RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:
I will have a hunt for such views. Dave obviously missed out too in bringing new unicorns back prior to the referendum; I do seem to remember most pro EU pundits saying we had the best deal of the members, but maybe I misremember.

To be clear, are you saying the rebate battle won was a Pyrrhic victory, and what other deals could she have gotten with a more conciliatory point of view? She was a key contributor to the creation of the single market, if vehemently opposed to political integration.

The rebate isn't nothing, though it took a long time and our contentions during that period drove a lot of the desire for many mandarins in Germany and France to seek close integration to avoid future problems with the UK, and Thatcher certainly didn't want a lot of the closer political ties.

What seems to return over and over is how much effort was put into making Thatcher seem like the winner so she could have better control of the media narrative in the UK. In defence of Thatcher she doesn't control the UK media not much of the public assessment of the EU, and it was and obviously is a tricky sell, and I don't know to what degree she simply had to overcome a lot of misogyny in her dealings with other EU leaders, but one would have to assume she saw value in being strident to overcome a hurdle that shouldn't have been faced.

I'd also note having to have the rebate is a failing, though whether anybody could have harangued the EU into sensible reforms of the CAP I do rather doubt

Well quite. Can I ask how old you were in the mid 80's?

And the rebate (s) continue....

7 to 8, and whilst I started early with an interest in politics it hadn't kicked in quite that early. Maradona's handball was of much more importance to me back then, so too having to kiss a girl called Sally as part of a dare to secure the return of a stone stolen from my garden, not a valuable stone in a monetary sense, it was merely a very big stone and accordingly of some value to a group of 6-7 year olds

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
The rebate isn't nothing, though it took a long time and our contentions during that period drove a lot of the desire for many mandarins in Germany and France to seek close integration to avoid future problems with the UK, and Thatcher certainly didn't want a lot of the closer political ties.

What seems to return over and over is how much effort was put into making Thatcher seem like the winner so she could have better control of the media narrative in the UK. In defence of Thatcher she doesn't control the UK media not much of the public assessment of the EU, and it was and obviously is a tricky sell, and I don't know to what degree she simply had to overcome a lot of misogyny in her dealings with other EU leaders, but one would have to assume she saw value in being strident to overcome a hurdle that shouldn't have been faced.

I'd also note having to have the rebate is a failing, though whether anybody could have harangued the EU into sensible reforms of the CAP I do rather doubt

Well quite. Can I ask how old you were in the mid 80's?

And the rebate (s) continue....

7 to 8, and whilst I started early with an interest in politics it hadn't kicked in quite that early. Maradona's handball was of much more importance to me back then, so too having to kiss a girl called Sally as part of a dare to secure the return of a stone stolen from my garden, not a valuable stone in a monetary sense, it was merely a very big stone and accordingly of some value to a group of 6-7 year olds

Snowballs to Absinthe is quite a leap

At this point I just give up.

twitchy wrote:At this point I just give up.

Even I do. FML.

That's incredible - the dissolution of the UK, massive recession, the destruction of their party, all fine. But Corbyn being Prime Minister? Oh no, that's a step too far!

Puja

twitchy wrote:At this point I just give up.

This is an ideological crusade. Any rationality disappeared years ago; the leavers have had the best part of 3 decades to get angry about this and no one, not even the pro-EU New Labour made any real attempt to oppose the steady drop, drop, drop of anti EU propaganda.

Sandydragon wrote:

twitchy wrote:At this point I just give up.

This is an ideological crusade. Any rationality disappeared years ago; the leavers have had the best part of 3 decades to get angry about this and no one, not even the pro-EU New Labour made any real attempt to oppose the steady drop, drop, drop of anti EU propaganda.

Let’s be honest, there are plenty of good reasons to criticise the EU and they are glacial about doing anything about it, and they’ve made plenty of decisions that have stoked that anger. Not that it means we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

I'm curious how poll option number 4 was put to them.

twitchy wrote:At this point I just give up.

Mentalists

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

twitchy wrote:At this point I just give up.

This is an ideological crusade. Any rationality disappeared years ago; the leavers have had the best part of 3 decades to get angry about this and no one, not even the pro-EU New Labour made any real attempt to oppose the steady drop, drop, drop of anti EU propaganda.

