Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[AngryOfTuebrook]

28 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Brexit takes us where our government steers us. You blame the horse if it fucks off in the wrong direction, i blame the jockey.

Brexit allows the Tories to steer us into a ditch, which membership of the EU could have protected us from. In some parallel universe in which we had a left-wing government, it wouldn't empower them to do anything that they couldn't do within the EU, if they put their mind to it.

 

(In any case, the Referendum took place in this universe, not some Lexit fantasy land.)

 

The EU Members agreed minimum standards for workers' rights, environmental protection, etc. Every Member State is free to enforce higher standards; Brexit allows the Government to lower standards. It's that simple. Like the man said, that's the whole point of Brexit.

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Brexit allows the Tories to steer us into a ditch, which membership of the EU could have protected us from.

 

Let me stop you there. Would the EU regulations have stopped them poor fuvkers from P&O getting sacked?

4 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

 

In some parallel universe in which we had a left-wing government, it wouldn't empower them to do anything that they couldn't do within the EU, if they put their mind to it.

 

(In any case, the Referendum took place in this universe, not some Lexit fantasy land.)

 

The EU Members agreed minimum standards for workers' rights, environmental protection, etc. Every Member State is free to enforce higher standards; Brexit allows the Government to lower standards. It's that simple. Like the man said, that's the whole point of Brexit.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 19/05/2022 at 10:09, Gnasher said:

British attitudes to immigration; watch the trajectory of the red arrow, hitting its lowest point in forty years.

 

 

He doesn't offer any explanation, but I'm guessing that he's underplaying the role of his profession.

 

Attitudes are largely formed by the media. (Propaganda works because people believe it doesn't work on them.) For example, in the 2015 election, hardly anyone registered the EU as an issue influencing their vote; in 2017 and 2019 it was the be-all and end-all, because the pro-Brexit headlines had ramped up the urgency.

 

For years before the Referendum, the rhetoric from the huge-selling shitrags was "The forrin swarms are stealing your jobs and benefits".  After the Referendum, the rhetoric shifted from "beware the forrin hordes" to "Get Brexit Done - and crush any enemies of the people who want it done legally". The screaming narrative around immigration per se was dialled down a bit.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Let me stop you there. Would the EU regulations have stopped them poor fuvkers from P&O getting sacked?

Did you miss the bit where I said that literally nobody claims that the EU is a workers' paradise?

 

FWIW, the UK Government - the people who now have much greater power over workers' rights,  thanks to Brexit - changed laws to make it much easier for P&O to do what they did.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Tory MP complaining about traffic outside Dover, caused by holidaymakers in HGVs.

 

[Captain Willard]

10 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

1. Fuck the environment

2. Fuck the environment

3. Make healthcare less safe (but more profitable for big pharmaceutical companies)

4. Make driving less safe 

5. What?

6. Make healthcare less safe (but more profitable for the private companies the Tories are bringing into the NHS)

7. Strip workers' rights 

8. I don't understand this, but it smells like stropping workers' rights again

9. Make workplaces less safe.

 

I think these regulations illustrate the stupidity of the EU generally and contribute more to the Brexit case than the

remain, you can buy an Italian made petrol fuelled Ferrari or Lamborghini that does less than 15 mpg around town but you can’t buy a powerful Chinese vacuum cleaner or electric bike becuase they’re “bad for the environment”. 

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, Captain Willard said:

I think these regulations illustrate the stupidity of the EU generally and contribute more to the Brexit case than the

remain, you can buy an Italian made petrol fuelled Ferrari or Lamborghini that does less than 15 mpg around town but you can’t buy a powerful Chinese vacuum cleaner or electric bike becuase they’re “bad for the environment”. 

I think there may be more hoovers in the EU than Ferraris.  

[Captain Willard]

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

I think there may be more hoovers in the EU than Ferraris.  

Yes of course, but logically I don’t see why some products are banned on environmental grounds whilst other, much more polluting products are allowed. What’s worse; my powerful vacuum cleaner being powered partly from renewables or my petrol powered Ferrari ? Generally I don’t think the state should have a role in consumer choice apart from on public health grounds. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

10 hours ago, Captain Willard said:

Yes of course, but logically I don’t see why some products are banned on environmental grounds whilst other, much more polluting products are allowed. What’s worse; my powerful vacuum cleaner being powered partly from renewables or my petrol powered Ferrari ? Generally I don’t think the state should have a role in consumer choice apart from on public health grounds. 

You say "yes of course" and then say that you don't see the exact point he's just made.

 

The 5.2 million vacuum cleaners sold annually in the UK use a lot more energy (and create a lot more CO2 emissions) than the 971 new Ferraris. A lot more. Modern vacuum cleaners have just as much suction power as energy inefficient ones. When the regulation came in, in 2017, it was estimated that across the EU it would save 20TWh of electricity - equivalent to the entire household consumption of Belgium - and 6 million tonnes of CO2 every year.  Government (or the EU) gets involved in stuff like this, because otherwise the market incentives for the manufactures would be too weak and we wouldn't get this sort of progress.

