CrosspoolClarets wrote:An article by one of the guys leading today’s paper about Northern Ireland.

https://brexitcentral.com/a-hard-irish- ... t-outcome/

In essence he is saying what many of us Brexiteers have been saying for years - that our weak government has allowed the debate to be changed, so instead of saying no hard border they now say no checks at all, and if we went back to the original red lines then technological solutions become viable.

There’s a summary here https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; in the Guardian.

There’s a lot of ‘ifs’ to be overcome and changes of position from the EU and DUP if it’s to become a reality.

TheFamilyCat wrote:You have to remember that the leader will be chosen by party members - 120k of them at the last count. I don’t think any “hatchet job” by the left-leaning media that Tories tend to avoid is going to make a lot of difference.

In 2007, Tony Blair resigned as Prime Minister and Labour Leader and Brown was chosen to replace him in an uncontested election.

Blair said he expected Gordon Brown to succeed him, and that Brown "would make an excellent Prime Minister". When nominations for the leadership elections opened, Blair was one of those nominating Brown. From the start, most observers considered Brown the overwhelming favourite to succeed Blair; John McDonnell, his only challenger, failed to secure enough nominations in order to get onto the ballot, and conceded defeat.[7] Brown received 313 (88.2%) nominations to McDonnell's 29 (8.2%), making it mathematically impossible for anyone other than Brown to be nominated.

Interesting update about the legal challenge to May's , potenially illegal, extension of Article 50

https://youtu.be/5TsrcTBl8R8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney wrote:In 2007, Tony Blair resigned as Prime Minister and Labour Leader and Brown was chosen to replace him in an uncontested election.

Blair said he expected Gordon Brown to succeed him, and that Brown "would make an excellent Prime Minister". When nominations for the leadership elections opened, Blair was one of those nominating Brown. From the start, most observers considered Brown the overwhelming favourite to succeed Blair; John McDonnell, his only challenger, failed to secure enough nominations in order to get onto the ballot, and conceded defeat.[7] Brown received 313 (88.2%) nominations to McDonnell's 29 (8.2%), making it mathematically impossible for anyone other than Brown to be nominated.

I really can’t see the link between my post you quoted and the reply.

TheFamilyCat wrote:I really can’t see the link between my post you quoted and the reply.

Fair enough.

Brexit Party chiefs announce they will legally challenge Peterborough by-election result

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11445 ... y-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Banks sues Codswollop, hopefully O'Bigot next.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/ ... 7497299968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AndyClaret wrote:Banks sues Codswollop, hopefully O'Bigot next.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/ ... 7497299968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why isn't he suing all the much bigger news organisations that investigated the story, rather than concentrating on one journalist?

Lancasterclaret wrote:Why isn't he suing all the much bigger news organisations that investigated the story, rather than concentrating on one journalist?

Silly question

Because he's bully and he's hoping to bully the one organisation that can't outspend him

The trick of wealthy guilty men and women for decades.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Silly question

Because he's bully and he's hoping to bully the one organisation that can't outspend him

The trick of wealthy guilty men and women for decades.

The don't write things that you can't stand up, simples.

.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Can't help thinking we are going to end up with a very slightly tweaked May agreement.

This has been my view for a long time. Realistically it's the only way that everything lines up to allow us to leave.

If it be your will wrote:Slowly but surely, the Lexiters are starting to take the reins and mould the leave cause. The right wing nationalists have completely run out of steam. Even you, AndyClaret, are starting to lean on Lexiters for your intellectual guidance...

Not really, we are all on the same side.

.

AndyClaret wrote:Banks sues Codswollop, hopefully O'Bigot next.

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/ ... 7497299968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This could be quite entertaining. Whichever way it goes I imagine a lot of stuff is going to come out that Banks would prefer to keep secret.

In terms of going after the individual rather than the organisation, it was the Scientologists who really kicked off that tactic in years gone by.

AndyClaret wrote:The don't write things that you can't stand up, simples.

So you already know that Bankski isn't lying and he hasn't done these things?

Of course you don't, he's just pro-brexit and a bloke who doesn't like being told what to do by a lass.

He's probably your role model.