Let’s be honest, there are plenty of good reasons to criticise the EU and they are glacial about doing anything about it, and they’ve made plenty of decisions that have stoked that anger. Not that it means we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise our own government, England rugby, the police, the fire service, the army, banks, train companies, water companies... but we don't always go from thinking something isn't perfect to let's bin it. Certainly in the case of the EU our domestic politicians have been happy to heap blame on the EU to either pass something they didn't think they could do without saying it was the evil EU that done it, or simply allowing lies to propagate because that took some publicity off their backs.

It is interesting some of the areas to benefit most financially from the EU were amongst those areas in this country to vote most strongly for Brexit, and I'm still amused it took Cornwall all of one day to say they'd still need the same money

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: This is an ideological crusade. Any rationality disappeared years ago; the leavers have had the best part of 3 decades to get angry about this and no one, not even the pro-EU New Labour made any real attempt to oppose the steady drop, drop, drop of anti EU propaganda.

Let’s be honest, there are plenty of good reasons to criticise the EU and they are glacial about doing anything about it, and they’ve made plenty of decisions that have stoked that anger. Not that it means we should throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are plenty of reasons to criticise our own government, England rugby, the police, the fire service, the army, banks, train companies, water companies... but we don't always go from thinking something isn't perfect to let's bin it. Certainly in the case of the EU our domestic politicians have been happy to heap blame on the EU to either pass something they didn't think they could do without saying it was the evil EU that done it, or simply allowing lies to propagate because that took some publicity off their backs.

It is interesting some of the areas to benefit most financially from the EU were amongst those areas in this country to vote most strongly for Brexit, and I'm still amused it took Cornwall all of one day to say they'd still need the same money

Well, yes. Your first sentence is just what I said but with different words. Your second sentence is very true but my post was a direct reaction to Sandy saying there was a drop, drop of anti-RU propaganda.
Your second paragraph is an argument that always amuses me. The EU just distributes the member countries’ money. As a net contributor that money will still be there (assuming the nutters don’t get their way) to go to Cornwall, coastal communities etc, it’ll just be another body that distributes it.

10 minutes in and what a fucking pile of crap.

'We're a great country' is the answer to why no deal is Ok.....FFS

I think Rory Stewart might explode....

Banquo wrote:I think Rory Stewart might explode....

Given his manspreading Emily might want to duck.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:I think Rory Stewart might explode....

Given his manspreading Emily might want to duck.

she isn't chairing it well.....well not at all really.....and that makes it even worse.

Boris is being bypassed interestingly.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:I think Rory Stewart might explode....

Given his manspreading Emily might want to duck.

she isn't chairing it well.....well not all really.....and that makes it even worse.

Agreed.

All this is doing is reminding me why I think debates are a bloody waste of time.

Mellsblue wrote:All this is doing is reminding me why I think debates are a bloody waste of time.

especially mass debates like this one, with no chance of a happy ending.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:All this is doing is reminding me why I think debates are a bloody waste of time.

especially mass debates like this one, with no chance of a happy ending.

Unless Rory does explode.

Terrible. The worst chairperson, chairing a bunch of tools.

Mellsblue wrote:All this is doing is reminding me why I think debates are a bloody waste of time.

They strike me as especially pointless for this vote - why have several televised public debates for the candidates in a vote that most of the public are not eligible for?! What purpose do they serve?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:All this is doing is reminding me why I think debates are a bloody waste of time.

What purpose do they serve?

Puja

It did allow me to make a crude and highly immature locker room ‘joke’ about Stewart exploding whilst manspreading. Other than that, I’ve honestly no idea.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:All this is doing is reminding me why I think debates are a bloody waste of time.

They strike me as especially pointless for this vote - why have several televised public debates for the candidates in a vote that most of the public are not eligible for?! What purpose do they serve?

Puja

They give more airtime to the Tory party.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:All this is doing is reminding me why I think debates are a bloody waste of time.

They strike me as especially pointless for this vote - why have several televised public debates for the candidates in a vote that most of the public are not eligible for?! What purpose do they serve?

Puja

They give more airtime to the Tory party.

I'm surprised they didn't give Farage a podium. Sure, he has no need or right to be there, but that doesn't usually stop them from putting hin on television.

twitchy wrote:

Excellent choice of phrasing. Although given his enthusiastic backing of Trump "Londonistan" tweet, perhaps more of a Freudian slip than a poor choice of words .

Puja