Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nigel giving a very good interview on Marr. Intends to campaign up and down the country and in every constituency. Charasmatic and espousing a clear and singular message. Should do serious damage to the Tories. Go Nigel.

News Flash !

The man who came third to Flipper the Dolphin in a constituency where none of the main parties campaigned won't making an 8th attempt to become an MP

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50280848

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

1. How does a hard remain MP differ from a remain MP?
2. How have any kind of remain MP stopped the implementation of the referendum?


But how could they progress whem they didnt (and to a large extent still don't) have any kind of coherent plan in place?

1. I'm glad you asked. It is possible to have voted remain or campaigned for it in the referendum but then accept that the UK voted to leave and honour the result. The hard remainers have refused to accept this result and have been working to undermine it. This is precisely why this election is needed to provide a policy platform as to what to do next given the impasse.
2. Continually voting against the legislation, amending it in ways that obstruct the legislation from passing. Forcing the PM to write letters to the EU to prevent the UK leaving. There have been a litany of examples.

My impression of the mood in the UK is that people are sick of this even many remain voters and just want the withdrawal process finished. The polling numbers suggest this also.

The government have provided a clear way out of the EU. So your last question is redundant. There's a clear course of action. The problem is MPs obstructing it.

bilston

It's kind of pleasingly ironic that Farage is now pretty much the single biggest obstacle to getting Brexit over the line. He is the biggest threat to a Tory majority and without a Tory majority there will probably be no Brexit on 31st Jan.

Akrasia

theological wrote: »

More accurately:
Hard remain MPs have been wilfully obstructing the implementation of the referendum.



Agreed. The referendum was in 2016. They are voting for MP's because they are the problem. They have been obstructing progress on Brexit. Therefore a new parliament needs to be put in place to progress with the withdrawal.

Absolute nonsense. The ERG blocked the UK from leaving. The government had no majority because the Tories infighting prevented them from passing a deal.

Johnson voted against leaving the EU multiple times

Inquitus

Should we have a UK Election Thread to split it out from here?

ancapailldorcha

Inquitus wrote: »

Should we have a UK Election Thread to split it out from here?

There's one here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058026685

bilston

theological wrote: »

1. I'm glad you asked. It is possible to have voted remain or campaigned for it in the referendum but then accept that the UK voted to leave and honour the result. The hard reminders have refused to accept this result and have been working to undermine it. This is precisely why this election is needed to provide a policy platform as to what to do next given the impasse.
2. Continually voting against the legislation, amending it in ways that obstruct the legislation from passing. Forcing the PM to write letters to the EU to prevent the UK leaving. There have been a litany of examples.

My impression of the mood in the UK is that people are sick of this even many remain voters and just want the withdrawal process finished. The polling numbers suggest this also.

The government have provided a clear way out of the EU. So your last question is redundant. There's a clear course of action. The problem is MPs obstructing it.

People in the UK are sick of Brexit. And yes many, most just want it done, even Remainers, but if you gave them the chance to vote again then people will vote for what they believe and not just vote for the sake of expediency.

I think Remain would win a second vote. Although no-one can be sure. I do my mum in her 60s voted Leave and only this week she told she would vote Remain as she didn't know "what the hell she was voting for" in 2016. It's actually a sad thing. Because she is far from alone.

gooch2k9

bilston wrote: »

People in the UK are sick of Brexit. And yes many, most just want it done, even Remainers, but if you gave them the chance to vote again then people will vote for what they believe and not just vote for the sake of expediency.

I think Remain would win a second vote. Although no-one can be sure. I do my mum in her 60s voted Leave and only this week she told she would vote Remain as she didn't know "what the hell she was voting for" in 2016. It's actually a sad thing. Because she is far from alone.

The likes of JRM has stated as much. They know they would lose a second referedum hence why they won't allow one so long as they are able to prevent it.

Two general elections on the matter but only one uninformed referendum.

Professor Genius

The Brexit Party vote share between 15-20% at 6/1 looks a good bet to me

LuckyLloyd

Inquitus wrote: »

Should we have a UK Election Thread to split it out from here?

