Wow, what a long comment.
I think this is another perfect example of brexiteer mentality.
In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.
This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion". But if all were doing is spewing crap, doesn't that harm actual discussion? Isn't that exactly the sort of fact free, reality rejecting, cultism that I claimed originally? You're sort of making my point for me.
So what happens next, maybe there is a point here with some content?
>Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.
OK, so you're saying we can get a better deal without the EU? That isn't what you said before so you're changing position, but maybe there is something in that.
So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that. I suspect that's because that would involve facts and details and involve some comparison of the UK (a larger service economy) and Iceland (a tiny economy that mainly exports fish and aluminium).
Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal. This is a bad deal and you do give reasons: it allowed to much fishing damaging fisheries and it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality. You believe we can get a "better deal", but that deal would have to increase and decrease fishing at the same time. Great. You've also missed that the fisheries deal was negotiated not to be perfect, but to better than the free for all previously imposed. Or that the multiple UK governments have repeatedly refused to reopen the matter or to use any of the protection permitted under the deal.
This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault, you don't have a solution because there isn't one, so we have to leave the EU, because you want the people who setup the system you don't like to have less oversight from Brussels.
Also, FYI, Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU. Again, facts bro!
I think this is another perfect example of brexiteer mentality.
In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.
This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion". But if all were doing is spewing crap, doesn't that harm actual discussion? Isn't that exactly the sort of fact free, reality rejecting, cultism that I claimed originally? You're sort of making my point for me.
So what happens next, maybe there is a point here with some content?
>Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.
OK, so you're saying we can get a better deal without the EU? That isn't what you said before so you're changing position, but maybe there is something in that.
So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that. I suspect that's because that would involve facts and details and involve some comparison of the UK (a larger service economy) and Iceland (a tiny economy that mainly exports fish and aluminium).
Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal. This is a bad deal and you do give reasons: it allowed to much fishing damaging fisheries and it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality. You believe we can get a "better deal", but that deal would have to increase and decrease fishing at the same time. Great. You've also missed that the fisheries deal was negotiated not to be perfect, but to better than the free for all previously imposed. Or that the multiple UK governments have repeatedly refused to reopen the matter or to use any of the protection permitted under the deal.
This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault, you don't have a solution because there isn't one, so we have to leave the EU, because you want the people who setup the system you don't like to have less oversight from Brussels.
Also, FYI, Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU. Again, facts bro!