Sorry Sal but, whatever you may think, it is the fault of the Tory leadership and THEIR version of Brexit that has been at fault.
We've had this conversation so many times already but the only way to have "got Brexit done" would have been to gain cross party support immediately following the result of the referendum.
However, what e saw was Cameron stepping down and May most certainly trying to do things her own way, not even bothering to take account of anyone else's views and in those circumstances, why on earth should the opposition MP actually try and help ?
There should have been common ground sought and agreed upon and than taken forward on a "free vote".
Whatever happened to Canada + or a Norway + deal ?? and just what consideration was N. Ireland ever given.

The whole "we won" and "you lost" ethos, in a vote where of those who bothered to vote, the result was 48.1 vs 51.9%, as close to 50/50 as you were ever likely to get and yet, those who voted remain or didn't vote were utterly dismissed.

A clever leader would have carried the country with them post the result but, not here, and many peoples views have become ever further entrenched..

Bright politicians may have tried to find a unique type of customs union to solve the issue but, alas, this was never considered, despite the fact that this could have been "sold" to the majority of voters and although there may still have been a minority of unhappy people, this would have offered compromise to allow the UK to move forward and protected "the Union".

The ERG would have been unhappy and maybe the left of the Labour party but, the vast majority would have been ok.

Water under the bridge now and all of our futures look less prosperous by the day, which I just dont believe is what too many people wanted or why they voted "leave".

I never said he wasn't intelligent, well read and clever and i'm certainly not envious of a bloke who stabbed his predecessor in the back then dismantled his own working majority after lying to the queen and trying to 'RAM RAID" brexit through by "bending" the law.

I agree with your point - the problem was even on day 1 a big chunk of MPs across the spectrum were saying the vote needed overturning. There was no way to gain cross party support for an exit when 70% of all MPs wanted to remain. It is like Labour now - how can they have any credible discussions with the EU when all they want is to remain?

Labour's view was so close to remain as being the in with no influence - that simply would wash with the electorate. May was a terrible negotiator and the fine detail was done by civil servants who again didn't want to leave - the deal had no chance. May had no majority it was a disaster waiting to happen and it did.

Brexit only happened because a majority of those who voted in the referendum voted to leave. If the vote had been the other way round we would not be having all this.

The UK should have had a vote when the Maastricht treaty was first proposed - this was a watershed where the EU moved from a trading to a controlling organisation. Major couldn't because he knew he couldn't get it through - same goes for Blair when he wanted to get closer - polls showed a 27-28% in favour so Blair bottled it too.

So, somebody please remind me once again, the advantages of brexit are:

[size=200TAKE BACK CONTROL!*[/size



[size=50*whatever the that means[/size

PARANOIA RELIEVER!

You need to take a long term view - what will the EU be in 10 years time - how has it evolved in the last 10 years? Is you view of what the future holds where you want to be - if it is great, if it isn't what do you do?

Decisions of this magnitude need to made for the long-term.

It's given us so many great names for future generations of art school bands:

Arlene Phillips and the DUP
The European Research Group
The Letwin Amendment
The Cooper-Letwin Motion
The Benn Act
Article 50
The Withdrawal Agreement
Meaningful Vote
Consent Mechanism
No Deal
Operation Yellowhammer
Transition Period
Five Tests
Common Travel Area
Great Repeal Bill
Hard Border
Canada Model
Norway-style Compromise
Single Market

Expect floppy haircuts, vintage sportswear, and a whole load of synthesisers.

Another day, another Tory lie


Despite being in office for the last 10 years, apparently ist's Labours fault that the "targets" (something officially scrapped by the Tories) for NHS waiting times are at their worst level since they took office, despite generally getting worse year on year since they were elected in 2010.

Too busy concentration on what Labour "is going to spend" and now, their representative has "done a Javid" and failed to show for another political TV debate.

They were a disgrace under May but, have actually gone backwards under their blue eyed "saviour" Joke leader and becoming a joke party.
Seems like Boris is joining the Tory "no show" brigade after bottling his Bakery visit as well.

Just as politics gets interesting the Tories seem to have developed a soft yellow underbelly.

The first sign of anything not resembling a cushy camera opportunity and they're gone, all of them.
I thought they were supposed to have some steel and backbone

And the scary thing is they are still going to win. At the same time as we laugh at the Americans for electing TRump we go and elect BoJo.

