December 2019 General Election Thread

High Street wrote: Total bollocks on rail nationalisation. The franchises own nothing but the staff uniform.
The trains are owned by leasing companies, of which many millions of pounds worth of new trains are on their books.
All freight operators are fully privately owned and ran, so theres no franchises to expire.
*Except for the unique way in which DRS is funded
Network Rail may be nationalised, but the many myriad of contractors, plant operators etc are not, how do you decide which companies are worthy of nationalisation and which arent?
Similarly the wide spectrum of train builders and their suppliers, research, maintenance, signalling, medical, catering suppliers are all different companies.
A lot of new trains now have a build and maintain contract, whereby the builders maintain the trains for the rest of their life. Do you think Hitachi will be nationlised for the remaining 24 years of its contract?

Pure fantasy.

HS You're correct having read my post I did go off at a tangent regarding the ownership of the train fleets but i.m sure you didn't think that I don't know who actually owns the trains and i.m sure you get my point about letting the franchises run down.

But i.m really not sure why you're assuming all the companies that you mention would need to be nationalised obviously the track and its management would be [ but in reality that already is ] But beyond the actual train operating companies I don't see why companies that provide services to the operating companies would need to be privatised and I wouldn't recreate BR but keep them as separate companies just have them owned and operated by the government-owned set up that's currently running the East Coast and is gearing up to take over the Northern routes sooner rather than later.

As for the Roscos and leasing companies I would imagine that they would simply contract and probably the train specific ones would exit the market in a pretty short time span as the new govt owned franchises switched to the type of deals you mention the best example of which is the new train fleets on the East Coast and Great Western InterCity lines which are as you say on service and maintenance contracts from their builders.

But I really don't understand why you think freight sector would need to be govt owned or indeed the myriad of companies who provide services to the train operating companies once they were govt owned or indeed those who contract to or supply the infrastructure and maintenance side of things.

I know you work in the industry and I assume that's for a toc and unless your the managing director i.m interested as to why you seem vehemently against your company being govt owned Do you not see the govt taking over as being the point at which all the crap could be swept away from the industry which would cut the operating costs by a massive amount and allow the staff to be much better paid in return for accepting more modern terms and conditions.

thesilentone wrote: The railways have never ever carried as many passengers. The services from Carlisle are usually spot on, however the pricing is the problem and is now forcing more than one person travelling back into a car.

Charging daily commuters in the South a small fortune for a season ticket, then the staff going on strike every time the wind changes is one thing, and not really comparable to what the requirements are in the North.

Easiest way to improve the rail services in the click of your fingers, is stop the greedy buggers going on strike.

The ‘small fortune’ of commuters down south, is a pretty good deal against buying a ticket daily. I cant remember the figure off the top of my head, but its something like they only pay for 4 days out of 7.
Plus its their choice to grab London wages, but live further away.

Dentonholmersimpson wrote:
Back in the 90's immigraton hovered around 50 to100 thousand,then Blair agreed to let anyone in to boost the Labour vote,leading immigration to double and more. The problem isn't the princpal of immigration, it is the rate.
Carlisle has had immigrants from Italy, China and Eastern Europe since I was a boy and they were all welcomed with very little hassle, but mass immgration changes communities and people don't like that rapid change, they fear those communities are being taken away from them.
These views at one time were classed as racist, maybe not so much now, my fatherin law was Polish, lived here from the end of WW2 and was absolutely apoplectic when mass immigration started,as a lot of long term migrants are.

Unsustainable levels of immigration is an essential tool of neoliberalism to maximise profit by keeping pay down for the low paid and by adding more consumers to the market.

Blair's New Labour was a neoliberal party same as the Conservatives and Lib Dems are but Corbyn's Labour aren't.

If you want to see sustainable and humane levels of immigration, to fill skills gaps in our economy rather than to undercut wages and working conditions then you need to vote for real change with Labour.

