RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
By definition the Granuaid.

whaaat????

It's ownership is designed to keep it impartial. And it often succeeds much more than the other mainstream UK papers.

Though it is also full of a metric fucktonne of shit.

I agree with 2/3rds of that.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: As Banquo would say ...... lol.

Depends on your opinion of reality.

But when you cut out the crap, they do report quite well generally.

At least better than the other papers I see.

Not as good as Al-Jazeera was when it first started English language (gone down the pan since) but still good.

So in your opinion of reality (whatever that means), based on your own bias, they are unbiased. Got it.
In my option of reality they are incredibly biased in favour of Remain. Even my remainiac wife thinks the same.

Why should we not be biased in favor of remain?

I have still yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of leave other than "THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT!".

The people were poorly informed, led sheep.

The fact is that ANY form of Brexit either leaves the UK facing a huge, lengthy process to get trade agreements through the door, or is so close to the EU it might as well be in the EU...except we don't get to vote on anything.

Without having to put up a counter-argument for leave, is there really any reason to argue for it unless you will personally gain financially like the people backing it?

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: whaaat????

It's ownership is designed to keep it impartial. And it often succeeds much more than the other mainstream UK papers.

Though it is also full of a metric fucktonne of shit.

I agree with 2/3rds of that.

Which part don't you? the ownership or the succeeding more than others?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
It's ownership is designed to keep it impartial. And it often succeeds much more than the other mainstream UK papers.

Though it is also full of a metric fucktonne of shit.

I agree with 2/3rds of that.

Which part don't you? the ownership or the succeeding more than others?

whaddya think . The latter is almost unprovable though tbh.

Even the Scott Trust board composition is a tad skewed having three or four Guardian journos on it.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: what do you mean by that?

I mean something which closely resembles being in the EU in effect, while not being in name So, in the CU, in the SM, in any body we can still be a part of. It's also the closest thing to an average of the 52:48 views expressed in the referendum, ie just over the line out of the EU.

But that still means freedom of movement, EU regs etc etc. If you are proposing that, then you need to be honest with people and say its pointless leaving to renegotiate a lesser version of what you have already but without any influence and all the downsides.
Frankly, I think that is what post the WA the deal would have ended up looking like, with watery red lines.

Absolutely. This is a compromise. It's not IMO better than being in the EU, but it satisfies a lot of the requirements of both sides:
Leavers wanted to leave, this gives them that. The referendum tells us nothing about the type of Brexit people wanted. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.
Remainers wanted to remain, they can't have that because it gives the leavers nothing. So let them have something similar to what they have now.

No one will be delighted with this. No one gets to "win". But that's characteristic of a compromise.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I mean something which closely resembles being in the EU in effect, while not being in name So, in the CU, in the SM, in any body we can still be a part of. It's also the closest thing to an average of the 52:48 views expressed in the referendum, ie just over the line out of the EU.

But that still means freedom of movement, EU regs etc etc. If you are proposing that, then you need to be honest with people and say its pointless leaving to renegotiate a lesser version of what you have already but without any influence and all the downsides.
Frankly, I think that is what post the WA the deal would have ended up looking like, with watery red lines.

Absolutely. This is a compromise. It's not IMO better than being in the EU, but it satisfies a lot of the requirements of both sides:
Leavers wanted to leave, this gives them that. The referendum tells us nothing about the type of Brexit people wanted. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.
Remainers wanted to remain, they can't have that because it gives the leavers nothing. So let them have something similar to what they have now.

No one will be delighted with this. No one gets to "win". But that's characteristic of a compromise.

But its utterly pointless, and a huge waste of money. Its the most pyrrhic of compromises, if you can even call it that.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
Depends on your opinion of reality.

But when you cut out the crap, they do report quite well generally.

At least better than the other papers I see.

Not as good as Al-Jazeera was when it first started English language (gone down the pan since) but still good.

