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.
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?
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.
Inquitus wrote: » Should we have a UK Election Thread to split it out from here?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » According to this, the NHS will very much be on the table.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
