Keeping up with the latest Brexit News

Which option would you prefer?

  • Leave with no deal

    Votes: 122 74.4%
  • Leave with the WA without the backstop

    Votes: 42 25.6%

  • Total voters
    164
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also worth pointing out there will probably be a GE soon. It looks like the next manifesto will be taking a harder line.

BBC News - Will 'Super Saturday' be a decisive Brexit moment?

"Essentially the dramatic language is designed not just to irritate their opponents, but also to make it clear to their negotiating opponents that any Brexit offer from the UK, if there is a Tory majority after the election, is likely to be a harder not softer one and the EU will face a government less willing to compromise, not more."

Yep, and If the Torys secure a majority with a no Deal ticket based manifesto then I would totally agree that they have a mandate to enact such a policy
 
The Tory manifesto first and foremost promised a deal. Checkout my link and you will see it throughout the document. But even then, the Tories only secured 42% of the vote so they lack a majority for no deal. It might be the enduring legal default but the people haven't agreed to it which is why Parliament, acting on their behalf, won't allow it.

It never "promised" it endeavoured to get a deal. Taking no deal off the table is exactly what remainers want - in order to place the UK at the mercy of the EU and to make the prospect of remaining look more favourable to any draconian deal the EU offers. It would only be motivated to offer the worst possible deal in order to make the UK remain. This is what Soubry and her gang of saboteurs have been playing at for the last 3 years. However, by your logic the Tories lacked the vote to get a deal as they only secured 42% of the vote. This is of course, utter rubbish. In fact, May got a deal and it was rejected three times by parliament. Cameron also clearly stated that if a deal can't be achieved after 2 years then it would be onto WTO terms. Both sides have failed to reach a deal and the date of departure keeps getting put back. The natural consequence of law legislates the UK must leave if no palatable deal is achieved as per Article 50.
 
Are we quoting polls today? Comres:

Screenshot_20191010-103323_Twitter.jpg
 
Are we quoting polls today? Comres:

View attachment 1205345

Latest on BBC Poll Tracker


e, Pollster and Sample Date Pollster Sample
ConservativesCON

LabourLAB

Lib DemsLD

Brexit PartyBRX

GreenGRN

SNPSNP

UKIPUKIP

Plaid CymruPC

The Independent Group for ChangeTIGfC
6 October 2019, ComRes and Sample size: 2,006 6 Oct 2019 ComRes 2,006 332719133411No data available-
4 October 2019, BMG and Sample size: 1,514 4 Oct 2019 BMG 1,514 3126201173010
4 October 2019, Opinium and Sample size: 2,006 4 Oct 2019 Opinium 2,006 3823151245100
1 October 2019, YouGov and Sample size: 1,623 1 Oct 2019 YouGov 1,623 3421231253010
27 September 2019, YouGov and Sample size: 1,623 27 Sep 2019 YouGov 1,623 3322211354010
27 September 2019, Opinium and Sample size: 2,007 27 Sep 2019 Opinium 2,007 362420112501
 
Genuine question, what would you personally do if Article 50 was revoked? Or if we end up Remaining through another referendum?

Same question applies to all Leaver's really.

A bit late responding, but just catching up.

First of all, if I was a betting man, my money would be on Article 50 being revoked. In that case, I have a life to live, and I will get on with enjoying that.

On a political level, in my opinion if this happens it shows our democratic process has broken. I completely understand what is meant by representative democracy, but for this our representatives passed the decision to us, and are now failing to implement that decision. That is indubitable. In future European elections I will be likely to vote for the party most likely to disrupt the waste of space that is The European Parliament as much as possible. Domestically is more difficult. I detest the nanny state, which all political parties seem to love. For example I read stuff like this today 'Ban snacking on public transport'. Fudge off! Give me the information, but don't decide for me.

On a personal level, I'll make my protest by boycotting goods from certain countries when I can. For example French beer is dreadful, so easily avoided, but they do make some good wines. However so do New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Argentina, so I will spend my money on them. I'll become more diligent about this kind of thing.
 
