Planet Rugby Forum

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 9:37 am**

iarmhiman wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 8:42 pm
eldanielfire wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 6:49 pm
iarmhiman wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:41 pm
P in VG wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:39 pm The irony of the Brexit boys whining about a 'mandate for a referendum'
Well SNP and the greens are pro independence and have a majority together so how isn't that a mandate?
Not quite, Sturgeon keeps campaigning that an SNP vote is not about Independence. Then when she gets the votes she claims it's a mandate. She also claimed the last one was a once a generation event by Sturgeon herself. She can't have it both ways. Also the opinion polls support staying in the UK is more desirable than Independence.
I think it's well documented now that polls are not worth a shite since Trump election and Brexit referendum.

Not quite. The polls where not hugely accurate but they were an indicator of trends. Trumps till lost the popular vote and if you didn't buy into the media and political chat Brexit was certainly a likely possibility. Certain polls show a frequently trend. If you read the right ones. When YouGov do their more through polls rather than their snap ones they are nearly always correct.

The issue is of course is the media will grasp at the polls they want, or read them with the bias they want, not the polls that are correct when read in the factual right context.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 10:39 am**

S Club wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 1:15 pm
It's no myth at all. In the pre-internet age, all we had to go on was what the government (sometimes directly, and sometimes via the media) told us.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't actually know much of anything about a time before the internet.

The lies, the propaganda, the batshit insane all remains. Also there isn't a simple distinction of things the government says being bad and the truth lies elsewhere. Even the current UK government has managed more than the occasional truthful comment during the pandemic.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 12:26 pm**

piquant wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 10:39 am
S Club wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 1:15 pm
It's no myth at all. In the pre-internet age, all we had to go on was what the government (sometimes directly, and sometimes via the media) told us.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't actually know much of anything about a time before the internet.

The lies, the propaganda, the batshit insane all remains. Also there isn't a simple distinction of things the government says being bad and the truth lies elsewhere. Even the current UK government has managed more than the occasional truthful comment during the pandemic.

Eh?

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 12:28 pm**

S Club wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 12:26 pm
piquant wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 10:39 am
S Club wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 1:15 pm
It's no myth at all. In the pre-internet age, all we had to go on was what the government (sometimes directly, and sometimes via the media) told us.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't actually know much of anything about a time before the internet.

The lies, the propaganda, the batshit insane all remains. Also there isn't a simple distinction of things the government says being bad and the truth lies elsewhere. Even the current UK government has managed more than the occasional truthful comment during the pandemic.
Eh?

Don't bother. Piquant is like Shereblue with fewer pointless words

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 12:32 pm**

shereblue wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:39 am
The government distributed three pamphlets.
One from itself, one from the YES campaign, and one from the NO campaign.
For completeness please provide the links to the other two pamphlets. Ta.

Here's a link to all three.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk ... ments.html
[/quote]

Thanks for the link. To be honest, I'd forgotten about the yes and no leaflets. But it's hardly a "gotcha". My point stands Pre-internet, there was not the widespread understanding that the EU was working towards "ever closer union". And there's certainly nothing in the leaflets (which 68% of the voting public didn't read anyway, according to the final Harris poll) about it.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 2:16 pm**

S Club wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 12:32 pm
shereblue wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:39 am
The government distributed three pamphlets.
One from itself, one from the YES campaign, and one from the NO campaign.
For completeness please provide the links to the other two pamphlets. Ta.
Here's a link to all three.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk ... ments.html

Thanks for the link. To be honest, I'd forgotten about the yes and no leaflets. But it's hardly a "gotcha". My point stands Pre-internet, there was not the widespread understanding that the EU was working towards "ever closer union". And there's certainly nothing in the leaflets (which 68% of the voting public didn't read anyway, according to the final Harris poll) about it.
[/quote]

My wordy comments were looking to give historical context to the picture in 1975. And to rebut absolutist 2016 winner's history such as "mis-selling" and "trade org. only". There are no gotchas. History, unlike politics, is rarely quite so simple.

