Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35996089)

Faced with someone willing to walk away without a deal alters the whole dynamics of negotiations.

Originally Posted by richard s (Post 35996132)

So if we have a general election at some point would Farage and his cohorts come to power. Yikes. Sh** and Fan come to mind.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996111)

I've seen all that nonsense, but this is put forward by people who don't want to see Britain leave. Look, Article 24 exists, and all that is required is a joint statement of intent about what the EU and the UK wants to achieve from a trade agreement.

Even if there were an objection raised by another country, it would take 2 years at least to go through the legal process, by when we should have a trade agreement.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35996135)

If we do not leave the EU then a Farage Government is inevitable,remainers are doing the work for him.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996136)

Full Fact is not a Remainer organisation Old Boy. It's an independent fact-checking service.

https://fullfact.org/about/

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996134)

As jfman has explained to Old Boy, it doesn't matter if the PM is willing to walk away, the PM is unable to so as Parliament is opposed to no deal.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996134)

As jfman has explained to Old Boy, it doesn't matter if the PM is willing to walk away, the PM is unable to so as Parliament is opposed to no deal.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35996143)

I don't expect the EU to do a trade deal with us after that because those charlatan's won't have got our 39 billion, which we should then put to good use for our country's further development.[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996142)

But as Jfman, and you, seem unable to comprehend is that although Parliament is opposed to no deal. No bill has been put forward to prevent it and until one is, and passed, the government can take us out with no deal on Oct 31st simply by doing nothing.

If we have a PM that believably is willing to do that, it may provide a different dynamic.

Alternatively, if the EU believe they will have a member state that will disrupt the project, such as a PM that may vetoe the EU budget and just be a thorn in the project, they may decide the best solution is to cut us free, and offer no revised deal or extension, and as such we leave on Oct 31st with no deal.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35996144)

What's going to stop the new PM facing the same problems are the old one?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996146)

You are making the false assumption Parliament will stand idly by. It has consistently shown it will not. A PM being “serious“ isn’t going to change a thing.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35996144)

What's going to stop the new PM facing the same problems are the old one?

---------- Post added at 21:46 ---------- Previous post was at 21:44 ----------



Then they'll make the 39 billion conditional for any future arrangement. They're the 2nd largest, or largest depending how you count, singular economic bloc in the world and they're on our doorstep. We can't not do a deal with them at some point.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35996149)

Vote of No Confidence if they really wanted, not passing any finance bill and constantly agitating the leadership. Waiting it out to October might be a bit hard in those circumstances.

A hardline PM probably could do it but they would be taking down their own career to do it. If any of the candidates has aspirations beyond this summer then life will be difficult for them.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35996149)

Vote of No Confidence if they really wanted, not passing any finance bill and constantly agitating the leadership. Waiting it out to October might be a bit hard in those circumstances.

A hardline PM probably could do it but they would be taking down their own career to do it. If any of the candidates has aspirations beyond this summer then life will be difficult for them.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996077)

I don't see any of the current candidates interested in a temp PM position.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35996149)

Vote of No Confidence if they really wanted, not passing any finance bill and constantly agitating the leadership. Waiting it out to October might be a bit hard in those circumstances.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996151)

Exactly. If no deal was credible or viable it’d have happened by now.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996153)

That’s assuming Tory rebels and the DUP would vote against the Government on domestic issues. there’s no indication of that.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996153)

Or cementing their place in history.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35996155)

If that's the history they want then yes but I am not sure many of the contenders would be willing to have their only legacy as PM to be no deal Brexit

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996156)

To whom?

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35996159)

Now that TM is leaving could we possibly start a new Brexit thread?

