I'm no fan of hunting or shooting but given that it is legal, I don't honestly see any difference between hunting a sheep that's been released for that purpose and shooting grouse that have effectively been farmed to be shot. Stalking a ram might be a bit naff but that's a status thing. And given that the vast majority of rams will end up as table meat anyway, does killing it in the wild really make that much difference (I do get the animal welfare argument there but that's an argument against all shooting of animals that could otherwise be reared).
There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this which seems to boil down to "sheep are stupid so it's not fair to shoot them".
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
Yes, but they're only outraged because it's odd. They wouldn't be outraged if it was a deer, and it's not like sheep are critically endangered.
Newport West was estimated at 54% Leave so basically in line with the country. It was a Con target in 2017 but Paul Flynn secured a swing of c. 2% in his favour, again in line with the country.
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Like France we should have just ignored the rules when it suited us instead of trying to renegotiate them, wed still be in the EU if we had.
There's probably not a lot that the EU can do if a large member State (eg Italy) decides to break the rules.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
It's more that they're laughing at her for boasting about it.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
There is and was then a very strong case for having a long period of stability in the EU to bed down the changes that had been made not this endless rush for more measures, more treaties, more directives, more integration etc. If you push the reluctant where they don't want to go, eventually they push back. A period of stability might have helped get even the most reluctant more used to the changes that had already been made.
There hasn't been a major new European treaty in the entire time Angela Merkel has been in power. I think your position is closer to the reality of what's happened than you realise.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
It's more that they're laughing at her for boasting about it.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
*as many of the same outraged people wander off to have Shepherd's Pie for dinner....*
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
No, the EU want us in because:
A) the bicycle principle, under which Europe only advances, is what they count on to gain the unquestioning acquiescence of Europeans to further power grabs they are terrified we might make a success of it, hence their determination to make us pay, even when agreements might be win-win C) they will miss picking our pockets of more than £10 billion/year.
I used to do a lot of business in Brussels. These worries aren't hard to get out of them after a beer or two.
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Had the EU shown even less flexibility to Cameron, there's a good chance that he would have been forced to either back Leave or, more likely, been ousted and replaced with a Leaver - Boris, most obviously, prior to the referendum. Leave, with the backing of the PM, government and Tory Party (which would have boosted the allowed Leave campaign spend by millions), would then have won a very comfortable victory. After which, it'd have all gone a bit wrong.
Sheep are unbelievably stupid. I know of no other mammal which can roll on to its back and get stuck.
They are, in the words of one sheep farmer of my acquaintance, wandering around looking for ways to die.
You're being unkind to sheep. In Cumbria, they survive the most ferocious winters out on the fells. When even "Miss-I-am-a-good-shot-look-at-my-selfie-of-me-shooting-a-barn-door" will be safely tucked up inside.
I'm not saying they aren't hardy. I'm saying the docile beasts are dumber than a bag of rocks.
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Had the EU shown even less flexibility to Cameron, there's a good chance that he would have been forced to either back Leave or, more likely, been ousted and replaced with a Leaver - Boris, most obviously, prior to the referendum. Leave, with the backing of the PM, government and Tory Party (which would have boosted the allowed Leave campaign spend by millions), would then have won a very comfortable victory. After which, it'd have all gone a bit wrong.
Brexit wouldn't have been any more deliverable just because Cameron was backing it. The same delusions would have hit the same reality.
You also shouldn't make assumptions about which way the vote would have gone. It's perfectly possible that having Cameron backing Leave would have led to a Remain win.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
*as many of the same outraged people wander off to have Shepherd's Pie for dinner....*
He's a very unlucky ram, unlike his ewe sister folk he'd be destined for many years of 'tupping' ahead and probably not headed for a shepherd's pie ;(. Perhaps his shagging days were behind him tho.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
*as many of the same outraged people wander off to have Shepherd's Pie for dinner....*
Isn't that similar to the earlier (yesterday's?) question of where does milk come from..
There is and was then a very strong case for having a long period of stability in the EU to bed down the changes that had been made not this endless rush for more measures, more treaties, more directives, more integration etc. If you push the reluctant where they don't want to go, eventually they push back. A period of stability might have helped get even the most reluctant more used to the changes that had already been made.
There hasn't been a major new European treaty in the entire time Angela Merkel has been in power. I think your position is closer to the reality of what's happened than you realise.