If it be your will wrote:Not quite. A Labour win in a GE gives Corbyn a go at negotiations. And whatever everyone says about "May's deal is very similar to Labour's deal" they are completely and utterly mistaken. Labour would approach the whole thing from a completely different angle, and produce a completely different deal (assuming the EU were prepared to start again).

As long as you don't have red lines, you'd get a better deal as well.

Corbyn in PMQs making a pretty big swing towards a 2nd ref.

too late I reckon, but fair play for at least recognising that a GE isn't the only other way out of it.

.

If it be your will wrote:Better? Worse? It would depend on your perspective.

Fundamentally different? Without a doubt.

It couldn't be worse, because Lab understand the CM and the SU (at least in the short to medium term)

If it be your will wrote:Not quite. A Labour win in a GE gives Corbyn a go at negotiations. And whatever everyone says about "May's deal is very similar to Labour's deal" they are completely and utterly mistaken. Labour would approach the whole thing from a completely different angle, and produce a completely different deal (assuming the EU were prepared to start again).

I meant in terms of where we are now. If Labour come in then it could be a whole different ball game (with probably a softer Brexit than the current mooted one).

.

.

If it be your will wrote:From a corporate/free market perspective it would be worse. Corbyn would sign up to EU minimum standards on workers' rights, environmental protections, citzens' rights, consumer standards and consumer protections without hesitation, because his program would exceed the (paltry) EU standards in all these areas by a wide margin anyway. So there is your customs union and NI problem sorted in 5 minutes.

The negotiations would centre on restrictions to continent-wide labour arbitrage, public procurement rules and state aid rules.

I'm not saying it would be easy, but it is achievable. It would be no 'soft' Brexit either, it would be a truly game-changing Brexit. But It would be a very different Brexit to the nonsense one that May tried to sell us.

I think you are as bad as the Conservatives if you think you can negotiate a Brexit with everything you want and nothing you don't to be perfectly honest.

But as long as you don't have an issue with freedom of movement, then the vast majority of problems will disappear.

.

Lancasterclaret wrote:So you already know that Bankski isn't lying and he hasn't done these things?

Of course you don't, he's just pro-brexit and a bloke who doesn't like being told what to do by a lass.

He's probably your role model.

Codswollop has form for writing first, retracting later.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:The NHS in Spain is much better than the one in the UK but you need to know the ins-and-outs and how to get the best treatment, where to go and how to speak to people. I also have private health which I use if I need an operation, I had an operation on my nose in March and it was wonderful.

The Spanish NHS is good because people with friends in the right places and people with private insurance do very nicely thank you, while people who don't know who to talk to and have no insurance don't get good treatment?

Are you arguing in favour of the Spanish NHS, or against it?

Lancasterclaret wrote:Around about now you'll get wealthy Crosspool/dsr type people coming on telling you that

"for some of us, we don't need money as much as we need sovereignty"

Yes, we get it - for you it's the Great God Money and you would sell your granny for ten bob, for me it isn't. Just don't chuck it round as an insult.

If it be your will wrote:Not quite. A Labour win in a GE gives Corbyn a go at negotiations. And whatever everyone says about "May's deal is very similar to Labour's deal" they are completely and utterly mistaken. Labour would approach the whole thing from a completely different angle, and produce a completely different deal (assuming the EU were prepared to start again).

That's a big assumption. Why would they? Under Corbyn, there are only two possible options - May's deal, or Remain. Probably May's deal. May's deal would be in many ways the best option for them - why would they renegotiate with anyone who says that they will sign any deal that the EU cares to offer? That's why May got such a bum deal - because they always believed, correctly, that when push came to shove, they could ask for the sky and she would give it.

dsr wrote:That's a big assumption. Why would they? Under Corbyn, there are only two possible options - May's deal, or Remain. Probably May's deal. May's deal would be in many ways the best option for them - why would they renegotiate with anyone who says that they will sign any deal that the EU cares to offer? .

That seems an odd conclusion to reach in light of what has been clear Labour policy and their attitude to the EU. It wouldn't be either of those 2 things.
It's been repeated over and again by Keir Starmer that it would be a variation on May's deal that would include some form of customs arrangement and regulatory alignment. This solves at a stroke the back-stop issue, and obviously the EU would agree.

nil_desperandum wrote:That seems an odd conclusion to reach in light of what has been clear Labour policy and their attitude to the EU. It wouldn't be either of those 2 things.
It's been repeated over and again by Keir Starmer that it would be a variation on May's deal that would include some form of customs arrangement and regulatory alignment. This solves at a stroke the back-stop issue, and obviously the EU would agree.

