OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Ramshank72]

There thousands of EU rules and laws now integrated into our systems. Everyone of them comes into conflict with anything new we want to do. I certainly am not going to trawl through them all.
But lets take the most controversial of the moment.
1. Fishing- firstly, let me say I have been deep sea angling since intoduced to it at 15. In those days, you would come back with a boat full of fish. I have watched it decline to a shadow of its former self, by massive over fishing. My first ever cod weighed 19ibs, I was awe struck. Now 3 lbs is an avergae fish? That is worrying. I have asked many skippers why and the answer is always the same. Quotas decided by the EU allow too many people to fish the North sea. They portray themselves as managing the stocks, but its bollox.
They don't all fish for the fish we want either. They trawl for bait fish species, just to turn them into fertilizer for agriculture. What do you suppose the Cod/Haddock feed on? The food chain is very complex. Even the methods used by the EU fleets are wrong under their rules, like beam fishing. Net sizes as well.
We aint in the EU anymore, but still we follow the rules laid out. No wonder the fisherman kick off.
Same for shell fish as well. One minute, whilst an EU member or methods/ treatments are perfectly acceptable, then they suddenly are not due to "their" rules. Spite just about covers it.

2. Illegal migrants.
Directive 2013/797EC which basically sets high standards of accomodation that asylum seekers must be housed in. Now forgetting the fact that the French do not put theirs in 4 and 5 star hotels( I blame our governnment/judges/left wing moaners for that). We are not in the EU anymore, so how the hell is this still applying?
Camps and tents are used all over the world to house refugees, not top notch hotels. Yet EU rules and laws have forced us to do so.
Folks wonder why we are now the current top target for migrants?

I don't see why anyone, legally seeking asylum, should not be treated well. They're in desperate need of help, not punishment. Nothing to do with EU membership, it's about doing the right thing. If they're illegal or fail, then by all means deport them.

[ramAnag]

I'm surprised you'd want MAas moderator anyway, just another person to argue with / fall out with. ������

Ha, ha! Tbh I’m not actually bothered who it is. It’s just that AF told the forum sometime ago that MA had volunteered and he seems, just imo, to have the right attributes.
There’s a successful history of there being more than one mod, it eases the responsibility, covers bases when one mod might be ill or away on holiday and reduces the risk of anyone believing they have ‘carté blanche’ when it comes to locking threads and deleting accounts.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I think I should be moderator. I'll run it by the rules of "Just a Minute" - may not suit you though.... hesitation, never; deviation, sometimes but many are worse; but repetition, hmm guilty as charged.

[SithHappens]

Trouble being, they couldn’t be bothered, or at least too many of them couldn’t - if they’d have voted in the same proportion as the coffin dodgers this thread would have died after 50 or so posts. I’ve mentioned before the photo in, I think the guardian, of ‘young people’ who were bothered enough to get on stage at Glastonbury waving EU flags but not bothered enough to NOT be at Glastonbury and actually vote.

Yep, very aware of this, in one way the younger generation only have themselves to blame, had they turned out in better numbers it might have been different, that wasnt my point though, my point was i dont believe the older generation voted with 'it will take a decade or two' in mind for there to be a benefit so their reasons must have been different to trickys.

[ramAnag]

Yep, very aware of this, in one way the younger generation only have themselves to blame, had they turned out in better numbers it might have been different, that wasnt my point though, my point was i dont believe the older generation voted with 'it will take a decade or two' in mind for there to be a benefit so their reasons must have been different to trickys.

Speaking of ‘better numbers’. What do we make of the requirement to provide photo ID at future elections?
I appreciate there may be a problem with voter fraud...although I think it is a comparatively tiny issue.
More important, imo, are the dual needs of a) making it easier rather than harder to vote and b) ensuring that manifestos are routed in truth, honesty and accountability as opposed to lies and falsehoods.

[Andy_Faber]

Speaking of ‘better numbers’. What do we make of the requirement to provide photo ID at future elections?
I appreciate there may be a problem with voter fraud...although I think it is a comparatively tiny issue.
More important, imo, are the dual needs of a) making it easier rather than harder to vote and b) ensuring that manifestos are routed in truth, honesty and accountability as opposed to lies and falsehoods.

Totally agree with it

[SithHappens]

Speaking of ‘better numbers’. What do we make of the requirement to provide photo ID at future elections?
I appreciate there may be a problem with voter fraud...although I think it is a comparatively tiny issue.
More important, imo, are the dual needs of a) making it easier rather than harder to vote and b) ensuring that manifestos are routed in truth, honesty and accountability as opposed to lies and falsehoods.

I dont know how much of an issue it might be, i do recall there were reports of students boasting online in the 2017 election that they had voted twice for labour, no idea how accurate this was.

What do you do if you turn up at the voting station and someone has used your vote? Does it happen?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Totally agree with it

I think photoid at elections makes sense but this presupposes everyone has a form of photoid. For example a lot of people in my mum's age group have given up driving and no longer want to travel overseas so have no current passport. Thus they have no photoid.

This means that we can only really introduce it in conjunction with a national ID card, which will have the civil libertarians up in arms squawking.

Either that or we disenfranchise an older chunk of the electorate which, no matter that it might appeal to Swale who doesn't agree with the way they vote, doesn't seem fair.

Mind you, Brexit might have been averted by this measure! 😄

[SithHappens]

Tony Blair has often pushed for it to be mandatory to have Photo ID. I know it doesn't seem popular, but personally I have no issue, my view is that (a bit like CCTV), if you aren't up to no good then why would it be an issue? I would be quite happy to carry a photo ID card with me.

[Andy_Faber]

Tony Blair has often pushed for it to be mandatory to have Photo ID. I know it doesn't seem popular, but personally I have no issue, my view is that (a bit like CCTV), if you aren't up to no good then why would it be an issue? I would be quite happy to carry a photo ID card with me.

Exactly my view, although there is Groff's point about the oldies, and there's an added risk of identity theft