This doesn't look great but you can hardly blame Boris - he has had three months.

This will take years to come right and probably needs a complete rethink of what we want the NHS to provide and how much money are you prepared to spend to deliver it. You could dump the whole GDP of the UK into the NHS and it still wouldn't be enough.

The key to the impact of this will be individuals experience of dealing with the NHS - if you have never visited A&E then a 6 hour wait will not have the same conceptual impact as if you have been there recently. If you are not waiting for an operation then it will not resonate in the same way as if you are.

Big issue - will hurt the Tories no doubt

Of course you cant expect anything of Boris, especially in 3 months but, even you must see the pattern that is forming.
Anything that is difficult or, looks like it could be awkward, they are literally running and hiding - can you possibly imagine Thatcher doing that ?

They are so full of poo that their "principles" unravel in seconds. So fearful of confrontation, they now appear to be running scared.

The is still plenty to happen with the Brexit-Con alliance too.

Again, despite all of the denials, it's absolutely clear that their is some serious bargaining going on behind the scenes between the 2? parties and Farage is likely to get the hump.
" weeks ago, he was fielding 600+ candidates, within a fortnight that has halves and the Tories only want him to target 40/50 seats, to give them a "free run" at the rest. Mind you, post election, he could still hold the balance of power and that wont be too pleasant for anyone other than hard line right wing Brexiteers.

Further lies - world renowned smirker Priti Patel has today stated that the Tories will 'reduce' immigration, but has carefully avoided any targets; which given that they failed year on year to deliver any of their previous 'targets' - is probably a wise move. She simultaneously used some more made-up figures about what migration would be under a Labour government, based on another set of fantasy projections from their busy fake news dept.

It's a woeful campaign by the Tories so far - their promises are being debunked almost before they make them.

Bren, if the Tories are blaming Labour for the NHS failure to hit it's targets, surely, the immigration numbers have to also be the fault of Labour









Despite calling the Election when they were 12-14 points ahead in the polls, they seem to running an increasingly desperate campaign.
The lies, smears and no shows are happening with increasing regularity and with Brexitcon alliance still in disarray, the election is wide open and it increasingly looks like we're heading for a hung Parliament.
At what point will Boris go and find a ditch or be put in one by his own party, when they realise that he is just as much of a wind bag as May, someone who at least tried to tell the truth.
You are right about how "well" their campaign is going - lets hope it carries on being so "effective".

Well before we a lovely Tory "fundamental rethink", how about we try spending as much as the average other civilised countries spend of their GDP on healthcare and see how it goes. The NHS, even with the excess bureaucracy built into it over years of target setting and rubbish like internal markets, is a remarkably efficient user of what resources we give it.

It's an important question. But to understand the answer, you need to understand why the EU was formed, the true ideology behind it, and where it is heading.

The key point for me is: the EU you see today is about as far removed from the ECSC/EEC 60 years ago as the EU wants to be in another 60 years. The goal is a true Federation of Europe, gradual removal of nation states and borders, and absolute centralised power in Brussels. Even in 1957 the ECSC was hailed as the "first step to a European federation" - and if you pay attention to the senior figures throughout the history of this European project, they have always hinted at this. Some have acknowledged it outright.

You people are quick to roll your eyes as if it isn't already happening (Maastricht, Lisbon, the Euro?) - but ask yourself, why have the EU always refused any truly meaningful reform? Simple: because watering down their 'pillars' means the goal cannot be achieved in full.

Since 2016 I've said if the EU had shown a willingness to meaningful reform I would have voted remain. But they have always slapped down any suggestion of true reform.

Despite the stark inevitable problems, they pursue the goal. The Eurozone has caused devastation across the Mediterranean nations, leading to mass unemployment and enormous levels of youth emigration. Indeed, massive movement of people across Europe (mainly from South/East to North/West) has caused economical and societal issues everywhere. You simply cannot throw 28 differing nations together without friction - the swing to the hard right across Europe being the direct consequence.

When confronted with a crisis, the EU invariably flounders and fails. The Balkans, Ukraine, the migrant/refugee crisis, the Eurozone crisis for example. That's before we even look at the creaking political and economic situations in countries such as Italy and France, or the weakening of Germany both economically and politically in the face of Merkel's idiotic migration policy - despite Merkel herself acknowledging almost 10 years ago that "multiculturalism has utterly failed". Something those of us not blinkered by a loony left-wing ideology have known for a long time.