You mean the idea is that May drove too hard a bargain and they want to give the EU more than they asked for?

dsr wrote:Yes, we get it - for you it's the Great God Money and you would sell your granny for ten bob, for me it isn't. Just don't chuck it round as an insult.

Nope, its about the UK economy

Lets cut to the chase here DSR. You are well off, and don't give a **** about those who are not, while I actually do.

dsr wrote:You mean the idea is that May drove too hard a bargain and they want to give the EU more than they asked for?

That point is irrelevant to what you said. You can put forward that argument, and many will agree, but I was responding to your post in which you said that Labour could only go for May's deal or remain. You were so clearly wrong based on what Labour have been saying for 3 years.... but "red lines" you know.
If May had been prepared to compromise on this when she had "cross party" talks then her deal would have passed through Parliament comfortably, and we'd be out by now.
I accept that you wouldn't want that, but it doesn't make it untrue.

nil_desperandum wrote:That point is irrelevant to what you said. You can put forward that argument, and many will agree, but I was responding to your post in which you said that Labour could only go for May's deal or remain. You were so clearly wrong based on what Labour have been saying for 3 years.... but "red lines" you know.
If May had been prepared to compromise on this when she had "cross party" talks then her deal would have passed through Parliament comfortably, and we'd be out by now.
I accept that you wouldn't want that, but it doesn't make it untrue.

OK, yes. But I was assuming that you were talking about Corbyn renegotiating May's awful deal to get something better than what she got; not to go back to the EU and give them even more. That would be a very easy negotiation. Presumably the idea is that Parliament would pass it because Labour MPs would treat it as their own scheme?

I wasn't saying tha Labour could only go for May's deal or Remain. I was saying that Labour wouldn't go for no deal, and the EU wouldn't let them go for anything other than May's deal or remain. Obviously on the terms you're suggesting, the EU could well go for it.

dsr wrote: Presumably the idea is that Parliament would pass it because Labour MPs would treat it as their own scheme?

Doh! That's because it's been THEIR policy for a long time, (and as you know there would - even now - be sufficient numbers to get it through parliament)

dsr wrote:I wasn't saying thay Labour could only go for May's deal or Remain. .

That's exactly what you actually said

nil_desperandum wrote:That's exactly what you actually said

Yes, well in reply to ifitbeyourwill's post about what the EU would do, I was posting from the point of view of what the EU would accept. I wasn't posting from Labour's point of view, and I did intend that the whole paragraph be read as a whole, not just the odd line taken out of context.

But for the avoidance of doubt, what I was tryng to say was that the only deals Labour would be able to get the EU to agree to would be May's deal or Remain. And, as you have accurately pointed out, I should have added a renegotiation to give the EU even more than they asked for on the grounds that May drove too hard a bargain.

dsr wrote:That's a big assumption. Why would they? Under Corbyn, there are only two possible options - May's deal, or Remain. Probably May's deal. May's deal would be in many ways the best option for them - why would they renegotiate with anyone who says that they will sign any deal that the EU cares to offer? That's why May got such a bum deal - because they always believed, correctly, that when push came to shove, they could ask for the sky and she would give it.

I see your logic. I think you've expressed it unfairly, but I see it nonetheless: Considering Labour have, and I imagine will continue to, rule out 'no-deal', then the EU could surmise they needn't bother even offering a different deal to Corbyn. Logic then dictates the choice for Corbyn is May v Remain, having ruled out no-deal. (This absolutely is not the same as sign any deal that the EU cares to offer, mind you.)

I have 2 issues with this logic: First, the EU no longer wants us to remain. We'd be too much trouble after all that has happened. Second, if Corbyn simply chooses remain (in the absence of anything else being offered) and revoked A50, the EU know Farage would be the next PM, who would promptly leave with no deal. That is, just because Labour rules out no-deal, it doesn't at all mean the UK has.