Fudge off! Give me the information, but don't decide for me.

On a personal level, I'll make my protest by boycotting goods from certain countries when I can. For example French beer is dreadful, so easily avoided, but they do make some good wines. However so do New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Argentina, so I will spend my money on them. I'll become more diligent about this kind of thing.

When generations are so fat that they are costing the NHS billions, they can and should decide for you if you do not know when to stop eating. If we were in america and you covered your medical expenses directly, then sure.

Expect more of this after Brexit when people are going to realise there is actually going to be less money for the NHS. You can kinda see the direction already: instead of people talking about that £350m being used on the NHS we are talking about how we can reduce obesity even more. And I am happy that we do: I see oversized children daily taking the bus 1-2 stops, while munching on chips after school. When you got to that level, you have to start forbidding stuff. In time, don't be surprised if your doctor will select who he will see depending on their condition: ie if it's self-inflicted, you will be waaay down on his priority list.
 
In time, don't be surprised if your doctor will select who he will see depending on their condition: ie if it's self-inflicted, you will be waaay down on his priority list.

That's fine so long as fat people, drug takers, smokers, high risk sportsmen can all opt out of paying a large chunk of National Insurance to put towards private insurance.

What next, scanning everyone at birth to ensure hereditary defects are not covered. What about all the "Mental Health" suffers these days self harming. Ban fixing that on NHS too.

Not forgetting irresponsible adults that have multiple kids when their jobs can't even support themselves. Get them & family off NHS too? It was their choice (or lack of responsibility) to have kids.

What country are you from ?

My mate at work has spent his life doing downhill extreme biking and been in hospital just about every year having broke most things in his body multiple times. Me, who is slightly obese, has managed to get to his 50's with 1 visit to hospital when I was four and have no medical conditions. I do cycle 20 mile to/from work, walk at lunch break when not raining and my resting heart rate is under 50 with normal blood pressure.

Have three other people I know that are perfect body weight but in and out of hospital/counselling due to drink problems, two were even told they would be dead in 12 months unless they stopped (fortunately they did stop).

Its easy to pick out fat people with it being visually obvious unlike many other, often self-inflicted issues people have.

By all means tax food based of its excessive fat/sugar/salt content similar to pricing people off fags (and in Scotland booze to some extent).

I notice in KFC since the sugar tax on drinks they have posters up saying over 75% now switched to Max Pepsi. That's the way to do it (I've not touched sugar in drinks for at least 20 years).
 
Last edited:
totally agree re nanny state....I eat healthily and look after myself, as do my family...don't dictate what the masses can do for the few who decide their children or their own health isn't important

I think it's criminal that so much is paid for on the NHS now....but I also think its a farce that people who have chosen to smoke for 20 years can have their treatment free on the NHS when prescription bills get higher and higher each year....you make your bed you lie in it.

I agree it won't change but that's life...I just hate having change forced on me because of the percentage of people who just don't care
 
Also agree on the nanny state issue.

As for the burden on the NHS, the next one is the decision to treat on line gaming addiction in children as a recognised illness, again something that can be controlled by their parents. Skype sessions though for those outside of London, where the treatment centre has been set up, doesn't seem like a sound medical decision to me.
 
totally agree re nanny state....I eat healthily and look after myself, as do my family...don't dictate what the masses can do for the few who decide their children or their own health isn't important

I think it's criminal that so much is paid for on the NHS now....but I also think its a farce that people who have chosen to smoke for 20 years can have their treatment free on the NHS when prescription bills get higher and higher each year....you make your bed you lie in it.

I agree it won't change but that's life...I just hate having change forced on me because of the percentage of people who just don't care
Look at it this way: we pay taxes and contribute towards healthcare and we should have a say to how the money is used (at a high level - which happens with your vote to a party and their manifesto's).
I am pro better management and a decision like this shows better management of funds rather than just sprawling it on anything people stuff in them from food, cigarettes or alcohol and then wonder why their knees hurt all the time and are filling up the hospitals. The reality is that money does not grow on trees and we won't magically have more, we just have to manage what we have better.
 