Now - if you like the idea of all of that - great, vote to remain and join that bell-end with his EU hat and loudhailer outside Parliament. If not, you should seriously reconsider your options.

I've also always said we will take a hit after leaving, whatever the circumstances. I'm of the view it's worth it in the long run. The UK's economy has proven itself to be resilient and will succeed out of the EU.

If the EU had never existed and its current structure was proposed today, it would be laughed out of existence.

As I also mentioned its all about the long term - what will the EU be in 10,20,30 years.

Both sides are as bad - the fact you seem incapable of pointing out Labour's lies does your argument no favours. The £500m a day is an out and out lie when you consider on 10% of drugs come from the US.

Labour's issue on the NHS is the shadow minister - Ashworth is weak very weak

Time and again Labour will not commit to an immigration policy - you can't say whether the Tory figures are correct or not because Labour simply will not be honest about their policy. Laura Pidcock when asked by Neil in BBC2 and Robinson on R4 refuses to confirm if the vote at the conference would be in the manifesto - perhaps some honesty from Labour would help?

I think most would suggest the waste in the NHS is huge as is the abuse of the service by its customers. Perhaps a reduction of both would help the funds go further. The question is are we all willing to be taxed higher to support it or would we better investing in insurance to get treatment when we want it outside of the service?

I see your Priti Patel and raise you Emily Thornberry.




Hmm. Let's take a look.
[url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50412772Priti Patel...would not set "arbitrary" targets.[/url
[url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50423622Jeremy Corbyn rules out 'arbitrary' immigration target.[/url

At the Labour Conference back in September, members passed a motion for freedom of movement to be maintained [uand extended[/u after Brexit. Diane Abbott even tweeted about Labour's "commitment" to it today a couple of times.

Yet Corbyn today said it "doesn't necessarily form part of the manifesto." In April he even confirmed Labour policy was that freedom of movement would end with Brexit. Asked repeatedly about it, Laura Pidcock simply ignored the question.

So, someone is lying. Corbyn or Abbott? Abbott isn't clever enough so I'd say Corbyn, again. Labour, again, in a complete policy u-turn in a desperate appeal for votes, but against the wishes of the electorate.

Tell me, if Labour "maintain and EXTEND" freedom of movement, do you think immigration numbers go up or down. [i[size=85(Hint: if you give more people to right to move here...they will)[/size[/i. Now, tell me again about Priti Patel's "lies".

It's the whole irony of Priti Patel berating immigration which I find astounding, the same immigration which allowed her parents to move here from Uganda. Still, if they'd have stuck around for a few more years, Idi Amin would have booted them out anyway. Or worse.

You do realise a great many immigrants voted leave, precisely due to excessive immigration? Some strong leave areas such as Luton for example, areas where 'white British' are the minority.

Being an immigrant doesn't automatically mean you're daft enough to think immigration can continue in the numbers of the last 20-25 years.

No-one is 'berating' immigration. Just calling for sensible controls. Even Len McCluskey is sticking his neck out in the face over overwhelming opposition from Labour members - he sees the problems mass immigration causes. But he'll undoubtedly be shouted down by 'progressives'.

You've said this about "abuse" before, it's been challenged before and you didn't explain what you meant. Please can you do so this time? The "waste" doesn't stand up to much scrutiny either - like many nationalised industries it's ridiculously lean.

I certainly would support higher taxes, and I imagine most of the public is as well. Certainly compared to making people go down the insurance route which is a profoundly unpopular with the British public - and would cost significantly more. I can't see any benefit to it apart from an ideological one.

Some also voted leave to reduce immigration from the EU hoping we'd take more immigration from Asia and Africa. Some also voted leave to 'raise the drawbridge'. My feelings are that Patel is of the latter group.

That's the problem with a binary referendum where the unknown is anybody's guess. It means so many different things to so many different people. It's why Johnson's "get Brexit done" is a complete fantasy. What does 'done' actually look like? What does controlled immigration look like? Is it one in one out? Do we only invite people when there are job vacancies to fill? Do Russian oligarchs count, or is that not immigration?

I know one thing for certain. We'll still be debating what controlled immigration looks like in 5, 10, 25 years time.