Also, regarding your subsequent post, everybody - led by the media - see Labour's customs union proposal as a simple bolt on to May's wretched deal. It absolutely is not. Once you agree to at least match the EU's citizens' rights, consumer protections and regulatory standards in goods (including food), then a customs union logically follows, the NI border issue fades and the backstop disappears. In exchange for all these commitments, Corbyn would target state aid and public procurement exemptions. Corbyn's deal would be fundamentally different to May's - not 'softer', not 'closer to the EU', not 'Norway' - different.

nil_desperandum wrote:That seems an odd conclusion to reach in light of what has been clear Labour policy and their attitude to the EU. It wouldn't be either of those 2 things.
It's been repeated over and again by Keir Starmer that it would be a variation on May's deal that would include some form of customs arrangement and regulatory alignment. This solves at a stroke the back-stop issue, and obviously the EU would agree.

I'm not sure Starmer has said he wants a variation of May's deal with a customs union bolted on. If he has, well, that is Starmer's position, not Labour's (a lot of Labour's front-bench are going off message at the moment - Brexit has broken Labour every bit as much as the Tories).

But just to say once more, if Corbyn was able to negotiate another deal, it would look absolutely nothing like May's deal for the simple reason Corbyn's priorities are completely different to May's. Considering this, it seems implausible they would end up negotiating the same deal.

dsr wrote:The Spanish NHS is good because people with friends in the right places and people with private insurance do very nicely thank you, while people who don't know who to talk to and have no insurance don't get good treatment?

Are you arguing in favour of the Spanish NHS, or against it?

Neither, the Spanish NHS is better.

World Health Organization Ranking; The World’s Health Systems

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom

dsr wrote:The Spanish NHS is good because people with friends in the right places and people with private insurance do very nicely thank you, while people who don't know who to talk to and have no insurance don't get good treatment?

Are you arguing in favour of the Spanish NHS, or against it?

I have private healthcare because I can afford it, I would have it in the UK too, in fact I'd definitely have it in the UK because the UK NHS is dogshit.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:Neither, the Spanish NHS is better.

World Health Organization Ranking; The World’s Health Systems

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom

Hi T-Rex, how many of those health systems are "free at the point of use?" how many are "compulsory insurance" based, how many allow a mix of state and private care?

I know Netherlands has a compulsory insurance system, including personal "excess" payment(s) - I lived there some time back - and included a compulsory contribution to pay for the insurance of the people with low/no incomes.

How do the other countries organise their health systems?

A link to WHO ranking report would be great.

Thanks.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:Neither, the Spanish NHS is better.

World Health Organization Ranking; The World’s Health Systems

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom

18th ranking is very high of course. But how reliable is the methodology? And is this based on WHO's work that is now almost 20 years old?

Paul Waine wrote: A link to WHO ranking report would be great.

Type those words into Google rather than the messageboard and you’ll get one!

Owners of Vauxhall announce they’ll continue to build cars in the UK if they get the Brexit deal they want.

No Deal and they are off.

Welcome to reality

Bordeauxclaret wrote:Owners of Vauxhall announce they’ll continue to build cars in the UK if they get the Brexit deal they want.

No Deal and they are off.

What was their reason for leaving the UK approx 15 years ago?
PSA shut down its plant in Coventry, I think, before Brexit was even an idea....

Here's a little secret for you and others on here, the new Corsa is using the same chassis as PSA's other similar sized cars, also the running gear, electrics, engines etc will all be the same, just a different body.
They'd leave the UK with or without brexit going on because Vauxhall has been losing money for a long time now, hence the takeover by PSA and why they're also looking at JLR.

Link to report from when Peugeot closed Coventry plant, with stuff about Ford closing their place too.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... eandhealth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:They'd leave the UK with or without brexit going on

So they are lying then?

Bordeauxclaret wrote:So they are lying then?

Pressure the government.

Like I said, they left in 2006, due to varying reasons, the new vauxhall models are all going to be using PSA chassis and parts, they've got numerous factories around Europe and the world plus Vauxhall has been losing money for a long time.

All the dealerships were warned when PSA took over that they were all at risk of closure or merger with a nearby PSA dealership.

When they leave and say its not because of Brexit, its not

When they leave and say its because of Brexit, its still not.