So in your opinion of reality (whatever that means), based on your own bias, they are unbiased. Got it.
In my option of reality they are incredibly biased in favour of Remain. Even my remainiac wife thinks the same.

Why should we not be biased in favor of remain?

I have still yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of leave other than "THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT!".

The people were poorly informed, led sheep.

The fact is that ANY form of Brexit either leaves the UK facing a huge, lengthy process to get trade agreements through the door, or is so close to the EU it might as well be in the EU...except we don't get to vote on anything.

Without having to put up a counter-argument for leave, is there really any reason to argue for it unless you will personally gain financially like the people backing it?

Sorry. When you said unbiased I thought you meant unbiased. Apols.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: So in your opinion of reality (whatever that means), based on your own bias, they are unbiased. Got it.
In my option of reality they are incredibly biased in favour of Remain. Even my remainiac wife thinks the same.

Why should we not be biased in favor of remain?

I have still yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of leave other than "THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT!".

The people were poorly informed, led sheep.

The fact is that ANY form of Brexit either leaves the UK facing a huge, lengthy process to get trade agreements through the door, or is so close to the EU it might as well be in the EU...except we don't get to vote on anything.

Without having to put up a counter-argument for leave, is there really any reason to argue for it unless you will personally gain financially like the people backing it?

Sorry. When you said unbiased I thought you meant unbiased. Apols.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: But that still means freedom of movement, EU regs etc etc. If you are proposing that, then you need to be honest with people and say its pointless leaving to renegotiate a lesser version of what you have already but without any influence and all the downsides.
Frankly, I think that is what post the WA the deal would have ended up looking like, with watery red lines.

Absolutely. This is a compromise. It's not IMO better than being in the EU, but it satisfies a lot of the requirements of both sides:
Leavers wanted to leave, this gives them that. The referendum tells us nothing about the type of Brexit people wanted. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.
Remainers wanted to remain, they can't have that because it gives the leavers nothing. So let them have something similar to what they have now.

No one will be delighted with this. No one gets to "win". But that's characteristic of a compromise.

But its utterly pointless, and a huge waste of money. Its the most pyrrhic of compromises, if you can even call it that.

Correct, it is utterly pointless (IMO... some may disagree) and a waste of money. (But you can level that at the Norwegians too, I imagine). But this may be the least worst deal we can make (and actually get through parliament). We can only start from where we are.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Absolutely. This is a compromise. It's not IMO better than being in the EU, but it satisfies a lot of the requirements of both sides:
Leavers wanted to leave, this gives them that. The referendum tells us nothing about the type of Brexit people wanted. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.
Remainers wanted to remain, they can't have that because it gives the leavers nothing. So let them have something similar to what they have now.

No one will be delighted with this. No one gets to "win". But that's characteristic of a compromise.

But its utterly pointless, and a huge waste of money. Its the most pyrrhic of compromises, if you can even call it that.

Correct, it is utterly pointless and a waste of money. (But you can level that at the Norwegians too, I imagine). But this may be the least worst deal we can make (and actually get through parliament). We can only start from where we are.

You could get Remain through parliament I reckon

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: But its utterly pointless, and a huge waste of money. Its the most pyrrhic of compromises, if you can even call it that.

Correct, it is utterly pointless and a waste of money. (But you can level that at the Norwegians too, I imagine). But this may be the least worst deal we can make (and actually get through parliament). We can only start from where we are.

You could get Remain through parliament I reckon

Well, that would be even better of course, but it would have to go to the people lest they become a teeny bit miffed.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Correct, it is utterly pointless and a waste of money. (But you can level that at the Norwegians too, I imagine). But this may be the least worst deal we can make (and actually get through parliament). We can only start from where we are.

You could get Remain through parliament I reckon

Well, that would be even better of course, but it would have to go to the people lest they become a teeny bit miffed.

Nah.

Yes I agree, I think leaving the EU is nutso, but its what the majority wanted; I'm actually annoyed that May's WA didn't go through frankly, given what's happened since.. Even Ken Clarke voted for that.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.