The EC Six had been enviously successful economically with a framework that had also helped to turn round post WW2 enmities, notably between Germany and France. It was niche and surrounded by dictatorships of different persuasions, our wonderful Scandis aside.

The nature and extent of the ECs subsequent geographical and competency expansion could not have been envisaged at that time. 1975 did see step by step merger into a Single Nation warnings weighed against acceptance of development and pooling of sovereignty. The No/Leave's warnings were too theoretical to capture the public imagination.

That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 2:26 pm**

shereblue wrote:That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?

Cobblers. It was absolutely mis-sold given the subsequent importance given to ever closer union and this tawdry claim that this is what people voted for and if they didn't realise it at the time shame on them. So many older folk voted to leave in 2016 because they were very much of the opinion they were taking back their vote to remain in 1975.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 2:54 pm**

Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:26 pm
shereblue wrote:That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?
Cobblers. It was absolutely mis-sold given the subsequent importance given to ever closer union and this tawdry claim that this is what people voted for and if they didn't realise it at the time shame on them. So many older folk voted to leave in 2016 because they were very much of the opinion they were taking back their vote to remain in 1975.

Anger and reason aren't easy companions.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 2:54 pm**

Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:26 pm
shereblue wrote:That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?
Cobblers. It was absolutely mis-sold given the subsequent importance given to ever closer union and this tawdry claim that this is what people voted for and if they didn't realise it at the time shame on them. So many older folk voted to leave in 2016 because they were very much of the opinion they were taking back their vote to remain in 1975.

Did you actually read the "NO" Pamphlet in the link above?

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 2:54 pm**

La soule wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:54 pm
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:26 pm
shereblue wrote:That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?
Cobblers. It was absolutely mis-sold given the subsequent importance given to ever closer union and this tawdry claim that this is what people voted for and if they didn't realise it at the time shame on them. So many older folk voted to leave in 2016 because they were very much of the opinion they were taking back their vote to remain in 1975.
Did you actually read the "NO" Pamphlet in the link above?

He doesn't need to

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 2:56 pm**

shereblue wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:54 pm
La soule wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:54 pm
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:26 pm
shereblue wrote:That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?
Cobblers. It was absolutely mis-sold given the subsequent importance given to ever closer union and this tawdry claim that this is what people voted for and if they didn't realise it at the time shame on them. So many older folk voted to leave in 2016 because they were very much of the opinion they were taking back their vote to remain in 1975.
Did you actually read the "NO" Pamphlet in the link above?
He doesn't need to

I see.

Why am I not surprised.....

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 4:44 pm**

Indeed for gaslighters like Gospel the following:

The real aim of the (common) market is, of course, to become one single country in which Britain would be reduced to a mere province....

does in no way allude to "ever closer union"...

Funny to read that even the "No" pamphlet says the alternative would be to join EFTA...

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 5:01 pm**

That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?

But you’ve spent years now telling us it would only bring Ruin to the U.K.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 5:36 pm**

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:01 pm
That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?

But you’ve spent years now telling us it would only bring Ruin to the U.K.

You mean the short term 1-5 year predictions?

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 6:06 pm**

Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:36 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:01 pm
That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?

But you’ve spent years now telling us it would only bring Ruin to the U.K.
You mean the short term 1-5 year predictions?

Nope,

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 6:15 pm**

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:06 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:36 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:01 pm
That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?

But you’ve spent years now telling us it would only bring Ruin to the U.K.
You mean the short term 1-5 year predictions?

Nope,

Do tell, or is this another unsubstantiated gut feeling?

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 6:28 pm**

Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:15 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:06 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:36 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:01 pm
That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?

But you’ve spent years now telling us it would only bring Ruin to the U.K.
You mean the short term 1-5 year predictions?

Nope,
Do tell, or is this another unsubstantiated gut feeling?