High Street wrote:

thesilentone wrote: The railways have never ever carried as many passengers. The services from Carlisle are usually spot on, however the pricing is the problem and is now forcing more than one person travelling back into a car.

Charging daily commuters in the South a small fortune for a season ticket, then the staff going on strike every time the wind changes is one thing, and not really comparable to what the requirements are in the North.

Easiest way to improve the rail services in the click of your fingers, is stop the greedy buggers going on strike.

The ‘small fortune’ of commuters down south, is a pretty good deal against buying a ticket daily. I cant remember the figure off the top of my head, but its something like they only pay for 4 days out of 7.
Plus its their choice to grab London wages, but live further away.

Not necessarily. Maybe they need an income, the only jobs are in London, but they can't afford to live there.

What are the fear mongers going to do now who say ' The Tories will sell the NHS to the Yanks' at least Mr Corbyn has a 400 page document he can use as bog paper !

"What Trump said about NHS and trade deal

This is what President Trump said when he was asked if he thought the NHS should be on the table in trade deals. He replied:

No, not at all, I have nothing to do with it. Never even thought about it, honestly ...

I don’t even know where that rumour started. We have absolutely nothing to do with it and we wouldn’t want to if you handed it to us on a silver platter, we want nothing to do with it. "

EDIT !!!!!!!

www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/d...-for-nato-talks-live

I think we can all agree to completely disregard anything that dimwit has to say.

Which dimwit?
Trump?
Corbyn?
Johnson?

Apparently Corbyn is planning to say to Trump tonight at a NATO dinner’ welcome to Britain.The NHS is not for sale’

What a statesman.

Trump must look at Corbyn and think ‘WTF-who let this tramp in?’

As we get closer to Election Day,Corbyn will be getting more and more desperate.It will be free money this week, extra free money next week.I wouldn’t be surprised if he lies across a rail track next Thursday.

Aye, and Johnson will be announcing ANOTHER 50,000 new nurses on top of the ones that he announced last week.

They're the same 50,000 that he announced last week, but he's retained them in his plans so they can count as new ones.

And they're all currently working for the NHS as nurses, but they're new ones because they're hoping to retain some of them.

Flatcap wrote: Which dimwit?
Trump?
Corbyn?
Johnson?

Trump's the only dimwit among them but you're right, we shouldn't listen to anything that any of them have to say during election time.

It’s called churn Jimmy-19k staying but not sure why plus 31k brand spanking new ones.That makes 50k more than expected if one assumes the churn is reduced.

Anyway, I said weeks ago that the NHS should be depoliticised because you just know that Corbyn likes a good twine about it.Boris should just say ‘jez, why don’t we take this NHS thing out of politics and appoint a new commission to run it?’

I wonder what people depending on US based drugs for life make of all this dross.Most drugs are invented and manufactured in the US-if we need them, buy them.The issue is on pricing and licence life, not ownership.

Absolute rubbish ...
Come trade talks ... controlling the NHS and the drugs it buys will be at the top of the agenda...
Bonzo = liar
Trump = liar ...
Why listen to a liar ?

Laffy wrote: Anyway, I said weeks ago that the NHS should be depoliticised because you just know that Corbyn likes a good twine about it.Boris should just say ‘jez, why don’t we take this NHS thing out of politics and appoint a new commission to run it?’

The NHS should always be free at the point of use. I don't think that's a political point, I think it's a humanitarian point. People have a right to life, and a right to access treatment and medicine that can help them. Anyone who is trying to sell off the NHS or parts of it is putting that at risk, and they should be confronted.

You're always having a go at Corbyn. All he wants here is to ensure free access to healthcare for all. People in the US die even though there was medication that could have saved them, because they simply couldn't afford it. A Corbyn government would prevent that from happening here.

Corbyn is best described as a Utilitarian vanguard-he has two core values, being care and equality.Basically he is a middle class intellectual who has strayed from six core values most of us have.Loyalty,fairness,liberty,hierarchy, care and sanctity and we are now seeing this via the destruction and isolation of his very own Labour Party.