Look at it this way: we pay taxes and contribute towards healthcare

There's actually a lot of people who don't pay taxes or pay so little tax it wouldn't even cover a single fix in hospital but they still get supported their whole lives. You seem to be missing the whole point of the NHS.

Never works banning, need to educate and use taxation to hit peoples pockets and the profits of the companies producing unhealth stuff.

Slap a 50p premium on all sugared drinks and you'll soon find more people switching to zero cal equivalents. Same principle on salt/fat/sugar in processed foods.

Anyway, gone way off topic so won't be posting further on this.
 
Last edited:
totally agree re nanny state....I eat healthily and look after myself, as do my family...don't dictate what the masses can do for the few who decide their children or their own health isn't important

I think it's criminal that so much is paid for on the NHS now....but I also think its a farce that people who have chosen to smoke for 20 years can have their treatment free on the NHS when prescription bills get higher and higher each year....you make your bed you lie in it.

I agree it won't change but that's life...I just hate having change forced on me because of the percentage of people who just don't care
People who have chosen to smoke for 20 years have paid for their treatment (if required, although only 1 in 3 get cancer as a result) many times over in the tax paid on cigarettes. Cigarette Tax/VAT £12 billion, NHS spend £3-6 billion. Also by dieing prematurely they save the exchequer from having to spend on their pension payments if they lived until their 80s, or the other health costs which older people generate.
Does smoking cost as much as it makes for the Treasury?
 
Look at it this way: we pay taxes and contribute towards healthcare and we should have a say to how the money is used (at a high level - which happens with your vote to a party and their manifesto's).
I am pro better management and a decision like this shows better management of funds rather than just sprawling it on anything people stuff in them from food, cigarettes or alcohol and then wonder why their knees hurt all the time and are filling up the hospitals. The reality is that money does not grow on trees and we won't magically have more, we just have to manage what we have better.

Totally agree but giving it to those who have no wish to better themselves is a waste of time and money IMHO
 
People who have chosen to smoke for 20 years have paid for their treatment (if required, although only 1 in 3 get cancer as a result) many times over in the tax paid on cigarettes. Cigarette Tax/VAT £12 billion, NHS spend £3-6 billion. Also by dieing prematurely they save the exchequer from having to spend on their pension payments if they lived until their 80s, or the other health costs which older people generate.
Does smoking cost as much as it makes for the Treasury?

regardless of how much the NHS receives from taxation on tobacco...I still don't agree with the NHS paying towards people who want to quit...I have friends who quit without gum or patches...and without it costing anyone (regardless of where the funds come from).

I appreciate that if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, the NHS would basically implode wit the loss of funds from taxation (similar to electric cars and road tax) but very few people were forced into smoking...and there will always be those that choose to spend more on a single packet of 20 than they would on a nice homecooked meal for a hungry family of four....they make their choice so should deal with it... again, that's just my personal opinion on it and respect anyone else and theirs.

....apologies for the digression
 
People who have chosen to smoke for 20 years have paid for their treatment (if required, although only 1 in 3 get cancer as a result) many times over in the tax paid on cigarettes. Cigarette Tax/VAT £12 billion, NHS spend £3-6 billion. Also by dieing prematurely they save the exchequer from having to spend on their pension payments if they lived until their 80s, or the other health costs which older people generate.
Does smoking cost as much as it makes for the Treasury?

What a crock of shit. Have you even considered the knock on effects from passive smoking that will still go on for decades to come.

Did those innocent people working in pubs and restaurant or public transport or entertainment ask for lung cancer and a premature death?

Does the Joe chuffing away pay for everyone else too?
 
Look at it this way: we pay taxes and contribute towards healthcare and we should have a say to how the money is used (at a high level - which happens with your vote to a party and their manifesto's).

I think one thing you could take from this thread, is a Manifesto isn't worth the paper it's written on.
 
regardless of how much the NHS receives from taxation on tobacco...I still don't agree with the NHS paying towards people who want to quit...I have friends who quit without gum or patches...and without it costing anyone (regardless of where the funds come from).