I’m personally of the view that no separation in conversation is necessary. The next step in the Brexit story is the election; the election is dominated by Brexit.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

1. I'm glad you asked. It is possible to have voted remain or campaigned for it in the referendum but then accept that the UK voted to leave and honour the result. The hard remainers have refused to accept this result and have been working to undermine it. This is precisely why this election is needed to provide a policy platform as to what to do next given the impasse.

So what then is a remainer? Surely they are just a remainer and your "Hard Remainer" terminology is incorrectly applied as a "Hard Brexiteer" is one who wants a hard exit from the EU?
A remainer wants to keep the current position. There is no "Hard Remain"!

theological wrote: »

2. Continually voting against the legislation, amending it in ways that obstruct the legislation from passing. Forcing the PM to write letters to the EU to prevent the UK leaving. There have been a litany of examples.

Nobody forced the PM to write letters and he did claim he would rather die in a ditch. Why didn't he?
The legislation prevented the absolute idiocy that is a hard exit. At what point did they vote to not exit thus holding up an exit from the EU?
At what point did those MPs that wanted to remain within the EU force parliament to stay. May or Boris could have left at any point but didn't! Stop with the nonsense that it was the remain MPs that imposed this!

theological wrote: »

My impression of the mood in the UK is that people are sick of this even many remain voters and just want the withdrawal process finished. The polling numbers suggest this also.

Everyone around Europe is sick of it. So what?

theological wrote: »

The government have provided a clear way out of the EU. So your last question is redundant. There's a clear course of action. The problem is MPs obstructing it.

There is not a clear course of action. There is a plan to exit the EU but from then on it has not been fully defined. Furthermore this plan is only recent and has not been accepted by parliament.
Does the plan clearly define thebfuture direction of the UK? What of trade between GB and NI? What of Scotland then? And Wales? Will it be just the remainers that vote against this plan?
There is a plan but it is far from coherent. This is why there will be trade negotiations and so on once the UK does eventually leave!

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In 2016, people vote to leave based on lies, propaganda and unicorns and before you introduce the standard retort, no this doesn't mean that I think they are stupid. We are having this discussion on a tightly moderated politics forum which I think is well above most people's level of political engagement.

Vote Leave's slogan was "take back control". As far as I can see, the UK is in no position to take back control of anything, exactly the opposite in fact. A trade deal with the US will see us coerced into accepting much more lax regulation (especially on food standards) as well as the dismantlement of the NHS, the closest thing there is here to a national religion.

I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of people claiming that the NHS will be dismantled post-Brexit. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Both Boris Johnson and indeed President Trump have clearly signalled - in no uncertain terms - that the NHS is not on the table, not for sale, not to be disbanded, nothing, nada, zilch. It'll never happen. It's a complete red herring. Do you sincerely believe that a government is going to "dismantle the NHS", which you correctly describe as something that approximates a "national religion"?

The fact that staunch Remainers repeat this falsity, whilst simultaneously claiming that "lies" were told throughout the referendum, beggars belief.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of people claiming that the NHS will be dismantled post-Brexit. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Both Boris Johnson and indeed President Trump have clearly signalled - in no uncertain terms - that the NHS is not on the table, not for sale, not to be disbanded, nothing, nada, zilch. It'll never happen. It's a complete red herring.

The fact that staunch Remainers repeat this falsity, whilst simultaneously claiming that "lies" were told throughout the referendum, beggars belief.

According to this, the NHS will very much be on the table.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

According to this, the NHS will very much be on the table.

Let's take Donald Trump's words instead, who stated just 3 days ago in an interview with Mr Farage, that the NHS isn't up for discussion in any way, shape or form.

The reality is, even if figures in Washington are mooting the idea, it doesn't mean it will happen.

It won't.

It's a total red herring; the largest such herring produced by Remainers.

Joe_ Public

https://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/ideal-us-uk-free-trade-agreement-free-traders-perspective

Interesting document to read. Have a look at the third name on the list of authors.

