virtually none of which is caught by commercial fishermen in UK waters). UK boats (including nominally UK boats) land 756,000 tonnes of fish a year.

    Until Iceland's unilateral action, national fishing zones were based on very narrow, initially three, later twelve mile limits. British fishing had two golden ages, the first built around the seasonal migration of herring that commenced with the railway age, which ended with the fishing out of the herring stock, and the second based upon deep water trawling in distant waters (which made the ports of Hull, Grimsby and Peterhead the largest fishing ports in the world) and which ended by reason of a combination of the UK ceasing to have a technological advantage in fishing boats and the creation of 200 mile national fishing zones.

    There never was an era when British fishermen's' livelihood was protected by national fishing rules.

    Under the Common Fisheries Policy, the UK has a fishing quota, but that quota can be bought and sold. Most fish caught within the UK quota.is still exported to Mediterranean Europe. That is where the prices are highest. As a result, it pays for foreign fishing businesses to set up purely nominal UK operations to buy British quota to catch fish to sell in their home markets.

    The UK fishing industry was happy to sell that quota to only nominally UK fishing businesses and having pocketed that money there is no suggestion that it will pay to buy it back as and when it comes on the open market.

    And for the idea that it is only the dastardly foreigners who break quota rules

    http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/wg-news-...2573AD0059CEF0

    http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2012/...ck-fish-scheme

    In practical terms if we left the EU, the UK government would redefine a UK fishing boat to exclude purely nominal UK businesses; they would sell fishing licences and quota to Spanish boats helping UK tax revenues and would probably increase the level of enforcement (most EU countries suspected the British government of conniving in black fish scandals until Brussels forced them to get tough because real UK fishermen benefited proportionately more then foreigners from illegal catches). The numbers of real UK fishermen would continue to fall.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Neither of these points are true.

    The British are historically low consumers of fish compared with southern European countries. Since medieval times northern European fishing has been based upon exports to Spain and Italy. The UK consumes 333,000 tonnes of fish a year of which 55,000 tonnes is salmon (virtually none of which is caught by commercial fishermen in UK waters). UK boats (including nominally UK boats) land 756,000 tonnes of fish a year.

    Until Iceland's unilateral action, national fishing zones were based on very narrow, initially three, later twelve mile limits. British fishing had two golden ages, the first built around the seasonal migration of herring that commenced with the railway age, which ended with the fishing out of the herring stock, and the second based upon deep water trawling in distant waters (which made the ports of Hull, Grimsby and Peterhead the largest fishing ports in the world) and which ended by reason of a combination of the UK ceasing to have a technological advantage in fishing boats and the creation of 200 mile national fishing zones.

    There never was an era when British fishermen's' livelihood was protected by national fishing rules.

    Under the Common Fisheries Policy, the UK has a fishing quota, but that quota can be bought and sold. Most fish caught within the UK quota.is still exported to Mediterranean Europe. That is where the prices are highest. As a result, it pays for foreign fishing businesses to set up purely nominal UK operations to buy British quota to catch fish to sell in their home markets.

    The UK fishing industry was happy to sell that quota to only nominally UK fishing businesses and having pocketed that money there is no suggestion that it will pay to buy it back as and when it comes on the open market.

    And for the idea that it is only the dastardly foreigners who break quota rules

    http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/wg-news-...2573AD0059CEF0

    http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2012/...ck-fish-scheme

    In practical terms if we left the EU, the UK government would redefine a UK fishing boat to exclude purely nominal UK businesses; they would sell fishing licences and quota to Spanish boats helping UK tax revenues and would probably increase the level of enforcement (most EU countries suspected the British government of conniving in black fish scandals until Brussels forced them to get tough because real UK fishermen benefited proportionately more then foreigners from illegal catches). The numbers of real UK fishermen would continue to fall.
    Thanks for the informed reply
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    My point is completely true.