I couldn’t have been more clear about what I meant. Sherblue posted regularly that brexit would bring collapse to the U.K. it now appears “no one” could actually predict that.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 6:32 pm**

La soule wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:54 pm
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:26 pm
shereblue wrote:That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?
Cobblers. It was absolutely mis-sold given the subsequent importance given to ever closer union and this tawdry claim that this is what people voted for and if they didn't realise it at the time shame on them. So many older folk voted to leave in 2016 because they were very much of the opinion they were taking back their vote to remain in 1975.
Did you actually read the "NO" Pamphlet in the link above?

The claims in the 'NO" pamphlet were the work of the 'swivel-eyed loons' and not HM Government.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 6:55 pm**

Code: Select all

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:01 pm
That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit kin 20 years time, where the world will be?

But you’ve spent years now telling us it would only bring Ruin to the U.K.

And you've only stopped this since Tory Brexit policy changed.

I have less idea than many how Brexit will affect the UK economically. Pre-Covid, majority expert opinion seemed to be that it would lead to shortfalls in GDP growth.

My approach to the 1975 Referendum question has been purely academic. S Club apart, my take just meets with robust political doubling down without any objective counter evidence.

Bantz is great. Minds closed to nuance - not so much.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 7:21 pm**

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:28 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:15 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:06 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:36 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:01 pm

But you’ve spent years now telling us it would only bring Ruin to the U.K.
You mean the short term 1-5 year predictions?

Nope,
Do tell, or is this another unsubstantiated gut feeling?

I couldn’t have been more clear about what I meant. Sherblue posted regularly that brexit would bring collapse to the U.K. it now appears “no one” could actually predict that.

Read what you have written again, Either you are missing a very obvious point, or you are being disingenuous.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 8:00 pm**

Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:32 pm
La soule wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:54 pm
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 2:26 pm
shereblue wrote:That's why the "mis-selling" line needed robust rebuttal. Who really knows where we will be with Brexit in 20 years time, where the world will be?
Cobblers. It was absolutely mis-sold given the subsequent importance given to ever closer union and this tawdry claim that this is what people voted for and if they didn't realise it at the time shame on them. So many older folk voted to leave in 2016 because they were very much of the opinion they were taking back their vote to remain in 1975.
Did you actually read the "NO" Pamphlet in the link above?
The claims in the 'NO" pamphlet were the work of the 'swivel-eyed loons' and not HM Government.

You can just say you were wrong and talking bollocks.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 8:00 pm**

Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:21 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:28 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:15 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:06 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 5:36 pm

You mean the short term 1-5 year predictions?

Nope,
Do tell, or is this another unsubstantiated gut feeling?

I couldn’t have been more clear about what I meant. Sherblue posted regularly that brexit would bring collapse to the U.K. it now appears “no one” could actually predict that.
Read what you have written again, Either you are missing a very obvious point, or you are being disingenuous.

Enjoy your killer point, I’ve not one clue what the f uck you’re on about.

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 8:46 pm**

looks like a quick recovery

Posted: **Wed May 12, 2021 8:54 pm**

La soule wrote:You can just say you were wrong and talking bollocks.

I am not talking bollocks. My point was how membership was sold by the Government at the time and how successive Governments acted with each new Treaty. Even during the 2016 referendum Nick Clegg described the notion of an EU Army as a "dangerous fantasy". Euroscpetism has long been claimed to be the preserve of the swivel eyed loons.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 12:37 am**

Code: Select all

[quote][/quote]

bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:00 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:21 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:28 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:15 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:06 pm

Nope,
Do tell, or is this another unsubstantiated gut feeling?

I couldn’t have been more clear about what I meant. Sherblue posted regularly that brexit would bring collapse to the U.K. it now appears “no one” could actually predict that.
Read what you have written again, Either you are missing a very obvious point, or you are being disingenuous.

Enjoy your killer point, I’ve not one clue what the f uck you’re on about.