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35996162)

nah, lets jump back to the first one again seeing as we've not actually got anywhere since it started :D

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35996162)

nah, lets jump back to the first one again seeing as we've not actually got anywhere since it started :D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996181)

Lol, let's just wipe out all the Brexit threads and start afresh when BoJo is in power. I think it will be a similar outcome, maybe faster paced.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996129)

That is for Theresa May to answer. I suspect it was because she was aiming at a 'compromise', which in the end satisfied nobody.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35996139)

It tells the truth unlike some organisations..

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35996143)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996185)

The truth as it sees it! What exactly is the point of Article 24 if it cannot be used? Of course it can be used, as you will see when Boris gets in.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996146)

You are making the false assumption Parliament will stand idly by. It has consistently shown it will not. A PM being “serious“ isn’t going to change a thing.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35996188)

The truth that obviously you find hard to stomach...

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996189)

You didn't answer the question, as usual, Den? What is the point of Article 24 if it cannot be used?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996189)

I think you will find a change of Leader will change things considerably. For a start, a Brexiteer will have the support of the ERG and DUP. That's pretty good for a start. Refusal to rule out a 'no deal' will exercise the minds of stubborn remainers in the Conservative Party.

Labour just seem focussed on a General Election and therefore will try to wreck whatever suggestion is put forward. However, the polls that come out after the Conservatives elect their new Leader may make Corbyn less enthusiastic to have an election yet.

If the worst comes to the worst and we still cannot get a revised deal through (or the EU continues to play hardball) we simply fall out without a deal. And the sky will still be blue and there will be no cracks in it. :D

---------- Post added at 11:55 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------



You didn't answer the question, as usual, Den? What is the point of Article 24 if it cannot be used?

I can't believe that this negative view has sucked you all in! Ask yourself - why not? The arguments I've seen to support that view are flaky in the extreme.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35996192)

l am talking about the independent organisation Full Facts which states the true facts that they are independent of political interference.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35996192)

l am talking about the independent organisation Full Facts which states the true facts that they are independent of political interference.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996158)

Their successor.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996194)

Someone who wants no deal will get the support of the ERG and DUP, but crucially not remainers in Parliament.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996194)

Someone who wants no deal will get the support of the ERG and DUP, but crucially not remainers in Parliament. The situation is exactly the same for a new PM as it was for TM.

Article 24 requires the agreement of the EU. Even Liam Fox says it’s not a viable solution. If it was viable Theresa May would have delivered it and still been PM. It’s the ultimate kick of the can.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996195)

If Old Boy knows something they don't know, then I suggest he shares this with Liam Fox, the Full Facts team, et al so they can take his informed analysis into account.

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

I see that Matthew Parris in The Times is suggesting "Boris Johnson is enough of a rascal to rat on Brexit"
"The frontrunner for No 10 might be the only candidate who’d get away with ripping up Article 50 and starting again"

It's behind a paywall but it's an interesting theory.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/c...exit-m86qc2ksm

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35996192)

l am talking about the independent organisation Full Facts which states the true facts that they are independent of political interference.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996221)

I believe it is a viable solution. For some reason, non-Brexiteers don't want to use it.

---------- Post added at 17:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------



A reporter's fantasy.

---------- Post added at 17:14 ---------- Previous post was at 17:13 ----------



That's different from being neutral.

I used to think The Independent newspaper was neutral. How daft was I?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996218)

I don’t think anyone wants no deal, but crucially you have to prepared to expect it and accept it if necessary. This will happen on 31/10 if we do not ask for an extension or if the EU don’t grant one. Parliament can object all they want they are powerless to stop it in those scenarios. Yes and No, May could have taken us out with no deal but chose not to. Don’t know what the new PM would do.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996218)

I don’t think anyone wants no deal, but crucially you have to prepared to expect it and accept it if necessary. This will happen on 31/10 if we do not ask for an extension or if the EU don’t grant one. Parliament can object all they want they are powerless to stop it in those scenarios. Yes and No, May could have taken us out with no deal but chose not to. Don’t know what the new PM would do.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996216)

? You have no choice but to cede power to your successor because they’re............your successor.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996224)