I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote: You could get Remain through parliament I reckon

Well, that would be even better of course, but it would have to go to the people lest they become a teeny bit miffed.

Nah.

Yes I agree, I think leaving the EU is nutso, but its what the majority wanted; I'm actually annoyed that May's WA didn't go through frankly, given what's happened since.. Even Ken Clarke voted for that.

May's deal is better than no deal. Not sure there's much else to recommend it... it being basically a transition period with some hopes attached to it. But, yes, it's a million times better than what the majority* of the Tories are intent on driving us into.

*Actually, it is pretty much all now. Apart from a few cowards who are pretending to agree with BJ to keep their careers on track.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.

I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

You could polish anything, call it Brexit, and plenty of them would be happy.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Well, that would be even better of course, but it would have to go to the people lest they become a teeny bit miffed.

Nah.

Yes I agree, I think leaving the EU is nutso, but its what the majority wanted; I'm actually annoyed that May's WA didn't go through frankly, given what's happened since.. Even Ken Clarke voted for that.

May's deal is better than no deal. Not sure there's much else to recommend it... it being basically a transition period with some hopes attached to it. But, yes, it's a million times better than what the majority* of the Tories are intent on driving us into.

*Actually, it is pretty much all now. Apart from a few cowards who are pretending to agree with BJ to keep their careers on track.

It wasn't a deal. It was a rental period of EU membership when a deal would be negotiated.
I don't even think the majority of Tory MP's want to leave the EU, and lest we forget it was Tory policy to stay in the EU. Many have had to suck up their opposition to leaving, a lot of whom have now been kicked out, stepping down or crossed the floor.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:. For all we know 99% of leaver voters wanted a Norway-style Brexit.

I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

You could polish anything, call it Brexit, and plenty of them would be happy.

Given the reaction to the WA and it’s polling numbers I can’t agree with that.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why should we not be biased in favor of remain?

I have still yet to hear a compelling argument for any form of leave other than "THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR IT!".

The people were poorly informed, led sheep.

The fact is that ANY form of Brexit either leaves the UK facing a huge, lengthy process to get trade agreements through the door, or is so close to the EU it might as well be in the EU...except we don't get to vote on anything.

Without having to put up a counter-argument for leave, is there really any reason to argue for it unless you will personally gain financially like the people backing it?

Sorry. When you said unbiased I thought you meant unbiased. Apols.

Honestly...

It's not journalism job to act the devil's advocate, it should report on the facts...

What fact is there about brexit to make it a positive?

I have still, never, got an answer to this. Only "take back control", which we won't.

Sure, the EU is far from perfect but that's not the question!

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I think we can safely say 0% voted for leave in nothing but name.

You could polish anything, call it Brexit, and plenty of them would be happy.

Given the reaction to the WA and it’s polling numbers I can’t agree with that.

It was unpopular in parliament. I have no idea how it polled with the public... what were the numbers like?

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Sorry. When you said unbiased I thought you meant unbiased. Apols.

Honestly...

It's not journalism job to act the devil's advocate, it should report on the facts...

What fact is there about brexit to make it a positive?

I have still, never, got an answer to this. Only "take back control", which we won't.

Sure, the EU is far from perfect but that's not the question!

We need to get our control back. Otherwise what can we give to Trump?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: You could polish anything, call it Brexit, and plenty of them would be happy.

Given the reaction to the WA and it’s polling numbers I can’t agree with that.

It was unpopular in parliament. I have no idea how it polled with the public... what were the numbers like?

Last I saw was around 20%. A quick google and, according to Wikipedia, the highest it has achieved is 36%. Achieved this twice but only when in a two way contest - once vs Remain and once vs no deal. In a three way race, against Remain and no deal, the highest achieved is 17%.

