Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

Are you sure of who your grandfathers employers were Solly
Regards Donkeyman!

Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

Alcoa (aluminium company of america) was yankee owned.

Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

Compare the old photos of Hull and other ex fishing ports
with recent photos, what is the difference between them?
Would you like me to point them out to you??
Regards Donkeyman!

Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

Yes l know Alcoa Solly, but what about after german
occupation of netherlands?
Not a fair question l suppose but it gives a bit of
perspective to our present situation l think?
Regards Donkeyman!

Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

After occupation of the netherlands the americans send 2.000 men to surinam to protect the mines. What kind of perspective does it give in your opinion?

Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

So nothing to do with the cod war then?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.y...-1-7636401/amp

Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

My apologies Solly, l should have realised there were no
Bauxite mines in the netherlands!!
Regards Donkeyman!

Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

[QUOTE=Solasch;1747183]If you really want to know. This is the consensus on britain.
.

Solasch, Here then is MY consensus of Irish writer Finton O'Toole.

Finton O’toole, Irish, author and columnist for the Irish Times. Avid Pro-EU supporter, spokesperson for the aristocratic elite.

Let’s see what he says about Leavers and judge for yourselves whether we should take notice of what this Irish idiot thinks, along with his absolute bilge.
His sneering at Leave voters smacks of aristocratic elitism, according to Michael Fitzpatrick in Spiked on 24th January, 2019.

I am leaving out some paragraphs deliberately as he strays off into sadomasochism and bondage etc when referring to Leavers. (Me thinks he had a drop too much of the Irish Whisky!) If you wish to see the full text, please go to: http://www.spiked-online.com/.../fin...-be-more-wrong

QUOTE

In his book, Heroic Failure:: Brexit and the Politics of Pain. O’Toole emerges as the spokesman of the Remainer aristocracy, heaping scorn and derision on the vulgar masses who voted for Brexit.

His belief is that Brexit is the bond it created between working-class revolt on the one side and upper-class self-indulgence on the other. He believes that the June 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU was the result of ‘an ostensibly improbable alliance between Sunderland and Gloucestershire’, between ‘people with tattooed arms and golf-club buffers’.

In fact, there is no such bond or alliance. The only thing that unites both of those counties is that both hold condescension and contempt of the cosmopolitan intellectual elite for which O’Toole has become a prominent spokesman.

In O’Toole’s accounts, the racist, xenophobic yobs of Sunderland bonded with the reactionary, elitist toffs of Gloucestershire in the embrace of ‘sado-pupulism’, a psychic phenomenon whose roots he discovers in the nihilism of punk. At the level of popular culture, he argues, the Leave vote was ‘pure punk’. ‘Sadomasochism as revolt, bondage as freedom’.

If you are English, and in your fifties or early sixties, two things are likely to be true of you’ he says. ‘The first is that you voted Leave’. The second is that ‘you were. In the immediate period after the UK joined the Common Market, a punk’.

For O’Toole, the crucial political force uniting supporters of Leave is ‘English nationalism’. Brexit, he insists at the outset, is ‘essentially an English phenomenon’. Yet he ignores UKIP, the only political party with a distinctively nationalist agenda and a base of support largely confined to England. This is a movement so diffident about its English nationalism that it hides it under a Unionist umbrella. Once it’s only popular cause - withdrawal from the EU - had been superseded by the referendum, it collapsed in the 2017 General Election and subsequently disintegrated.

O’Toole’s only evidence for his belief in a rising tide of English nationalism comes from two pamphlets published by the IPPR think tank in 2012 and 2013. These reported opinion polls commissioned to discover popular attitudes to devolution to regional assemblies in the UK which revealed some resentment among English voters over perceptions of Scottish and Welsh privilege. It seems doubtful whether an increase in support for devolution to England can be regarded as reflecting ‘a seismic shift in national identity’. In retrospect, it is interesting that the 2013 report noted that ‘the EU is very unpopular in England’ - this was ‘the dog that finally barked in the night’ (the title of the 2012 report, not English nationalism, which has remained a marginal influence.