It's a long time between now and October. Parliament has plenty of time.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996224)

It's a long time between now and October. Parliament has plenty of time.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35996233)

It really isn’t. The Commons is on its Whitsun recess at the moment, the summer recess happens from late July to early September and conference season recess is from mid September until early October. There are far fewer sitting days than you might think, and in any case I would be surprised if those Tory backbenchers who previously helped parliament take over its own timetable will be so ready to do so against the authority of a newly elected leader.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996232)

It won’t allow no deal. If the new PM wants to take that risk then I welcome it. The sooner we have a second referendum, and a Labour government the better.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996235)

A vote of no confidence doesn’t require many sitting days. The new leader will have less authority than May, not more.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996237)

Parliament can't prevent a 'no deal' when the time runs out.

Glad you finally admitted that you would like to have a dangerous Marxist in power, jfman, after previously portraying yourself as a centrist! :D

---------- Post added at 18:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:22 ----------



If it is a Brexiteer (almost a certainty) then the new PM will at least have the backing of the DUP and ERG, which is more than Theresa May did!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996242)

Watching the worst Government in living memory throw the country off a cliff it’s obvious we need an alternative. Whether in or out of the EU the Conservatives continue to fiddle while Rome burns. There’s enough opposition to Corbyn in his own party the more creative elements of his manifesto would never happen anyway.

Parliament obviously can’t prevent no deal when time runs out, as time travel hasn’t yet been invented, however you continue to make the incorrect assumption Parliament has no options.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996244)

A 'no deal' is not like jumping off a cliff. It is like opening a door to bright new horizons and limitless opportunities.

Far too bright for your eyes, jfman. Better dig yourself a hole. It'll be nice, dark, and depressing in there, just as you like it. :sorry:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996246)

So bright we are trying to avoid it like the plague? If it was sunshine and light we’d have been out on March 31, and Theresa would have had 8 months to bask in the sun before a further leadership challenge. Obviously, it’d have gone so well she’d have won that too. All while the country she loves adores her for such a magnificent move.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996249)

That's all down to the negativity of the remainers who refuse to accept the referendum result.

It's about time you remainers started considering the disbenefits of being part of the EU, such as the damage they intend to do to the NHS.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/66...jXnEHNEjC52kMk

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996250)

As opposed to the damage the USA want to do to the NHS by privatising it in a trade deal?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996249)

That's all down to the negativity of the remainers who refuse to accept the referendum result.

It's about time you remainers started considering the disbenefits of being part of the EU, such as the damage they intend to do to the NHS.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/66...jXnEHNEjC52kMk

Originally Posted by Mythica (Post 35996258)

I don't think anyone on here or any 'remainers' I know refuse to accept the referendum result. They just have a different opinion to you on what Brexit means.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996235)

A vote of no confidence doesn’t require many sitting days. The new leader will have less authority than May, not more.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996250)

As opposed to the damage the USA want to do to the NHS by privatising it in a trade deal?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35996261)

I’m curious whether you can cite any examples to back this up (I.e. I sincerely doubt that you can).

There will be an election this time, and the entire party membership will select the leader from the shortlist of 2 presented them by the parliamentary party. Quite how you reason that this will result in a lessening of leadership authority in any circumstances is unclear to say the least; in this case, as the new Tory leader will be replacing one whose failure is historic in magnitude, your claim is just bizarre.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35996261)

I’m curious whether you can cite any examples to back this up (I.e. I sincerely doubt that you can).

There will be an election this time, and the entire party membership will select the leader from the shortlist of 2 presented them by the parliamentary party. Quite how you reason that this will result in a lessening of leadership authority in any circumstances is unclear to say the least; in this case, as the new Tory leader will be replacing one whose failure is historic in magnitude, your claim is just bizarre.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996262)

Here we go. You’ve done very well over the months passing yourself off as a middle of road left of centre type person. When it’s clear you’re most likely a fully paid up momentum member and Corbyn sycophant.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996269)

Is privatising the NHS a good idea?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996275)

No. Some public functions do not belong in the private sector. ( much in the same way some sectors don’t belong in the public sector) Prison Service for example, and the NHS.
.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35996278)

And the Railways, and Water supply......