 

 

And guess what - not fucking up the environment is the ultimate public health issue.

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You say "yes of course" and then say that you don't see the exact point he's just made.

 

The 5.2 million vacuum cleaners sold annually in the UK use a lot more energy (and create a lot more CO2 emissions) than the 971 new Ferraris. A lot more. Modern vacuum cleaners have just as much suction power as energy inefficient ones. When the regulation came in, in 2017, it was estimated that across the EU it would save 20TWh of electricity - equivalent to the entire household consumption of Belgium - and 6 million tonnes of CO2 every year.  Government (or the EU) gets involved in stuff like this, because otherwise the market incentives for the manufactures would be too weak and we wouldn't get this sort of progress.

 

 

And guess what - not fucking up the environment is the ultimate public health issue.

Oh come on Angry! Don't tell me you're bigging up the EUs record on environmental issues? They fly around the world in private jets ffs.

 

Yesterday Ursula and her crew were painted as brothers in arms to Arthur Scargill on the issue of workers rights, today you've done a miraculously job in turning them into eco warriors. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51736134.amp

[skend04]

18 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Oh come on Angry! Don't tell me you're bigging up the EUs record on environmental issues? They fly around the world in private jets ffs.

 

Yesterday Ursula and her crew were painted as brothers in arms to Arthur Scargill on the issue of workers rights, today you've done a miraculously job in turning them into eco warriors. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51736134.amp

That's not what he said though. Even the man on the street can recognise that increasing the energy usage of daily household items is madness. Yet your brexit chums think it's a benefit of voting leave. You don't have to be pro EU to find that is a ridiculous position to take. Yet, here you are, defending an idea that would add to the climate crisis because it's Brexity.

 

Cultist behaviour.

 

[Captain Willard]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You say "yes of course" and then say that you don't see the exact point he's just made.

 

The 5.2 million vacuum cleaners sold annually in the UK use a lot more energy (and create a lot more CO2 emissions) than the 971 new Ferraris. A lot more. Modern vacuum cleaners have just as much suction power as energy inefficient ones. When the regulation came in, in 2017, it was estimated that across the EU it would save 20TWh of electricity - equivalent to the entire household consumption of Belgium - and 6 million tonnes of CO2 every year.  Government (or the EU) gets involved in stuff like this, because otherwise the market incentives for the manufactures would be too weak and we wouldn't get this sort of progress.

 

 

And guess what - not fucking up the environment is the ultimate public health issue.

Good post but I think these issues should be decided at the individual or national not European level. If I want to buy an inefficient vacuum cleaner I should be allowed to in the same way I can buy a Ferrari or more realistically a barbecue or wood burning stove (both of such massively contribute to particulate air pollution in the uk). 
 

There is an obvious benefit of having a mandatory kite mark equivalent for environmental impact but these should be individual choices based on that knowledge . If s national party wants to ban products then they should put that in their manifesto and let the national electorate decide. Where we disagree is whether a European legislator should impose bans on consumer choices without the consumer having a vote. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

Oh come on Angry! Don't tell me you're bigging up the EUs record on environmental issues? 

No, I'm not. 

 

See the words in my post? That's what I'm saying.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

Yesterday Ursula and her crew were painted as brothers in arms to Arthur Scargill on the issue of workers rights, today you've done a miraculously job in turning them into eco warriors. 

You don't half make some shite up.

[Mudface]

Looks like there's been some early Bank Holiday sales on emulsion and gloss.

[Gnasher]

1 hour ago, Mudface said:

Looks like there's been some early Bank Holiday sales on emulsion and gloss.

Here's Muddy the muggy little cunt.

[Gnasher]

5 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You don't half make some shite up.

I was half pulling your leg but fair enough Angry. 

 

Anyway on a subject unrelated  to Brexit and which doesn't really sit in another thread I was wondering if you heard Mick Lynch of the RMT on Nick Robinsons show the other day. I thought it was quite good so I'll put the link of the audio below if you fancy a listen.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0017sxg

[skend04]

 

With all the Kippers in the membership, sensible policies like this won't get you very far in the leadership race.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The real tragedy of Brexit - the Oompah Loompahs can't get their Jubilee bickies.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[halewood pete]

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 01/06/2022 at 16:47, skend04 said:

 

With all the Kippers in the membership, sensible policies like this won't get you very far in the leadership race.

 

 

 

 

[Kepler-186]

10 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

 

 

 

I fucking hate that cunt. 

[A Red]

On 02/06/2022 at 00:53, AngryOfTuebrook said:

 

I hope the pineapple on sticks are getting through

[Anubis]

Express headline of ‘Rage As Brits’ take to social media to complain they are having to queue at Spanish passport control for 3 hours while EU citizens breeze through. Naturally, it’s trending on social media with the accompanying piss taking.