    One of the most damaging implications of Britain joining the EU has been the effect on our fishing industry. The Common Fishing Policy (CFP) is the EU’s method of implementing pan-European laws on fishing and aquaculture.As with most policies emanating from the centralised elite in Brussels, the CFP was a major disaster.After its introduction in 1970, the CFP has been synonymous with the huge decline of our fish stocks, deterioration of the environment, wasteful discarding of fish, and the destruction of Britain’s fishing industry and communities.Geographically well placed, British and Irish waters actually account for 60 percent of the EU’s waters. To add salt to the wound, it is an embarrassing reminder the CFP did not exist until Britain joined the EU.The sacrifice made essentially placed Britain’s precious waters under a shared resource to other EU nations. Ever since, stocks have depleted and many coastal towns have gone into economic and social decline through the loss of thousands of jobs.As certain nations receive a better deal out of the EU, it is clear the industries of national importance to other member states have never been under threat or willingly reduced by their own politicians.From French wineries to the German automotive industry, it is clear other member states do all they can to protect important sections of their own economy and heritage, while British politicians willingly give away one of our own.As the United Nations Law of the Sea states: “The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines”. Yet Britain’s fishing rights have now been reduced by the EU to a mere 12 miles.This policy has become so nonsensical, it’s hard to shift the blame away from Britain’s leaders during the 1970’s, who saw the EU’s bloc mentality as the answer to our post-war decline.Looking to the future, it appears the pro-EU lobby are clearly still under the Brussels' spell. When politicians like Conservative MP Laura Sandys highlight how British fisherman will lose their EU subsidies after Brexit, it is often forgotten the CFP created the problem in the first place.In addition, mild reforms of the policy have been too little too late for our fishermen. Billions of fish have been discarded and thrown back into the sea because of the inefficient division of quotas. It is worth noting that fish landings into UK ports were higher in the 19th century than they are today.However, there is another nation in which the CFP played a similar, damaging role. Greenland decided to leave the EU (EEC in 1984). Their politicians recognised the wanton vandalism coming their way, and understood how other Member States did not follow the same procedures of handling their fish catches.In the Seventies, Britain and Greenland held around 80 percent of fish stocks. In comparison, nations such as France, Spain and Italy had destroyed stocks in the Mediterranean.With such a small population so reliant on one industry, Greenland saw no other option but to leave the EU. How is the nation doing now? Having ignored the scaremongers at the time, the islanders have found their average income on par with other rich Northern European states, and they have benefited from the lack of EU red tape.In addition, Greenland successfully negotiated favourable terms for their exit, and now enjoy favourable trade deals with the EU. If a nation of 57,000 can do it, why do we often hear that Britain, a nation of 65 million, cannot do the same?The EU is chronically over-centralised, and such ‘one size fits all’ policies will never be in the interest of Britain. Taking back control would not only repair depleted fish stocks around the British Isles, but provide a secure future for the industry.Nations like Norway, Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroes have avoided this mess. This is why our politicians must learn from example and Get Britain Out of the EU.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Most telling are the interviews with the British Fishermen in this video:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Fantastic.. didnt over do it and go crazy with hyperbole like the remain side have done.

    I cannot believe people want to remain in the EU. Unfathomable
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As soon as a single reputable economic organisation (that has not been formed solely to encourage leaving the EU) comes out and, in any capacity, says that the UK would be better off outside of the EU, then this ridiculous argument can be had.

    The main arguments coming from the 'leave' side at the moment are xenophobic vitriol, largely focused around the 'issue' of immigration, interspersed with some personal attacks and some nonsense about 'life before the EU'. What an utter load of *******s.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rover73)
    As the United Nations Law of the Sea states: “The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines”. Yet Britain’s fishing rights have now been reduced by the EU to a mere 12 miles.
    The United Nations Law of the Sea did not say this until 1982 and when we joined the EEC in 1973 we were arguing that Iceland was contravening international law by claiming a 200 mile limit. That was the issue in the 1975-6 Cod War.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Empyreal)
    As soon as a single reputable economic organisation (that has not been formed solely to encourage leaving the EU) comes out and, in any capacity, says that the UK would be better off outside of the EU, then this ridiculous argument can be had.

    The main arguments coming from the 'leave' side at the moment are xenophobic vitriol, largely focused around the 'issue' of immigration, interspersed with some personal attacks and some nonsense about 'life before the EU'. What an utter load of *******s.
    Taking the Pat Glass approach to immigration concerns?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Correct the EU is a Crony Capitalist basket case.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rover73)
    "Its like heaven for the politician because its power without accountability."

    "It was devised to make sure so the great mass of people could not control government ever again."

    Why would anyone in their right minds vote Remain?
    I dunno, maybe we'd actually think critically instead of taking some dramatic quotes from a propaganda piece at face value...

    This is all the leave campaign is. Constant, endless scaremongering about the big bad EU coming to take away our sovereignty and democracy. It's a bit pathetic. They can't produce a single fact in their favour, so they have to make dramatic films to rile up nationalists. How can people not see through this? Why would people watch a political propaganda piece and believe everything it says without a second thought? Anyone that's been convinced to vote leave because of this already wanted to be convinced.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The leave campaign didn't release that film, nor promote it. Not to take the steam out of your rant or anything.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Also, please take on the quotes critically instead of just dismissing them. It doesn't do much for your argument. The quotes that got you riled up were:

    "Its like heaven for the politician because its power without accountability."

    "It was devised to make sure so the great mass of people could not control government ever again."

    Can you take them on critically and objectively?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Did anyone read about the Spanish banks hitting fever pitch yesterday? Banco Popular, one of the Spain's leading financial firms, caused mayhem after admitting that it needed billions to bolster its balance sheet. Shocked investors dumped shares in the firm, with the bank stock's value plunging by 24 per cent this morning, after the cash call and plans to issue another 2 billion shares.It resulted in €1.4billion being wiped off the value of the bank's share price.And the worry spread to other Spanish banks with shares in Caixabank and Banco de Sabadell diving by 3.4 per cent and 4.5 per cent respectively. It comes after the country announced record debt levels, owing its creditors €1.095 trillion.


    It will be Italy and France next.........but guess who will have to help bail out any EU banks which fail.....yes ..us ...if we remain in the EU.....but in 2007 / 8 the EU did not help to bail our Banks which were in trouble....we were on our own.....who does not want BREXIT.....only fools
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The unthinkable about a country leaving the EU is now the thinkable. Thanks to the BBC. The UK has the chance to go first. With the onslaught of Fear propaganda, Remain will probably win. But only for a time. Other referendums in other countries will follow in Europe. Merkel and Hollande will soon be gone in France and Germany and one country will eventually have a break through leader that creates the environment for the country to break ranks and leave the EU. The EU will implode. Hopefully before the rise in Fascism, that is taking place in many EU countries, doesn't get to strong a hold. The EU is corrupt beyond any plausible explanation. Its a complete racket.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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

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