There is not a single remainer Shere blue included that has stated categorically with 100% certainty that the UK will be worse off in 20 years time.

Find one example. Your clever attack is not quite so. Simple enough for you?

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 5:45 am**

Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:37 am
Code: Select all
[quote][/quote]
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:00 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:21 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:28 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:15 pm

Do tell, or is this another unsubstantiated gut feeling?

I couldn’t have been more clear about what I meant. Sherblue posted regularly that brexit would bring collapse to the U.K. it now appears “no one” could actually predict that.
Read what you have written again, Either you are missing a very obvious point, or you are being disingenuous.

Enjoy your killer point, I’ve not one clue what the f uck you’re on about.
There is not a single remainer Shere blue included that has stated categorically with 100% certainty that the UK will be worse off from this point in 20 years time.

Find one example. Your clever attack is not quite so. Simple enough for you?

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 8:45 am**

Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:54 pm
La soule wrote:You can just say you were wrong and talking bollocks.
I am not talking bollocks. My point was how membership was sold by the Government at the time and how successive Governments acted with each new Treaty. Even during the 2016 referendum Nick Clegg described the notion of an EU Army as a "dangerous fantasy". Euroscpetism has long been claimed to be the preserve of the swivel eyed loons.

Grasping at straws.

The point is there was information available to the population and that further integration was always part of the project.

It did not just happen out of thin air later on.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 9:02 am**

La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:45 am
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:54 pm
La soule wrote:You can just say you were wrong and talking bollocks.
I am not talking bollocks. My point was how membership was sold by the Government at the time and how successive Governments acted with each new Treaty. Even during the 2016 referendum Nick Clegg described the notion of an EU Army as a "dangerous fantasy". Euroscpetism has long been claimed to be the preserve of the swivel eyed loons.
Grasping at straws.

The point is there was information available to the population and that further integration was always part of the project.

It did not just happen out of thin air later on.

Do you not think that getting an occasional mandate from said population on whether they wanted further integration would have been a better policy instead of hiding behind the somewhat nebulas mantra of 'ever closer union' that never really stated what the eventual end goal would be (federal Europe, superstrate, full economic and political harmonisation, common defence force? etc). Some states held referendums, many did not despite promises to the contrary. It's an incredibly weak argument to suggest that a vote taken 40+ years ago to join the EEC was enough to provide an ongoing consensus for all subsequent integration.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 9:48 am**

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:02 am
La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:45 am
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:54 pm
La soule wrote:You can just say you were wrong and talking bollocks.
I am not talking bollocks. My point was how membership was sold by the Government at the time and how successive Governments acted with each new Treaty. Even during the 2016 referendum Nick Clegg described the notion of an EU Army as a "dangerous fantasy". Euroscpetism has long been claimed to be the preserve of the swivel eyed loons.
Grasping at straws.

The point is there was information available to the population and that further integration was always part of the project.

It did not just happen out of thin air later on.
Do you not think that getting an occasional mandate from said population on whether they wanted further integration would have been a better policy instead of hiding behind the somewhat nebulas mantra of 'ever closer union' that never really stated what the eventual end goal would be (federal Europe, superstrate, full economic and political harmonisation, common defence force? etc). Some states held referendums, many did not despite promises to the contrary. It's an incredibly weak argument to suggest that a vote taken 40+ years ago to join the EEC was enough to provide an ongoing consensus for all subsequent integration.

The point being that you guys appear to be arguing now that you only joined an economic project not knowing that the plan was further integration all along.

That's just wrong. You did not like it, you left. Good.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 10:32 am**

La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:48 am
danny_fitz wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:02 am
La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:45 am
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:54 pm
La soule wrote:You can just say you were wrong and talking bollocks.
I am not talking bollocks. My point was how membership was sold by the Government at the time and how successive Governments acted with each new Treaty. Even during the 2016 referendum Nick Clegg described the notion of an EU Army as a "dangerous fantasy". Euroscpetism has long been claimed to be the preserve of the swivel eyed loons.
Grasping at straws.