One could also argue Boris is the same but to the right.

So we are left with a vacuum in the centre ground-we need someone who ‘gets it’.These people exist in both main parties but are suffocated by extremism on left and right.I hope that Boris ‘gets it’.You hope Corbyn ‘gets it’.My worry is neither is the solution to a very disturbed climate.

Laffy wrote: Corbyn is best described as a Utilitarian vanguard-he has two core values, being care and equality.Basically he is a middle class intellectual who has strayed from six core values most of us have.Loyalty,fairness,liberty,hierarchy, care and sanctity and we are now seeing this via the destruction and isolation of his very own Labour Party.

One could also argue Boris is the same but to the right.

So we are left with a vacuum in the centre ground-we need someone who ‘gets it’.These people exist in both main parties but are suffocated by extremism on left and right.I hope that Boris ‘gets it’.You hope Corbyn ‘gets it’.My worry is neither is the solution to a very disturbed climate.

I still don't know why you said it was a twine though. I think healthcare should always be free, it shouldn't matter how rich or poor you are, and nobody should die just because they weren't able to afford a drug or a medicine. Do you agree?

Kessler wrote:

Laffy wrote: Corbyn is best described as a Utilitarian vanguard-he has two core values, being care and equality.Basically he is a middle class intellectual who has strayed from six core values most of us have.Loyalty,fairness,liberty,hierarchy, care and sanctity and we are now seeing this via the destruction and isolation of his very own Labour Party.

One could also argue Boris is the same but to the right.

So we are left with a vacuum in the centre ground-we need someone who ‘gets it’.These people exist in both main parties but are suffocated by extremism on left and right.I hope that Boris ‘gets it’.You hope Corbyn ‘gets it’.My worry is neither is the solution to a very disturbed climate.

I still don't know why you said it was a twine though. I think healthcare should always be free, it shouldn't matter how rich or poor you are, and nobody should die just because they weren't able to afford a drug or a medicine. Do you agree?

What is your view on 'cash in hand' work then Kes - say a brick layer was doing weekend work for a bit of extra cash?

The NHS should not pay for life-extending drugs. The ones that simply buy the patent extra time probably in a lot of pain and with a massive cost to the NHS there really is no point in extending life by a couple of years for somebody who will die from the condition anyway a few months later and in the meantime cost the country a fortune.

Nine times out of ten it's not the patent wanting these drugs it's the bloody relatives who seem to think they're doing the right thing when all they're doing is condemning their loved ones to a couple of years of pain for their own selfish reasons while at the same time costing the country a bomb.

Once someone reaches a certain point the NHS should have the right to either impose a DNR or they should start paying.

The NHS is there to keep people fit and well not prolong the pain for dying people just to satisfy the whim of their selfish relatives.

NORTHERNSOUL wrote: The NHS should not pay for life-extending drugs. The ones that simply buy the patent extra time probably in a lot of pain and with a massive cost to the NHS there really is no point in extending life by a couple of years for somebody who will die from the condition anyway a few months later and in the meantime cost the country a fortune.

Nine times out of ten it's not the patent wanting these drugs it's the bloody relatives who seem to think they're doing the right thing when all they're doing is condemning their loved ones to a couple of years of pain for their own selfish reasons while at the same time costing the country a bomb.

Once someone reaches a certain point the NHS should have the right to either impose a DNR or they should start paying.

The NHS is there to keep people fit and well not prolong the pain for dying people just to satisfy the whim of their selfish relatives.

Barry I'm talking about perfectly healthy people. In the US people die from perfectly curable or manageable conditions because they can't afford the medicine. That's what privatized healthcare leads to.

C'mon, the old chestnut of under funding the NHS is not an argument.

The NHS was a Conservative Policy adopted by Labour when in power (do your research)

In it's history, I'ts has been under Tory control much longer than Labour, and everyone's expectations of what the NHS is for are to high.