Fair point. There is perhaps a reluctance amongst legislators to look at what they've enacted and see whether it has achieved what it set out to so, have there been unintended consequences, are there things that need to be changed or tweaked etc. That applies here but also at the EU level. The effects of Maastricht, even more than Lisbon, are still being worked through. Was there any discussion at the EU level about migration patterns across Europe from within the EU, about what stresses this might cause, about how these might be addressed etc? Or was this, ironically, just left to national governments to sort out? FoM was introduced and has become an article in faith. But even articles of faith need questioning and their consequences need dealing with. Just saying: "This is how it is. It can never change" may be suitable for a Pope but it is not sensible politics.
I accept of course that the euro's introduction and its consequences used up a lot of bandwidth.
Sheep are unbelievably stupid. I know of no other mammal which can roll on to its back and get stuck.
They are, in the words of one sheep farmer of my acquaintance, wandering around looking for ways to die.
You're being unkind to sheep. In Cumbria, they survive the most ferocious winters out on the fells. When even "Miss-I-am-a-good-shot-look-at-my-selfie-of-me-shooting-a-barn-door" will be safely tucked up inside.
I'm not saying they aren't hardy. I'm saying the docile beasts are dumber than a bag of rocks.
To be fair, we have bred stupidity into them! they are amongst the most longstanding domesticated livestock.
You also shouldn't make assumptions about which way the vote would have gone. It's perfectly possible that having Cameron backing Leave would have led to a Remain win.
All the chavs who voted leave to spite him would have voted remain for the same reason.
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
*as many of the same outraged people wander off to have Shepherd's Pie for dinner....*
He's a very unlucky ram, unlike his ewe sister folk he'd be destined for many years of 'tupping' ahead and probably not headed for a shepherd's pie ;(. Perhaps his shagging days were behind him tho.
I wonder how much the brave hunter paid for the privilege.
You also shouldn't make assumptions about which way the vote would have gone. It's perfectly possible that having Cameron backing Leave would have led to a Remain win.
All the chavs who voted leave to spite him would have voted remain for the same reason.
Probably more Labour voters would have backed Remain, but Conservatives would have gone for more heavily for Leave.
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
No, the EU want us in because:
A) the bicycle principle, under which Europe only advances, is what they count on to gain the unquestioning acquiescence of Europeans to further power grabs they are terrified we might make a success of it, hence their determination to make us pay, even when agreements might be win-win C) they will miss picking our pockets of more than £10 billion/year.
I used to do a lot of business in Brussels. These worries aren't hard to get out of them after a beer or two.
You drink with the wrong people. The GDP of the EU is something like £14.5 trillion. A contribution of £350 million a week or whatever figure you want to make up is loose change in that context.
I don't think anyone is terrified that Britain is going to make a success of Brexit. Pity mixed with contempt is more how it's being viewed from abroad.
You drink with the wrong people. The GDP of the EU is something like £14.5 trillion. A contribution of £350 million a week or whatever figure you want to make up is loose change in that context.
That's not what the Germans, who will be paying most of it, think:
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
No, the EU want us in because:
A) the bicycle principle, under which Europe only advances, is what they count on to gain the unquestioning acquiescence of Europeans to further power grabs they are terrified we might make a success of it, hence their determination to make us pay, even when agreements might be win-win C) they will miss picking our pockets of more than £10 billion/year.
I used to do a lot of business in Brussels. These worries aren't hard to get out of them after a beer or two.
You drink with the wrong people. The GDP of the EU is something like £14.5 trillion. A contribution of £350 million a week or whatever figure you want to make up is loose change in that context.
I don't think anyone is terrified that Britain is going to make a success of Brexit. Pity mixed with contempt is more how it's being viewed from abroad.
Funnily enough, I think that only if Brexit sort of works or is not a complete disaster will Britain be likely to rejoin and be welcomed back in. Contrary, I know, to the general view on here.
I have a half-written thread header explaining why. But it might turn out to be rubbish.
You drink with the wrong people. The GDP of the EU is something like £14.5 trillion. A contribution of £350 million a week or whatever figure you want to make up is loose change in that context.
That's not what the Germans, who will be paying most of it, think:
You drink with the wrong people. The GDP of the EU is something like £14.5 trillion. A contribution of £350 million a week or whatever figure you want to make up is loose change in that context.
That's not what the Germans, who will be paying most of it, think:
I hope he stays away from Tescos otherwise he's going to get the shock of his life with all those previously alive animals in there.
Since he keeps livestock (cattle and pigs as well if I recall correctly) as a business, I daresay it wouldn't come as a huge surprise to him. As it's his business, he probably just thinks some twat dressing up to hunt down a domesticated animal released for the purpose is a bit off. I suppose at least you could eat the ram, though it might be a bit chewy.
Why is he "very concerned" then? Very strong views on sartorial propriety?