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996269)

Leadership given by members of the Conservative Party does not equate to leadership as viewed by Conservative voters, let alone the wider electorate.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35996282)

Agreed, but the new leader’s authority in parliament is all that counts with regards to controlling the Commons and getting government business passed.

Their authority amongst Tory MPs will be much improved on May’s (which admittedly isn’t saying much).

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996275)

Any new Tory leader with any skills could and should beat Corbyn at a GE, but it shouldn’t happen until we have left.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996255)

We are meek bystanders in any trade deals we enter, because everyone knows we have none. Your emotive terminology is worthless.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996269)

Is privatising the NHS a good idea?

You’ve understood me well, I thank you for that, but right now Corbyn (constrained by Parliament) is a better alternative than the Conservatives.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996287)

That’s not guaranteed. You can make the final two with 200 MPs opposing.

---------- Post added at 00:13 ---------- Previous post was at 00:10 ----------



Let’s have fun and find out.

Brexit supporters are literally shitting themselves it ever gets tested in the polls. Farage, while popular, will not get seventeen million votes.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996255)

Your emotive terminology is worthless.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996232)

It won’t allow no deal. If the new PM wants to take that risk then I welcome it. The sooner we have a second referendum, and a Labour government the better.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996279)

Electricity, gas...

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35996303)

Much as it pains me to do so, I disagree: Brexit started as an attempt to shore up the Tory Party and it will end as one. The EU Election results will show the a decimated Tory vote. The Tory Grandees will take this data and project a GE result that will terrify them. They will lose power and this, against the worse opposition leader for many years. The Brexit Party will hit the Tories harder than Labour, enough to take away their ability to govern. There would be a probable Labour/Lib-Dem coalition but after the 2010 debacle, this may not play out.

So, the Tory MPs will look at the looming disaster and do what they all do, put their interests first. Sod the country. The Tory party and it's continued existence will be the only game in town. So, they will get behind a No Deal candidate because, if they do not, they are toast at the next GE. May has seen to this ..

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996275)

No. Some public functions do not belong in the private sector. ( much in the same way some sectors don’t belong in the public sector) Prison Service for example, and the NHS.

But the NHS cannot continue as is, that is certain. Any party that promised to me all that they would do is throw more money at it wont get my vote.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35996306)

The NHS probably does need more money though. Ageing population and ever-developing new treatments can help. It's not like its funding is especially high compared to other European nations who'll also face these problems.

https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm

We're about average.

Reform could well be needed but the funding question will remain.

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35996311)

Hiving services off to a private sector is a problem. Particularly when they then sue for not getting the contract. - This is a huge waste of NHS money and needs to be stopped.

The staffing shortage will continue and get worse with Brexit, until we can train enough of our own Doctors & Nurses, which will be some years away. Then the problem will be keeping them.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996293)

No, we are not. A General Election is just not necessary. A Brexiteer at the helm is all we need. It's the moaning remainers who have got us into this mess. We just need someone with guts to lead this country.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996313)

Old Boy, I appreciate that it's frustrating time with 29/3 coming and going, but I don't think that's constructive language.
If I was a Brexiter, I would want an election as my Parliamentary majority could only grow as the Brexit Party would be neutralised and Corbyn is still in charge of Labour.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35996313)

Old Boy, I appreciate that it's frustrating time with 29/3 coming and going, but I don't think that's constructive language.
If I was a Brexiter, I would want an election as my Parliamentary majority could only grow as the Brexit Party would be neutralised and Corbyn is still in charge of Labour.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35996303)

Much as it pains me to do so, I disagree: Brexit started as an attempt to shore up the Tory Party and it will end as one. The EU Election results will show the a decimated Tory vote. The Tory Grandees will take this data and project a GE result that will terrify them. They will lose power and this, against the worse opposition leader for many years. The Brexit Party will hit the Tories harder than Labour, enough to take away their ability to govern. There would be a probable Labour/Lib-Dem coalition but after the 2010 debacle, this may not play out.

