Brexit

[Montegriffo]

Ain't no reason they can't have free trade with that trading bloc while not having to protect the EU's protectionist interests which hurts the UK negotiating position while claiming a better negotiating position is the main reason he supports being in the EU. Monte is no nationalist, he's far more pro-EU than he is pro-UK. There isn't a regulation that Monte doesn't like, he thinks the UK should be inundated with red tape, while being blind to how much that hurts the UK negotiating position far more than it helps it.

Guess you showed him.

Well I did, but he'll ignore it and keep on pretending the being pro-EU is what's best for the UK, no matter how obvious it is that the UK is being held back by the EU.

History has shown how membership has benefitted the UK, what evidence do you have to support your feelz about it holding us back?

And please stop conflating being pro the benefits of membership of a European free trade zone with regulatory alignment and being pro EU.
I've lost count of the number of times I've said that I oppose the federalisation of Europe and that the best way to fight it is from within.

As for protectionist policies, if China and the US didn't practice protectionist policies of their own and were able to raise their own food standards and employment rights to acceptable levels there would be little need for them and everybody could compete on a level playing ground.

[StCapps]

Guess you showed him.

Well I did, but he'll ignore it and keep on pretending the being pro-EU is what's best for the UK, no matter how obvious it is that the UK is being held back by the EU.

History has shown how membership has benefitted the UK, what evidence do you have to support your feelz about it holding us back?

And please stop conflating being pro the benefits of membership of a European free trade zone with regulatory alignment and being pro EU.
I've lost count of the number of times I've said that I oppose the federalisation of Europe and that the best way to fight it is from within.

As for protectionist policies, if China and the US didn't practice protectionist policies of their own and were able to raise their own food standards and employment rights to acceptable levels there would be little need for them and everybody could compete on a level playing ground.

In the case of America, it's ridiculous to claim they don't have food standards and employment rights at acceptable levels, the EU are the ones with unacceptable levels of regulation, it's not America who is underdoing it, it is the EU that is overdoing it. You are right now arguing in favor of regulatory alignment with the EU, opposing the federalisation of Europe doesn't make you anti-EU, it's just means you don't want to go full retard but are cool with half retard. Any regulations that the EU was in favor of that Britain wasn't in favor of will no longer be baggage for the UK in trade negotiations that cost them concessions they would otherwise get in any trade deals.

[Montegriffo]

Well I did, but he'll ignore it and keep on pretending the being pro-EU is what's best for the UK, no matter how obvious it is that the UK is being held back by the EU.

History has shown how membership has benefitted the UK, what evidence do you have to support your feelz about it holding us back?

And please stop conflating being pro the benefits of membership of a European free trade zone with regulatory alignment and being pro EU.
I've lost count of the number of times I've said that I oppose the federalisation of Europe and that the best way to fight it is from within.

As for protectionist policies, if China and the US didn't practice protectionist policies of their own and were able to raise their own food standards and employment rights to acceptable levels there would be little need for them and everybody could compete on a level playing ground.

In the case of America, it's ridiculous to claim they don't have food standards and employment rights at acceptable levels, the EU are the ones with unacceptable levels of regulation, it's not America who is underdoing it, it is the EU that is overdoing it. You are right now arguing in favor of regulatory alignment with the EU, opposing the federalisation of Europe doesn't make you anti-EU, it's just means you don't want to go full retard but are cool with half retard. Any regulations that the EU was in favor of that Britain wasn't in favor of will no longer be baggage for the UK in trade negotiations that cost them concessions they would otherwise get in any trade deals.

American food standards aren't even acceptable to Americans and they certainly aren't acceptable to the British who are used to much higher standards.
The EU doesn't have ''acceptable'' levels of rodent shit and hairs in their food. The acceptable level according to our regulations is zero.
We don't just accept high levels of salmonella on our chickens and mitigate with bleach, we improve food handling practices so that it is safe to eat without it. Our eggs are salmonella free so do not need refrigeration like US eggs. We don't allow hormone injections purely to increase profits and we accurately label our foodstuffs so that customers can decide for themselves whether they wish to consume unhealthy foods or those containing GMOs.
Our workers have rights such as 4 weeks paid holiday and maternity/paternity leave written into law. They have statutory rights to breaks at work so they don't have to piss into bottles or eat while they are working. Employment rights in the US seem to consist of ''if you don't like it you can leave and get a job elsewhere''.
We reward our farmers for protecting the environment and encouraging bio-diversity and penalise them if they don't. We have higher standards of animal welfare and better regulations for the slaughtering and processing of meat.
The US insists on us lowering our standards so that they can sell their substandard produce to us but we say up your game so that our food producers can compete on a level playing ground.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Ain't no reason they can't have free trade with that trading bloc while not having to protect the EU's protectionist interests which hurts the UK negotiating position while claiming a better negotiating position is the main reason he supports being in the EU. Monte is no nationalist, he's far more pro-EU than he is pro-UK. There isn't a regulation that Monte doesn't like, he thinks the UK should be inundated with red tape, while being blind to how much that hurts the UK negotiating position far more than it helps it.

Guess you showed him.

Well I did, but he'll ignore it and keep on pretending the being pro-EU is what's best for the UK, no matter how obvious it is that the UK is being held back by the EU.