We need to reform the NHS and stop it being the International Health Service that every Tom, Dick and Drunk from the across the EU can abuse at their leisure.

Prescriptions and the administration of them is a shambles !!

I think healthcare should be free to those who can’t afford it.Likewise education.Im entirely happy to pay for my family healthcare and private schools but Corbyn is even attacking the latter-suggesting the fees should attract vat.Why?Surely even someone as deluded as him can see the cost of those in private education moving to the state?

Pure politics-

Laffy wrote: I think healthcare should be free to those who can’t afford it

And how will that happen if the Tories sell off the NHS?

The only person who says it’s getting sold is Corbyn-oh and his Russian mates

Your private health care isn't really private ...
It's mostly just a form of Queue jumping...
Pay for a private consultation and get referred to the top of the Queue of the ,NHS....
As for the "dont treat people that are incurable "
Let's hope your never in that position !!

Chilledsilly wrote: Your private health care isn't really private ...
It's mostly just a form of Queue jumping...
Pay for a private consultation and get referred to the top of the Queue of the ,NHS....
As for the "dont treat people that are incurable "
Let's hope your never in that position !!

I can assure you that I never will be.

The chemicals to ensure it are in my kitchen cupboard in a sealed tin along with a handwritten note that says I took them of my own freewill to protect them just in case someone else has to give me them.

I have no intention of suffering or being a burden to anyone else or indeed the NHS. My partner is now also looking to acquire one but turns out its a little more difficult now than when I got mine.

NORTHERNSOUL wrote: along with a handwritten note that says I took them of my own freewill to protect them just in case someone else has to give me them.

If someone did that then they could be prosecuted whether or not you took them of your own free will.

Laffy wrote: I'm entirely happy to pay for my family healthcare

And what about all the other people who have worked just as hard (or harder) than you have Laffy, but can't afford private healthcare. Are they less deserving of it than you?

sirjimmyglass wrote: Aye, and Johnson will be announcing ANOTHER 50,000 new nurses on top of the ones that he announced last week.

They're the same 50,000 that he announced last week, but he's retained them in his plans so they can count as new ones.

And they're all currently working for the NHS as nurses, but they're new ones because they're hoping to retain some of them.

Lying comes as easy as breathing for Johnson and Trump.

6 months ago Trump said “When you’re dealing with trade, everything is on the table. So NHS or anything else. There are a lot more than that. So everything will be on the table. Absolutely.” So he's assuming we're too gullible to notice when he says now that he's "never even thought about it" in a lie so brazen even the establishment media aren't even trying to cover it up.

Now it turns out that on top of Boris's 3+0=6 lie, 10,200 of the "extra" nurses are actually only going to be nursing associates who are cheaper and less qualified than nurses. So I think Boris's lie is now down to 20,000 when the NHS is currently 43,000 nurses short.

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-nu...g-care-a9230101.html

Make no mistake, unless you're able to pay an arm and a leg if you get ill then you need to vote Labour. This is how much health care costs in the USA.



Labour's investment in the health sector will enable comprehensive healthcare and an end to patient charges.

thesilentone wrote: C'mon, the old chestnut of under funding the NHS is not an argument.

The NHS was a Conservative Policy adopted by Labour when in power (do your research)

Yes read your history.

blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/why-sh...abour-built-the-nhs/

"The Conservative commitment to the NHS has often been disputed by historians. In their 1945 manifesto they claimed: “The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.” Notably, there was no commitment to make the new health service free at the point of use, and given their opposition to Bevan’s proposal and past comparisons to the Nazi party, we can assume it would not have been as radical."

The right to free at the point of use healthcare, universal and comprehensive in scope, is Labour’s proudest achievement.

Corbyn,Mcdonell, Abbott, Thornbury, Starmer, Gardiner and all the rest of the shadow cabinet can be found on You Tube or whatever a year or so back, saying '' We are leaving the EU''.