No doubt Leave voters included a small number of extreme right-wingers and racists. But support for such ideas has declined dramatically since the 1970s, when explicitly racist and anti-Semitic organisations could mobilise large demonstrations and attract mass electoral support. Remain campaigners have consistently exaggerated the numbers and influence of miniscule far-right groups and of those few deranged individuals who have carried out racist attacks, as a way of disparaging mainstream Leave supporters. Shame on them: Britain is a tolerant country.

Voters for Leave certainly also included some Tory reactionaries who yearn for return to the glory days of empire. This is a faction that bitterly resents its vestigial status in the socially liberal Conservative Part of David Cameron and Theresa May. O’Toole’s case for the importance of this group rests on a 20-year old pamphlet by the late William Rees-Mogg, father of Tory Brexiteer, Jacob, which advocated an ‘apocalyptic, elitist vision’. It was for this sort of guff that he earned the moniker ‘Mystic Mogg’ in Private Eye It seems doubtful whether this pamphlet has had much influence even on Jacob, never mind on the wider Brexit electorate..

In common with other anti-ideologues, O’Toole never asks why a cause backed by the massed ranks of the British political, economic and cultural establishment so spectacularly failed to secure the expected support of the majority of the electorate. He also never asks why the slogan “Take back control” had such resonance among the majority of voters of all social classes in areas of industrial decline - and among a substantial minority in the more buoyant rural and urban centres. It is also striking that in the more than 200 pages of Heroic Failure, not a single positive word about the EU is to be found. It is further striking that he offers no analysis of the fascinating phenomenon of a Remain campaign that is passionately committed to defending…...what, exactly?

O’Toole acknowledges in passing that the decades of economic decline since Britain’s accession to the EEC in 1973, and the erosion of the welfare state in the past 10 years of austerity, have contributed to popular disillusionment with an establishment increasingly closely identified with the EU. He recognises the alienation from the political elite that has been reflected in recent General Elections, which have witnessed decllning support for all the major parties. He even recognises popular revulsion against the EU’s autocratic treatment of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. In one extraordinary passage, he admits that “being angry about the EU isn’t a psychosis” but “a mark of sanity”, before immediately retreating into psychobabble, declaring that Brext is ‘still self-harm’.
He repeatedly claims that supporters of Brexit exaggerate the influence of the EU on British life, yet he also endorses the familiar Remainer prejudice that to leave the EU would be a catastrophe.

O’Toole devotes much ink to denouncing the ‘Churchillian pretensions’ and mendacity of Boris Johnson (recycling all the old stories of his dishonest newspaper columns). No doubt Leave voters have been betrayed by the leaders of the campaign, But the greatest betrayal is that of the liberal intelligentsia represented by O’Toole, which has taken its stand on the side of the British and European elites while scorning the mass popular vote for Brexit as an expression of “festive self-pity and inchoate rage”. Johnson can be legitimately accused of pursuing a frivolous and narcissistic approach to serious matters of state, but O’Toole’s combination of cod psychology and flippant literary cherry-picking is little better than a Boris job. Serious analyses of Brexit. And of the issues of national sovereignty and democratic accountability that lie at the heart of the controversy, are much needed. This isn’t one of them.

UNQUOTE


Well, now we can see where certain posters on here have been brainwashed by the drivel written above by one Finton O’Toole. Over to you.

Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

Sounds a bit of a tool to me.

Re: Brexit and Fisheries.

[QUOTE=shropshiregirl;1747265] Girl, consensus of a single person is non-existent. You probably mean 'your opinion'.
I don't know if o'toole's statement:
you are English, and in your fifties or early sixties, two things are likely to be true of you’ he says. ‘The first is that you voted Leave’. The second is that ‘you were. In the immediate period after the UK joined the Common Market, a punk' is applicable on you.

I only cited his statement that brexit reflected the death struggle of the archaic british system.
Several posters on this forum, swimfeeders, donkeyman, have uttered opinions of that same purport. So there must be some truth in it, don't you think?