The point is there was information available to the population and that further integration was always part of the project.

It did not just happen out of thin air later on.
Do you not think that getting an occasional mandate from said population on whether they wanted further integration would have been a better policy instead of hiding behind the somewhat nebulas mantra of 'ever closer union' that never really stated what the eventual end goal would be (federal Europe, superstrate, full economic and political harmonisation, common defence force? etc). Some states held referendums, many did not despite promises to the contrary. It's an incredibly weak argument to suggest that a vote taken 40+ years ago to join the EEC was enough to provide an ongoing consensus for all subsequent integration.
The point being that you guys appear to be arguing now that you only joined an economic project not knowing that the plan was further integration all along.

That's just wrong. You did not like it, you left. Good.

Not really, however I am suggesting that perhaps seeking mandates from the populations of all members states for each major treaty (Maastricht, Lisbon) would probably have served the EU better in the long run rather then just hiding behind 'ever closer union' mission creep and 'you knew all along there would be further integration' despite there be no clear definition as to what precisely that would entail.

For what it is worth, I voted remain, but that does not make me some chest thumping champion of all things EU.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 10:48 am**

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:32 am
La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:48 am
danny_fitz wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:02 am
La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:45 am
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:54 pm
I am not talking bollocks. My point was how membership was sold by the Government at the time and how successive Governments acted with each new Treaty. Even during the 2016 referendum Nick Clegg described the notion of an EU Army as a "dangerous fantasy". Euroscpetism has long been claimed to be the preserve of the swivel eyed loons.
Grasping at straws.

The point is there was information available to the population and that further integration was always part of the project.

It did not just happen out of thin air later on.
Do you not think that getting an occasional mandate from said population on whether they wanted further integration would have been a better policy instead of hiding behind the somewhat nebulas mantra of 'ever closer union' that never really stated what the eventual end goal would be (federal Europe, superstrate, full economic and political harmonisation, common defence force? etc). Some states held referendums, many did not despite promises to the contrary. It's an incredibly weak argument to suggest that a vote taken 40+ years ago to join the EEC was enough to provide an ongoing consensus for all subsequent integration.
The point being that you guys appear to be arguing now that you only joined an economic project not knowing that the plan was further integration all along.

That's just wrong. You did not like it, you left. Good.
Not really, however I am suggesting that perhaps seeking mandates from the populations of all members states for each major treaty (Maastricht, Lisbon) would probably have served the EU better in the long run rather then just hiding behind 'ever closer union' mission creep and 'you knew all along there would be further integration' despite there be no clear definition as to what precisely that would entail.

For what it is worth, I voted remain, but that does not make me some chest thumping champion of all things EU.

Sure, EU is not perfect far from it.

The further integration was never hidden from the agenda.

If I may though, nobody forced anybody to join.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 10:52 am**

S Club wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 12:32 pm
shereblue wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:39 am
The government distributed three pamphlets.
One from itself, one from the YES campaign, and one from the NO campaign.
For completeness please provide the links to the other two pamphlets. Ta.
Here's a link to all three.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk ... ments.html

Thanks for the link. To be honest, I'd forgotten about the yes and no leaflets. But it's hardly a "gotcha". My point stands Pre-internet, there was not the widespread understanding that the EU was working towards "ever closer union". And there's certainly nothing in the leaflets (which 68% of the voting public didn't read anyway, according to the final Harris poll) about it.
[/quote]

Your deflection is pathetic.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 10:52 am**

Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 12:37 am
Code: Select all
[quote][/quote]
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:00 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 7:21 pm
bimboman wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:28 pm
Sawtooth the Beaver wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 6:15 pm

Do tell, or is this another unsubstantiated gut feeling?