Liars to a man. Sorry, can't say that anymore. Liars to what ever I identify as, today.

Laffy wrote: The only person who says it’s getting sold is Corbyn-oh and his Russian mates

Hang on! The Conservatives have been bought by Russia.

Right now, Boris Johnson is refusing to publish the report into foreign interference by Russia in UK democracy.

Russian donors have given the Conservative party £3.5million since 2010 with a recent spike in donations in the run up to this election.

Boris Johnson himself was paid £160,000 in return for a game of tennis with a Russian minister.

www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-inve...tepped-tory-funding/

Corbyn calls for Magnitsky powers to be implemented to bar Russian officials from the UK if they're suspected of crimes against humanity, and to stem the flow of Russian dark money into the City of London.

Mammoth wrote:

Laffy wrote: The only person who says it’s getting sold is Corbyn-oh and his Russian mates

Hang on! The Conservatives have been bought by Russia.

Right now, Boris Johnson is refusing to publish the report into foreign interference by Russia in UK democracy.

Russian donors have given the Conservative party £3.5million since 2010 with a recent spike in donations in the run up to this election.

Boris Johnson himself was paid £160,000 in return for a game of tennis with a Russian minister.

www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-inve...tepped-tory-funding/

Corbyn calls for Magnitsky powers to be implemented to bar Russian officials from the UK if they're suspected of crimes against humanity, and to stem the flow of Russian dark money into the City of London.

And the finger of suspicion for Corbyns NHS document is coming from where,exactly?

As for his reaction to the chemical attack in Salisbury, speaks for its self.

Beware of politicians making election promises in their manifestos.
As soon as they are elected the promises go out of the window.
I wouldn't trust any of them to tell me the time!

Well exactly. There is no reason to suspect the document. Any smears you may have fallen for are coming from Boris and the Russians who have bought him.

Corbyn wants to bring in the Magnitsky powers to prevent Russian influence, the Conservatives have blocked those powers.

Corbyn wanted to gather the evidence and build an international coalition so that we could throw the force of international law against Russia after the Salisbury attack. The Conservatives made weak accusations ahead of the evidence, undermining international law which prevented any sort of effective action and embarrassed us on the international stage.

No wonder Putin is cosy with the Conservatives.

Mammoth wrote: Well exactly. There is no reason to suspect the document. Any smears you may have fallen for are coming from Boris and the Russians who have bought him.

Corbyn wants to bring in the Magnitsky powers to prevent Russian influence, the Conservatives have blocked those powers.

Corbyn wanted to gather the evidence and build an international coalition so that we could throw the force of international law against Russia after the Salisbury attack. The Conservatives made weak accusations ahead of the evidence, undermining international law which prevented any sort of effective action and embarrassed us on the international stage.

No wonder Putin is cosy with the Conservatives.

What?

Corbyn was prepared to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt over the Salisbury attack, despite the overwhelming evidence that the Russian state security was behind the poisoning, since confirmed by MI5 and MI6.

Even the former head of MI6 has said that Corbyn is a threat to national security.

politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parti...6-boss-labels-jeremy

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Corbyn,Mcdonell, Abbott, Thornbury, Starmer, Gardiner and all the rest of the shadow cabinet can be found on You Tube or whatever a year or so back, saying '' We are leaving the EU''.

Liars to a man. Sorry, can't say that anymore. Liars to what ever I identify as, today.

Boris and Co said that as well so in the context of this GE I'm not sure of your point? In 2017, when she had no majority, if May had sat down with Labour to work out a Brexit that everyone could live with we'd be out by now. Boris had a (terrible) deal that had passed through parliament and if he'd given parliament more than 3 days to scrutinise it we could have been out by January as well but instead he went on strike and called this election.

Now, Labour will work out the Brexit deal that can reunite the country and have it sorted in 6 months.

Mammoth wrote:

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Corbyn,Mcdonell, Abbott, Thornbury, Starmer, Gardiner and all the rest of the shadow cabinet can be found on You Tube or whatever a year or so back, saying '' We are leaving the EU''.