IMO, if leavers were happy with the WA the Brexit Party wouldn’t have gone from zero to mid-30’s in the national polls and the Conservatives wouldn’t have rebounded once May resigned.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Given the reaction to the WA and it’s polling numbers I can’t agree with that.

It was unpopular in parliament. I have no idea how it polled with the public... what were the numbers like?

Last I saw was around 20%. A quick google and, according to Wikipedia, the highest it has achieved is 36%. Achieved this twice but only when in a two way contest - once vs Remain and once vs no deal. In a three way race, against Remain and no deal, the highest achieved is 17%.

IMO, if leavers were happy with the WA the Brexit Party wouldn’t have gone from zero to mid-30’s in the national polls and the Conservatives wouldn’t have rebounded once May resigned.

Did any particular flavour of Brexit get high support? When you say 36% is that of the general population or of leave voters?

IMO May's unpopularity was due to her continuing failure to bring about Brexit (of any kind). The Boris bounce was/is IMO due to the impression he gives that he will bring about Brexit, come what may (although I should confess that my ability to see the world from the POV of his supporters is limited... for all I know they just like to see an old Etonian bully as their PM).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: It was unpopular in parliament. I have no idea how it polled with the public... what were the numbers like?

Last I saw was around 20%. A quick google and, according to Wikipedia, the highest it has achieved is 36%. Achieved this twice but only when in a two way contest - once vs Remain and once vs no deal. In a three way race, against Remain and no deal, the highest achieved is 17%.

IMO, if leavers were happy with the WA the Brexit Party wouldn’t have gone from zero to mid-30’s in the national polls and the Conservatives wouldn’t have rebounded once May resigned.

Did any particular flavour of Brexit get high support? When you say 36% is that of the general population or of leave voters?

IMO May's unpopularity was due to her continuing failure to bring about Brexit (of any kind). The Boris bounce was/is IMO due to the impression he gives that he will bring about Brexit, come what may (although I should confess that my ability to see the world from the POV of his supporters is limited... for all I know they just like to see an old Etonian bully as their PM).

No deal consistently polled higher. The poll results I were looking at didn’t have any other Brexit options. 36% was of the country as a whole, both vs no deal and vs Remain.

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Last I saw was around 20%. A quick google and, according to Wikipedia, the highest it has achieved is 36%. Achieved this twice but only when in a two way contest - once vs Remain and once vs no deal. In a three way race, against Remain and no deal, the highest achieved is 17%.

IMO, if leavers were happy with the WA the Brexit Party wouldn’t have gone from zero to mid-30’s in the national polls and the Conservatives wouldn’t have rebounded once May resigned.

Did any particular flavour of Brexit get high support? When you say 36% is that of the general population or of leave voters?

IMO May's unpopularity was due to her continuing failure to bring about Brexit (of any kind). The Boris bounce was/is IMO due to the impression he gives that he will bring about Brexit, come what may (although I should confess that my ability to see the world from the POV of his supporters is limited... for all I know they just like to see an old Etonian bully as their PM).

No deal consistently polled higher. The poll results I were looking at didn’t have any other Brexit options. 36% was of the country as a whole, both vs no deal and vs Remain.

36% of the country would be approximately 72% of leavers. Which is fairly popular, I would say.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Did any particular flavour of Brexit get high support? When you say 36% is that of the general population or of leave voters?

IMO May's unpopularity was due to her continuing failure to bring about Brexit (of any kind). The Boris bounce was/is IMO due to the impression he gives that he will bring about Brexit, come what may (although I should confess that my ability to see the world from the POV of his supporters is limited... for all I know they just like to see an old Etonian bully as their PM).

No deal consistently polled higher. The poll results I were looking at didn’t have any other Brexit options. 36% was of the country as a whole, both vs no deal and vs Remain.

36% of the country would be approximately 72% of leavers. Which is fairly popular, I would say.

But only when there was no third option. So vs no deal it would get the Remain voter and vs Remain it would get the no deal voter. When up against both no deal and Remain it polled 17% at best and almost always behind no deal.