I imagine like many farmers who breed animals for slaughter he has to balance the purpose for which he's rearing them, and respect (or even affection) for the beasts. He obviously feels that bimbos in ghillie suits don't qualify.
If people want to dress weirdly & inappropriately and kill things (legally), that's up to them. By the same token I feel entirely at liberty to call them twats.
True and true.
Don't see the news story, that said.
The news story is that it's odd.
Not really. The news story is that people are outraged that she has killed a sheep and is not ashamed or apologetic about it.
*as many of the same outraged people wander off to have Shepherd's Pie for dinner....*
He's a very unlucky ram, unlike his ewe sister folk he'd be destined for many years of 'tupping' ahead and probably not headed for a shepherd's pie ;(. Perhaps his shagging days were behind him tho.
I wonder how much the brave hunter paid for the privilege.
The ram reminds me of Boris for some reason - a more handsome, dignified and altogether better beast though.
He who calls the tune pays the piper, I'd have thought.
Well, yes. One of the underexplored aspects of this is the extent to which the EU budget will be reformed if and when the UK contributions fall off. I expect those paying the piper are going to be a lot more choosy about what tunes they'll pay for, which might not be to the taste of the olive-belt and Visegrads.
The ram reminds me of Boris for some reason - a more handsome, dignified and altogether better beast though.
Talking of Boris, I heard John McDonell on Radio 4 this morning, and it struck me that (don't laugh!) he's remarkably similar to Boris in the way he responds to questions about the practicality of what he proposes. All practical issues are just waved away with generalities, and false figures used in a similar way: instead of £350m a week, we have £13.8bn of dividends paid to water-company shareholders, and instead of the sunlit uplands of Brexit, we have the sunlit uplands of nationalised industries.
In fairness, Theresa's played an absolute blinder this week. The ERG and other malcontents have been humiliated and Brady, with his silly collection of chippy letters, looks impotent. She's even got the Daily Mail eating out of the palm of her hand. What a gal!
The ram reminds me of Boris for some reason - a more handsome, dignified and altogether better beast though.
Talking of Boris, I heard John McDonell on Radio 4 this morning, and it struck me that (don't laugh!) he's remarkably similar to Boris in the way he responds to questions about the practicality of what he proposes. All practical issues are just waved away with generalities, and false figures used in a similar way: instead of £350m a week, we have £13.8bn of dividends paid to water-company shareholders, and insstead of the sunlit uplands of Brexit, we have the sunlit uplands of nationalised industries.
One thing I always need to remind myself about McDonnell when thinking of any succession is that he is only two years younger than Corbyn.
The ram reminds me of Boris for some reason - a more handsome, dignified and altogether better beast though.
Talking of Boris, I heard John McDonell on Radio 4 this morning, and it struck me that (don't laugh!) he's remarkably similar to Boris in the way he responds to questions about the practicality of what he proposes. All practical issues are just waved away with generalities, and false figures used in a similar way: instead of £350m a week, we have £13.8bn of dividends paid to water-company shareholders, and insstead of the sunlit uplands of Brexit, we have the sunlit uplands of nationalised industries.
One thing I always need to remind myself about McDonnell when thinking of any succession is that he is only two years younger than Corbyn.
In fairness, Theresa's played an absolute blinder this week. The ERG and other malcontents have been humiliated and Brady, with his silly collection of chippy letters, looks impotent. She's even got the Daily Mail eating out of the palm of her hand. What a gal!
Pretty much. She's ridden her way out of the 'killing window', for now.
There is and was then a very strong case for having a long period of stability in the EU to bed down the changes that had been made not this endless rush for more measures, more treaties, more directives, more integration etc. If you push the reluctant where they don't want to go, eventually they push back. A period of stability might have helped get even the most reluctant more used to the changes that had already been made.
There hasn't been a major new European treaty in the entire time Angela Merkel has been in power. I think your position is closer to the reality of what's happened than you realise.
Merkel became chancellor in 2005, Lisbon was signed in 2007.
There is and was then a very strong case for having a long period of stability in the EU to bed down the changes that had been made not this endless rush for more measures, more treaties, more directives, more integration etc. If you push the reluctant where they don't want to go, eventually they push back. A period of stability might have helped get even the most reluctant more used to the changes that had already been made.
There hasn't been a major new European treaty in the entire time Angela Merkel has been in power. I think your position is closer to the reality of what's happened than you realise.
Merkel became chancellor in 2005, Lisbon was signed in 2007.
Yes but that was a reworking of the European Constitution that had been negotiated before she became Chancellor.
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Like France we should have just ignored the rules when it suited us instead of trying to renegotiate them, wed still be in the EU if we had.