Liars to a man. Sorry, can't say that anymore. Liars to what ever I identify as, today.

Boris and Co said that as well so in the context of this GE I'm not sure of your point? In 2017, when she had no majority, if May had sat down with Labour to work out a Brexit that everyone could live with we'd be out by now. Boris had a (terrible) deal that had passed through parliament and if he'd given parliament more than 3 days to scrutinise it we could have been out by January as well but instead he went on strike and called this election.

Now, Labour will work out the Brexit deal that can reunite the country and have it sorted in 6 months.

How on God's earth will Corbyn's Idea of having a vote for Remain against a vote to leave on the deal that is tantamount to staying in the EU
reunite the country, If there is a second referendum and either of those options win I, along with millions of others won't feel reunited, I will feel totally betrayed.

As for who is the most pro Russia, well pardon me, but I will always vote for a leader that will put this countries well being ahead of some bugger else's.

Mammoth wrote:

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Corbyn,Mcdonell, Abbott, Thornbury, Starmer, Gardiner and all the rest of the shadow cabinet can be found on You Tube or whatever a year or so back, saying '' We are leaving the EU''.

Liars to a man. Sorry, can't say that anymore. Liars to what ever I identify as, today.

Boris and Co said that as well so in the context of this GE I'm not sure of your point? In 2017, when she had no majority, if May had sat down with Labour to work out a Brexit that everyone could live with we'd be out by now. Boris had a (terrible) deal that had passed through parliament and if he'd given parliament more than 3 days to scrutinise it we could have been out by January as well but instead he went on strike and called this election.

Now, Labour will work out the Brexit deal that can reunite the country and have it sorted in 6 months.

One of the funniest things lve read for ages.

Kessler wrote:

NORTHERNSOUL wrote: along with a handwritten note that says I took them of my own freewill to protect them just in case someone else has to give me them.

If someone did that then they could be prosecuted whether or not you took them of your own free will.

Says the boards 12-year-old resident legal expert

Just watched the delightful buffoon Barry Gardiner on BBC Breakfast-very clearly Labour are trying to shift the NHS for sale allegation to a more subtle ‘privatisation by stealth’ by buying drugs from US companies.He must think we are totally thick.The NHS is the main contractor, the public face of health in the UK.Like many main contractors in all sorts of industries , certain services are best delivered by sub contractors.In this case, drug supply, expertise in specialist areas etc.Whether it comes from the US or anywhere else is down to a strong procurement process-something that has been lacking in the NHS.

Anyway, Labour have lost the argument that never was.

Dentonholmersimpson wrote:

Mammoth wrote:

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Corbyn,Mcdonell, Abbott, Thornbury, Starmer, Gardiner and all the rest of the shadow cabinet can be found on You Tube or whatever a year or so back, saying '' We are leaving the EU''.

Liars to a man. Sorry, can't say that anymore. Liars to what ever I identify as, today.

Boris and Co said that as well so in the context of this GE I'm not sure of your point? In 2017, when she had no majority, if May had sat down with Labour to work out a Brexit that everyone could live with we'd be out by now. Boris had a (terrible) deal that had passed through parliament and if he'd given parliament more than 3 days to scrutinise it we could have been out by January as well but instead he went on strike and called this election.

Now, Labour will work out the Brexit deal that can reunite the country and have it sorted in 6 months.

How on God's earth will Corbyn's Idea of having a vote for Remain against a vote to leave on the deal that is tantamount to staying in the EU
reunite the country, If there is a second referendum and either of those options win I, along with millions of others won't feel reunited, I will feel totally betrayed.

As for who is the most pro Russia, well pardon me, but I will always vote for a leader that will put this countries well being ahead of some bugger else's.

Do the Tories and their rich backers (including the Russian establishment) put Britain's well being first when they carve up services and infrastructure, which have been built by the British tax payer, and hand them over to a foreign government to run?Are they putting us first when they threaten to leave the country rather than pay their fair contribution to the society that made them rich?