I couldn’t have been more clear about what I meant. Sherblue posted regularly that brexit would bring collapse to the U.K. it now appears “no one” could actually predict that.
Read what you have written again, Either you are missing a very obvious point, or you are being disingenuous.

Enjoy your killer point, I’ve not one clue what the f uck you’re on about.
There is not a single remainer Shere blue included that has stated categorically with 100% certainty that the UK will be worse off in 20 years time.

Find one example. Your clever attack is not quite so. Simple enough for you?

Less well off, or less well of than we would have been had we not left the EU?

If the latter then given a short timeframe such as 20 years we'd almost certainly have been better off not leaving the EU, the sort of changes we'd be looking for such that wouldn't happen would be stark indeed. Over 50 years with possible gains from compliance costs being more UK specific we'll have overcome the loss of access, possibly still somewhat unlikely if the EU exists much as it does today, but at least possible.

There is if course we're yet to get the work done on services because... well who knows why, it's just cretinous. And so we could still get an amazing deal out of the EU having dealt ourselves the weakest hand we could and established a reputation for lying and being unreliable in the process, so it seems unlikely we'd get an amazing deal but until it doesn't happen it could

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 10:58 am**

La soule wrote:If I may though, nobody forced anybody to join.

You're being unnecessarily defensive. The point being reiterated is how successive BRITISH GOVERNMENTS have acted to shove through EU treaty legislation without public consultation and maybe had they actually brought the rest of us with them the 2016 plebiscite would not have gone the way it did.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 11:03 am**

danny_fitz wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:32 am
La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:48 am
danny_fitz wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:02 am
La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:45 am
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:54 pm
I am not talking bollocks. My point was how membership was sold by the Government at the time and how successive Governments acted with each new Treaty. Even during the 2016 referendum Nick Clegg described the notion of an EU Army as a "dangerous fantasy". Euroscpetism has long been claimed to be the preserve of the swivel eyed loons.
Grasping at straws.

The point is there was information available to the population and that further integration was always part of the project.

It did not just happen out of thin air later on.
Do you not think that getting an occasional mandate from said population on whether they wanted further integration would have been a better policy instead of hiding behind the somewhat nebulas mantra of 'ever closer union' that never really stated what the eventual end goal would be (federal Europe, superstrate, full economic and political harmonisation, common defence force? etc). Some states held referendums, many did not despite promises to the contrary. It's an incredibly weak argument to suggest that a vote taken 40+ years ago to join the EEC was enough to provide an ongoing consensus for all subsequent integration.
The point being that you guys appear to be arguing now that you only joined an economic project not knowing that the plan was further integration all along.

That's just wrong. You did not like it, you left. Good.
Not really, however I am suggesting that perhaps seeking mandates from the populations of all members states for each major treaty (Maastricht, Lisbon) would probably have served the EU better in the long run rather then just hiding behind 'ever closer union' mission creep and 'you knew all along there would be further integration' despite there be no clear definition as to what precisely that would entail.

For what it is worth, I voted remain, but that does not make me some chest thumping champion of all things EU.

Danny, you are putting the cart in front of the horse. The EU does not have the authority to demand that nations hold referendums. I'm sure that even suggesting them would be a diplomatic no, no for the EU. Sovereignty and all that.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 11:09 am**

Leinster in London wrote:The EU does not have the authority to demand that nations hold referendums. I'm sure that even suggesting them would be a diplomatic no, no for the EU. Sovereignty and all that.

That would have been a fair point if we didn't have the fiasco of the Lisbon Treaty.

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 11:26 am**

La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:48 am
danny_fitz wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:02 am
La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:45 am
Gospel wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:54 pm
La soule wrote:You can just say you were wrong and talking bollocks.
I am not talking bollocks. My point was how membership was sold by the Government at the time and how successive Governments acted with each new Treaty. Even during the 2016 referendum Nick Clegg described the notion of an EU Army as a "dangerous fantasy". Euroscpetism has long been claimed to be the preserve of the swivel eyed loons.
Grasping at straws.