Edit: this is the salient bit, stuck away at the bottom of the report as if we wouldnt notice.

"As for other services areas, health services are an area where both sides would benefit from openness to foreign competition, although we recognize any changes to existing regulations will be extremely controversial. Perhaps, then, for other areas the initial focus should be on other fields such as education or legal services, where negotiators can test the waters and see what is possible. That said, we would envisage a swift, time-tabled implementation of recognition across all areas within 5 years."

strandroad

Deleted User wrote: »

Both Boris Johnson and indeed President Trump have clearly signalled - in no uncertain terms - that the NHS is not on the table, not for sale, not to be disbanded, nothing, nada, zilch. It'll never happen. It's a complete red herring. Do you sincerely believe that a government is going to "dismantle the NHS", which you correctly describe as something that approximates a "national religion"?

No one is going to "dismantle" or "sell" NHS, of course not. It's not how you do it. Instead you privatise huge sections of it and contract them out to American healthcare behemots and the general public will be none the wiser.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's take Donald Trump's words instead, who stated just 3 days ago in an interview with Mr Farage, that the NHS isn't up for discussion in any way, shape or form.

The reality is, even if figures in Washington are mooting the idea, it doesn't mean it will happen.

It won't.

It's a total red herring; the largest such herring produced by Remainers.

I don't consider Donald Trump to be a remotely reliable source. I find it more constructive to look at the US healthcare system and the prevalence of lobbying there. It's an obvious corollary that US firms will push hard for pieces of the NHS via contracts.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

https://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/ideal-us-uk-free-trade-agreement-free-traders-perspective

Interesting document to read. Have a look at the third name on the list of authors.

In the post-script, titled "Contingency Provisions: Ideal Meets Political Reality", they rightly state:

As for other services areas, health services are an area where both sides would benefit from openness to foreign competition, although we recognize any changes to existing regulations will be extremely controversial. Perhaps, then, for other areas the initial focus should be on other fields such as education or legal services, where negotiators can test the waters and see what is possible. That said, we would envisage a swift, time-tabled implementation of recognition across all areas within 5 years.

The document sets out a theoretical ideal, not a practical reality.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In the post-script, titled "Contingency Provisions: Ideal Meets Political Reality", they rightly state:



The document sets out a theoretical ideal, not a practical reality.

It sets out very clearly the motivations for certain people on both sides. That very many hard brexit supporters see it as a means of royally cashing in isnt news, but always good and quite chilling at the same time to see it so boldly stated in print.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

It sets out very clearly the motivations for certain people on both sides. That very many hard brexit supporters see it as a means of royally cashing in isnt news, but always good and quite chilling at the same time to see it so boldly stated in print.

It's an independent theoretical document, not stated government policy.

It will not happen.

And as for NHS privatisation, ironically it was the Labour Party - not the Torys - that paved that perilous path.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

In the post-script, titled "Contingency Provisions: Ideal Meets Political Reality", they rightly state:



The document sets out a theoretical ideal, not a practical reality.

The important word in all of that is "controversial"; they haven't ruled out anything, simply stated that a lot of people will not be happy. The bedroom tax was controversial, universal credit was controversial, Brexit was controversial; didn't stop them from trying it on with any of those to name three off the top of my head. In the case of Brexit; how much more controversial does it need to get before the government cries "uncle" when roughly 50% (and quite likely more) of the electorate are in direct conflict with the government?

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's an independent theoretical document, not stated government policy.

It will not happen.

And as for NHS privatisation, ironically it was the Labour Party - not the Torys - that paved that perilous path.

Whats theory got to do with it? Its a white paper co authored by an erg politician whose organisation is backed by the prime minister and in league with a US right wing think tank run by the predatory fossil fuel guzzling koch bros. It sets out ambitions and motivations and it is only natural to be alarmed. Your assurances to the contrary mean little.

Pfi or ppp or whatever they were called were wrong and a shameful act by then labour gov.