How did Tory undermining of international law so that their could be no effective coalition against Russia (and in particularly the Russian establishment who back the Conservative party to the tune of £3.5m) look after our well being?

A Labour soft Brexit isn't what everyone wanted, including myself, but it's a compromise that reflects the 52:48 mandate. I think the upcoming referendum could have a big majority for it. If we want further separation in the longer term then we should take it as a starting point and campaign to win people over to our point of view.

Labour will put human rights, international law and tackling climate change at the heart of our international policies, and use our global influence to end the ‘bomb first, talk later’ approach to security. Patriotism is about supporting each other, not attacking somebody else.

CCU wrote:

Mammoth wrote: A Labour soft Brexit isn't what everyone wanted, including myself, but it's a compromise that reflects the 52:48 mandate.

There was nothing on my voting slip in 2016 about ‘soft’ Brexit and certainly no mention of ‘compromise’! This whole soft/hard is a load of codswallop.

We voted to leave the European Union, but the few (MP’s) have tried to stop the many (The 52%) from seeing their wish implemented...

Sorry CCU. Love you to the moon and back but have to respectfully disagree on this one.

The voting slip was simple in that it asked people if they wanted to leave, but gave no instruction on how and the various ways to leave have very different impacts on the country.

Yes, some political swines are using this as a way to bring about delay, but not all. And the leave side also took advantage of the ambiguity by promising everything under the sun during the referendum campaign.

I doubt human rights and international law register with 99pc of the population Mammoth. Everytime we try to foist democracy on foreigners, we end up with a chaotic war

CCU wrote:

Mammoth wrote: A Labour soft Brexit isn't what everyone wanted, including myself, but it's a compromise that reflects the 52:48 mandate.

There was nothing on my voting slip in 2016 about ‘soft’ Brexit and certainly no mention of ‘compromise’! This whole soft/hard is a load of codswallop.

We voted to leave the European Union, but the few (MP’s) have tried to stop the many (The 52%) from seeing their wish implemented...

I wonder how many times you've posted this exact thing.

Each time more disingenuous than the last.

But it's still a fact, like it or not. No shades of Grey, we voted out, end of.

No compromises, no hard, soft or medium rare. Out !!!

The Libundem knows she does not have a snowballs chance in hell of revoking article 50, she is trading for the in vote, she hopes will leave Labour and the Tories due to dithering.

Out is out, and to try and coerce, persuade, compromise, negotiate then referendum, then argue against the result if it's not what you want, is the rock Jezza will perish on.

Next week, Prime Minister Corbyn will finally clarify his position

thesilentone wrote: But it's still a fact, like it or not. No shades of Grey, we voted out, end of.

No compromises, no hard, soft or medium rare. Out !!!

The Libundem knows she does not have a snowballs chance in hell of revoking article 50, she is trading for the in vote, she hopes will leave Labour and the Tories due to dithering.

Out is out, and to try and coerce, persuade, compromise, negotiate then referendum, then argue against the result if it's not what you want, is the rock Jezza will perish on.

So you're Prime Minister the day after the referendum. Do you just rip up the EU membership card and move on?

What are we doing in terms of trade, movement of people (both in and out of the country), the border with Ireland? Just hoping for the best?

There is no doubt the free movement of people has created untold problems. Merkel wouldn't have it any other way, it was her baby. Add to this her 'Come to Krautland ' call based on the Kraut requirement for the need of cheap Labour to bolster there Industrial Policy long-term, and we now have a buggers muddle, and a rise of the right wing Parties.

Had they agreed with some of Cameron's reforms, we (including our EU partners) would not be in the mess. The EU, Country by Country has big issues to deal with, add to this the pressure being applied by the Turks and Brexit is only one of the many problems they have on the table.

Continually throwing money at problems, is not the right solution for long-term stability and security.