The point is there was information available to the population and that further integration was always part of the project.

It did not just happen out of thin air later on.
Do you not think that getting an occasional mandate from said population on whether they wanted further integration would have been a better policy instead of hiding behind the somewhat nebulas mantra of 'ever closer union' that never really stated what the eventual end goal would be (federal Europe, superstrate, full economic and political harmonisation, common defence force? etc). Some states held referendums, many did not despite promises to the contrary. It's an incredibly weak argument to suggest that a vote taken 40+ years ago to join the EEC was enough to provide an ongoing consensus for all subsequent integration.
The point being that you guys appear to be arguing now that you only joined an economic project not knowing that the plan was further integration all along.

That's just wrong. You did not like it, you left. Good.

DF, your point is reasonable.

What I have been trying to communicate is that in 1975, despite the lurid warnings of the No/Leave campaigners that the EC would become, by stages, a single nation leaving the UK as a mere province, 2/3rds of the voters took that as far fetched. Because it was. I accept there are now grounds in Hard Brexitism for contending that it was visionary.

The Yes/Stay line was that some pooling of sovereignty was beneficial in the modern world, economically. It also approved the idea that the EC would "develop" and was about more than solely trade. It rejected the "one nation" nonsense drawing attention to the UK veto.

My overarching point however is that what actually did happen could not have been envisaged in 1973. Outside of the EC (Scandinavia aside), dictatorships governed. The 6 had become 9 and could realistically become a maximum of 13 with the Scandis).

Any evil empire plots would have been as remote as JRM's "50 year" vision of sunlit uplands

The material point is that there was indeed a UK veto. When the EU developed in a way not liked by the UK, it was free to veto or leave. Some leavers have more intelligently been drawing attention to missed opportunities by the UK (and indeed the EU) at later stages.

I cannot be absolutely right about 1975. Some hard Brexitists however just insult and repeat line one of their creation myth, over and over. It's not terribly relevant at the end of the day. It's Ascension Day today. Anyone want to insult me if I suggest that, whatever the big picture, Jesus did not literally rise bathed in golden sunlight into the stratosphere?

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 11:29 am**

haunch wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 8:46 pm

looks like a quick recovery

Seriously? Is that genuine?

Posted: **Thu May 13, 2021 11:32 am**

La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:48 am
danny_fitz wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 10:32 am
La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:48 am
danny_fitz wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 9:02 am
La soule wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 8:45 am

Grasping at straws.

The point is there was information available to the population and that further integration was always part of the project.

It did not just happen out of thin air later on.
Do you not think that getting an occasional mandate from said population on whether they wanted further integration would have been a better policy instead of hiding behind the somewhat nebulas mantra of 'ever closer union' that never really stated what the eventual end goal would be (federal Europe, superstrate, full economic and political harmonisation, common defence force? etc). Some states held referendums, many did not despite promises to the contrary. It's an incredibly weak argument to suggest that a vote taken 40+ years ago to join the EEC was enough to provide an ongoing consensus for all subsequent integration.
The point being that you guys appear to be arguing now that you only joined an economic project not knowing that the plan was further integration all along.

That's just wrong. You did not like it, you left. Good.
Not really, however I am suggesting that perhaps seeking mandates from the populations of all members states for each major treaty (Maastricht, Lisbon) would probably have served the EU better in the long run rather then just hiding behind 'ever closer union' mission creep and 'you knew all along there would be further integration' despite there be no clear definition as to what precisely that would entail.

For what it is worth, I voted remain, but that does not make me some chest thumping champion of all things EU.
Sure, EU is not perfect far from it.

The further integration was never hidden from the agenda.

If I may though, nobody forced anybody to join.

The UK was gagging to join.

France is to blame however.

For relinquishing its previously prescient vetos.

Planet Rugby Forum

OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread

Re:

Re: OFFICIAL Brexit Thread