Mr.Wemmick

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of people claiming that the NHS will be dismantled post-Brexit. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Both Boris Johnson and indeed President Trump have clearly signalled - in no uncertain terms - that the NHS is not on the table, not for sale, not to be disbanded, nothing, nada, zilch. It'll never happen. It's a complete red herring. Do you sincerely believe that a government is going to "dismantle the NHS", which you correctly describe as something that approximates a "national religion"?

The fact that staunch Remainers repeat this falsity, whilst simultaneously claiming that "lies" were told throughout the referendum, beggars belief.

What utter bollox..of course it's on the table. It has been for years - the dismantling of various services has already begun. NHS services out sourced to companies, special needs facilities and mental health services to private owners who as we all know are failing dismally as it's profit over expertise, and profit over staff allocation.. it's a seeping wound and anyone who comes along like this and states afresh pre-election times that this is not happening is deliberately talking complete and utter bollox.

SNIP. Don't get personal please.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't consider Donald Trump to be a remotely reliable source. I find it more constructive to look at the US healthcare system and the prevalence of lobbying there. It's an obvious corollary that US firms will push hard for pieces of the NHS via contracts.

Trump and the republicans are blaming foreign health services being able to negotiate good prices for the high cost of US medicines.

And only stepped back from overtly demanding access to the NHS due to massive backlash from all sides in the UK. A complete about face without explanation between June 4 and June 5

Boris was still explaining that the NHS was off the table in September so it's obvious the US hadn't accepted that message yet.


US take on the June flip flop
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-07/donald-trump-nhs-trade-deal-threat-roils-brexit-leave-supporters
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/04/uk/nhs-trump-uk-visit-intl/index.html

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Do not question mod warnings on thread please. Post deleted.

Mr.Wemmick

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

What utter bollox..of course it's on the table. It has been for years - the dismantling of various services has already begun. NHS services out sourced to companies, special needs facilities and mental health services to private owners who as we all know are failing dismally as it's profit over expertise, and profit over staff allocation.. it's a seeping wound and anyone who comes along like this and states afresh pre-election times that this is not happening is deliberately talking complete and utter bollox.

SNIP. Don't get personal please.

I didn't state that privatisation hasn't happened to date, because it has.

My position is that no government would privatise the NHS en masse, to then reap the dire political consequences that would inevitably ensue.

From a pragmatic vantage point, I think it's highly, highly unlikely.

Joe_ Public

People with more knowledge of world trade than me could perhaps tell me how much attraction the 80 per cent services uk economy would have for the US with the nhs completely off the table? Doesnt seem all that much of an appetizing package to me.

ancapailldorcha

FYI, I've opted to sticky the election thread to the top of the forum for visibility if people would like to discuss non-Brexit issues relating to the election.

Mr.Wemmick

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't state that privatisation hasn't happened to date, because it has.

My position is that no government would privatise the NHS en masse, to then reap the dire political consequences that would inevitably ensue.

From a pragmatic vantage point, I think it's highly, highly unlikely.

Nonsense. The NHS is not one unit to be sold, but many.. and it's being broken apart with the aim to sell it whole: piece by piece.

It has already happened lock stock and barrel to many complete services that affect people's lives daily. This is why they have been managing the sale/dismantling of the NHS very slowly over a number of years, limiting the political impact, and they will continue to do so until it is something else entirely.

Mr.Wemmick

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Nonsense. The NHS is not one unit to be sold, but many.. and it's being broken apart with the aim to sell it whole: piece by piece.

It has already happened lock stock and barrel to many complete services that affect people's lives daily. This is why they have been managing the sale/dismantling of the NHS very slowly over a number of years, limiting the political impact, and they will continue to do so until it is something else entirely.

You're wrong.

It's almost as if you want the story to be true.

The idea that the NHS will slowly crumble, disappear and become the PHS, Privatised Health Service, is for the birds.

The general public, through the ballot box, would put an end to it.

True, there may well be sneaky attempts, here and there, for some degree of privatisation. I just don't believe, for the reasons hitherto made, that it will go any further than that.