If the government had tried that someone would have taken them to court and they would have lost: see “rule of law” in the above list of benifits we bought to the EU.
There is and was then a very strong case for having a long period of stability in the EU to bed down the changes that had been made not this endless rush for more measures, more treaties, more directives, more integration etc. If you push the reluctant where they don't want to go, eventually they push back. A period of stability might have helped get even the most reluctant more used to the changes that had already been made.
There hasn't been a major new European treaty in the entire time Angela Merkel has been in power. I think your position is closer to the reality of what's happened than you realise.
Merkel became chancellor in 2005, Lisbon was signed in 2007.
Yes but that was a reworking of the European Constitution that had been negotiated before she became Chancellor.
which of course made future treaties largely unnecessary
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Like France we should have just ignored the rules when it suited us instead of trying to renegotiate them, wed still be in the EU if we had.
If the government had tried that someone would have taken them to court and they would have lost: see “rule of law” in the above list of benifits we bought to the EU.
germany suffered nothing when it broke the euro deficit rule, France when it illegally banned british beef.
Its pointless sticking to rules when they are not enforced.
Mr. Meeks, we could equally consider why Brussels et al want us to stay, having increasing say over our governance, taking ever more money whilst reducing our influence.
Once again you descend into Brexit madness. "Brussels et al" want Britain to stay because the EU is collectively stronger the bigger the collective, and that since Britain is one of the larger European countries, it is better to have it as part of that collective. Only monomaniac Leavers think that the EU is some kind of racket for power-crazed Belgians.
No, the EU want us in because:
A) the bicycle principle, under which Europe only advances, is what they count on to gain the unquestioning acquiescence of Europeans to further power grabs they are terrified we might make a success of it, hence their determination to make us pay, even when agreements might be win-win C) they will miss picking our pockets of more than £10 billion/year.
I used to do a lot of business in Brussels. These worries aren't hard to get out of them after a beer or two.
You drink with the wrong people. The GDP of the EU is something like £14.5 trillion. A contribution of £350 million a week or whatever figure you want to make up is loose change in that context.
I don't think anyone is terrified that Britain is going to make a success of Brexit. Pity mixed with contempt is more how it's being viewed from abroad.
What proportion of the EU budget is it though? That is about 1% of the total GDP I think.
But apart from him I have seen very little about why other EU countries think Britain being a member is a good thing and what they think Britain has to offer them (as well as what the EU has to offer us). The fact that Britain's vote to leave has not led - at least as far as I can see - to any sort of questioning about whether the EU might have acted differently or about what they might do now to keep Britain in or closely associated disappointed me I have to say. It didn't feel as if - beyond the need to have a place to send their unemployed to - they cared very much one way or the other. Which may well be a blow to our amour propre. But maybe I'm missing something.
It has led to questioning about what they might have done differently, and they've learnt that if you offer special deals it will never be enough, so it's better not to do it at all.
As Macron said, "I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake."
Like France we should have just ignored the rules when it suited us instead of trying to renegotiate them, wed still be in the EU if we had.
If the government had tried that someone would have taken them to court and they would have lost: see “rule of law” in the above list of benifits we bought to the EU.
germany suffered nothing when it broke the euro deficit rule, France when it illegally banned british beef.
Its pointless sticking to rules when they are not enforced.
It wouldn’t have been a European court: our own courts are happy to rule against the government all the time.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
And as Paul Flynn has held the seat since 1987 some of that could be a personal vote for him.
Might actually be a competitive by election for once...
A) the bicycle principle, under which Europe only advances, is what they count on to gain the unquestioning acquiescence of Europeans to further power grabs
C) they will miss picking our pockets of more than £10 billion/year.
I used to do a lot of business in Brussels. These worries aren't hard to get out of them after a beer or two.
You also shouldn't make assumptions about which way the vote would have gone. It's perfectly possible that having Cameron backing Leave would have led to a Remain win.
I accept of course that the euro's introduction and its consequences used up a lot of bandwidth.
Wild sheep and goats can be quite canny.
I don't think anyone is terrified that Britain is going to make a success of Brexit. Pity mixed with contempt is more how it's being viewed from abroad.
Can't she take it for a damn walk?
Grrr.......
Suspect the result would've been significantly better for Leave, but the party political aspect more ramped up.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1035684/brexit-news-germany-uk-eu-budget-contribution
I have a half-written thread header explaining why. But it might turn out to be rubbish.
Anyway off to find some earplugs.....
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1055151169360797698
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cry_(2018_TV_series)
Its pointless sticking to rules when they are not enforced.