So, the Tory MPs will look at the looming disaster and do what they all do, put their interests first. Sod the country. The Tory party and it's continued existence will be the only game in town. So, they will get behind a No Deal candidate because, if they do not, they are toast at the next GE. May has seen to this ..

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35996317)

I'm a brexiter and i don't want a General Election,and the rules say we don't need one , i do hope you're not a poker player because you're too transparent ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996293)

Don't be ridiculous. We are a thriving economy and are well placed to do trade deals that are beneficial to us.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35996323)

There is a petition doing the rounds ATM.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35996329)

That’s a bit rich, the people did decide but are being thwarted by politicians

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35996312)

Especially since bursaries were abolished.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ries-abolished

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35996343)

Brexit and the NHS are incompatible. I fear what will happen over the next decade.

Originally Posted by gba93 (Post 35996347)

FYI there was a NHS before we joined the EEC (EU) and there will be after we leave.

Originally Posted by gba93 (Post 35996347)

FYI there was a NHS before we joined the EEC (EU) and there will be after we leave.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996349)

Exactly! It is incredible how some remainers think, or they would have you believe.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35996360)

Suggestions on Twitter (yeah, I know) that Brexit Party have done even better than the polling suggested with Remainers not turning up at the polls.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35996362)

Expect the post-mortems for the Conservative party and the Labour party to begin in earnest as the results start coming in throughout the night.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35996361)

Define "privatisation". GPs are not NHS employees. Isn't that privatisation? Most "privatisation" took place under Labour. The core concept is "free at the point of use".


When nursing became a degree subject, it is unreasonable for it to be considered different to other degree subjects, especially Medicine.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996352)

It’s hardly incredible to anticipate partial NHS privatisation to be on the table in future trade deals given our distressed negotiating position. It’s incredible that you can’t see that! However given your right wing ideology I expect you want that, hence your hard Brexit at all costs mentality.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996363)

I think privatisation is a well known and understood concept that I don't need to define for the purposes of the Brexit thread.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996368)

And it was Tony Blair's PFI scheme for hospitals that increased private sector work carried out for the NHS.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996365)

It's complete speculation on your part, as is your take on my political beliefs. Once again, Brexit is not something that only right wingers want to happen. Plenty of Labour voters also want Brexit, in case you have forgotten.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996371)

No more speculative than your claim that no deal Brexit will be an immediate huge success. Indeed, there's much analysis to the contrary, such to the extent the present Government wouldn't implement it.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35996372)

12 Days doesn't leave much time to implement especially seeing as parliament won't be sitting for all 12.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35996370)

And that will be costing the NHS a fortune over the coming years.

EDIT Did we have a trade deal with the US when that happened or were we still part of the EU and be unable to negotiate a trade deal?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996374)

By March 31st. That default date where this would all be over allegedly.

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:27 ----------



Conflating two issues there.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35996371)

No more speculative than your claim that no deal Brexit will be an immediate huge success. Indeed, there's much analysis to the contrary, such to the extent the present Government wouldn't implement it.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35996378)

No, just combining them. You are the one who said the NHS would be privatised with a US trade deal whilst ignoring the already privatised (many for a number of years) parts already.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996380)

Where is the analysis of the new opportunities available to businesses and how they will take advantage of the changed trading climate? It is the failure of all the forecasts that have been carried out to properly evaluate this that has led to the negative press.

There are some very good examples of relatively small countries that are doing very well indeed, and they are not in the EU, are they?