No, but that was an impressive string of straw men and drivel.

[clubgop]

Because I'm a patriot with the best interests of my country at heart.
I've never wanted a federal Europe only a common market, Britain's withdrawal only increases the possibility of a United States of Europe.
The strength and prosperity of my nation are secured by the strength and prosperity of Europe. Being a part of the world's largest free-trade block has ensured a better negotiating position when dealing with the huge trading blocks of China and the US.
To abandon that based on little more than petty nationalism and a wish to return to a former glory which is long gone is an act of economic self-harm which should be resisted.
The UK's interests are best aligned with our neighbours across the channel with their high standards of healthcare, food production, worker's rights and environmental regulations not with a country 3000 miles away which cares only for the bottom line.

Stop virtue signaling. No one is buying it. You want the UK to fail then have it fail and come crawling back to Brussels. It's what you want.

Nice strawman.
Much easier than countering any of the points I actually made.
I've always described myself as a reluctant Remainer as you can see here on the very first page of this thread.
https://www.martinhash.com/forums/viewt ... 1287#p3927

Yeah, not helpful. Stay in the unhappy failing marriage for the children. That hasn't ever gone wrong.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Stop virtue signaling. No one is buying it. You want the UK to fail then have it fail and come crawling back to Brussels. It's what you want.

Nice strawman.
Much easier than countering any of the points I actually made.
I've always described myself as a reluctant Remainer as you can see here on the very first page of this thread.
https://www.martinhash.com/forums/viewt ... 1287#p3927

Yeah, not helpful. Stay in the unhappy failing marriage for the children. That hasn't ever gone wrong.

For a guy that constantly bitches about single mothers...

[clubgop]

Nice strawman.
Much easier than countering any of the points I actually made.
I've always described myself as a reluctant Remainer as you can see here on the very first page of this thread.
https://www.martinhash.com/forums/viewt ... 1287#p3927

Yeah, not helpful. Stay in the unhappy failing marriage for the children. That hasn't ever gone wrong.

For a guy that constantly bitches about single mothers...

I think you got the wrong guy. I am pretty sure you mean STA. And to think of the UK as a single mom is an interesting concept.

[Montegriffo]

I remember, as a child, watching this on the telly every year, wishing we had something similar. Then we joined the EU and our public broadcasting quit showing it.

Britain has always been the bulwark against tyranny. Stay strong. I'm on your side.

Talking of Elgar and Land of Hope and Glory...
When I was growing up Land of Hope and Glory was often played at sporting matches where England was competing and God Save the Queen was played when we were competing as Great Britain.
This was always the case at the Commonwealth games as GSTQ could be said to represent all the nations competing.
Rugby was another sport in which Land of Hope and Glory was played in order to differentiate between the home nations.
Somewhere along the way this tradition ended and now England is always represented by GSTQ although Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland have all kept their unofficial anthems.
So in an hour's time when England line up against France, rather than the uplifting Land of Hope and Glory written by an Englishman being played it will be that dreadful dirge written by a Kraut instead.

[Hastur]

I remember, as a child, watching this on the telly every year, wishing we had something similar. Then we joined the EU and our public broadcasting quit showing it.

Britain has always been the bulwark against tyranny. Stay strong. I'm on your side.

Talking of Elgar and Land of Hope and Glory...
When I was growing up Land of Hope and Glory was often played at sporting matches where England was competing and God Save the Queen was played when we were competing as Great Britain.
This was always the case at the Commonwealth games as GSTQ could be said to represent all the nations competing.
Rugby was another sport in which Land of Hope and Glory was played in order to differentiate between the home nations.
Somewhere along the way this tradition ended and now England is always represented by GSTQ although Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland have all kept their unofficial anthems.
So in an hour's time when England line up against France, rather than the uplifting Land of Hope and Glory written by an Englishman being played it will be that dreadful dirge written by a Kraut instead.

I did not know that. Thanks for that little fact. You also have Rule Britannia which also is a better anthem than GSTQ.

[Montegriffo]

I remember, as a child, watching this on the telly every year, wishing we had something similar. Then we joined the EU and our public broadcasting quit showing it.

Britain has always been the bulwark against tyranny. Stay strong. I'm on your side.

Talking of Elgar and Land of Hope and Glory...
When I was growing up Land of Hope and Glory was often played at sporting matches where England was competing and God Save the Queen was played when we were competing as Great Britain.
This was always the case at the Commonwealth games as GSTQ could be said to represent all the nations competing.
Rugby was another sport in which Land of Hope and Glory was played in order to differentiate between the home nations.
Somewhere along the way this tradition ended and now England is always represented by GSTQ although Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland have all kept their unofficial anthems.
So in an hour's time when England line up against France, rather than the uplifting Land of Hope and Glory written by an Englishman being played it will be that dreadful dirge written by a Kraut instead.

I did not know that. Thanks for that little fact. You also have Rule Britannia which also is a better anthem than GSTQ.

Whilst GSTQ is nothing but a eulogy to her Majesty and Rule Britannia is outdated Imperialistic claptrap (although I agree it is a better tune), Land of Hope and Glory is actually a song about the virtues of the nation.
If the Union does break up as a result of Brexit then maybe we can adopt it as our official national anthem after the Queen dies. No one is going to remember to sing God save our gracious King anyway.