I appreciate that if everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, the NHS would basically implode wit the loss of funds from taxation (similar to electric cars and road tax) but very few people were forced into smoking...and there will always be those that choose to spend more on a single packet of 20 than they would on a nice homecooked meal for a hungry family of four....they make their choice so should deal with it... again, that's just my personal opinion on it and respect anyone else and theirs.

....apologies for the digression

There are many things the NHS does that I'd question should be funded privately

To name three:
  • Fixing cosmetic surgery fudge ups (i.e. breast implant fiasco thanks to French company)
  • Gender realignment treatments & surgery
  • Fertility treatment (enough people on planet already and loads of kids awaiting good homes in care system)
They should refocus back to repairing injuries/diseases etc.

PS. I do appreciate reconstructive cosmetic surgery is needed after cancer, major trauma etc.
 
What a crock of sh*t. Have you even considered the knock on effects from passive smoking that will still go on for decades to come.

Did those innocent people working in pubs and restaurant or public transport or entertainment ask for lung cancer and a premature death?

Does the Joe chuffing away pay for everyone else too?
There are many things the NHS does that I'd question should be funded privately

To name three:
  • Fixing cosmetic surgery fudge ups (recent breast implant fiasco thanks to French company)
  • Gender realignment treatments & surgery
  • Fertility treatment (enough people on planet already and loads awaiting good homes in care system)
They should refocus back to repairing injuries/diseases etc.
I have to disagree on a few of those I think...but I appreciate your points....giving a single mum with 8 kids fertility treatment is ridiculous...but a couple who can't fall pregnant without assistance shouldn't be penalized for that

Totally agree on correcting cosmetic anything though..same with gastric bands
 
People who have chosen to smoke for 20 years have paid for their treatment (if required, although only 1 in 3 get cancer as a result) many times over in the tax paid on cigarettes. Cigarette Tax/VAT £12 billion, NHS spend £3-6 billion. Also by dieing prematurely they save the exchequer from having to spend on their pension payments if they lived until their 80s, or the other health costs which older people generate.
Does smoking cost as much as it makes for the Treasury?

The problem with that idea is quite simple, while the Treasury has raised billions through tax/vat on tobacco products there is no way to know how much of that (if any) has been pumped into the NHS to specifically treat smoking related diseases. If I had my way I'd ban smoking entirely, but I know that's an extreme solution that wouldn't work. I'd fine parents who smoke in front of their children in homes etc. I say that as somebody whose living with the consequences of passive smoking.

But hey ho, No Deal Brexit might make smoking unaffordable. So bright sides and all that.
 
The problem with that idea is quite simple, while the Treasury has raised billions through tax/vat on tobacco products there is no way to know how much of that (if any) has been pumped into the NHS to specifically treat smoking related diseases. If I had my way I'd ban smoking entirely, but I know that's an extreme solution that wouldn't work. I'd fine parents who smoke in front of their children in homes etc. I say that as somebody whose living with the consequences of passive smoking.

But hey ho, No Deal Brexit might make smoking unaffordable. So bright sides and all that.
I have to agree with your point about smoking in the house with children...can't see it being any different to smoking in a car with a child which is of course illegal
 
I have to disagree on a few of those I think...but I appreciate your points....giving a single mum with 8 kids fertility treatment is ridiculous...but a couple who can't fall pregnant without assistance shouldn't be penalized for that

Totally agree on correcting cosmetic anything though..same with gastric bands

Fertility treatment in the UK costs around £5,000 per cycle (just quick link I found).

Not out of reach if you really must have your own kid, certainly only a 1/4 the cost of a typical car replacement every 4 years.

If you can't afford to save for that you could argue you can't afford to raise the kid anyway.
 
Fertility treatment in the UK costs around £5,000 per cycle (just quick link I found).

Not out of reach if you really must have your own kid, certainly only a 1/4 the cost of a typical car replacement every 4 years.

If you can't afford to save for that you could argue you can't afford to raise the kid anyway.


Not everyone can afford a car at all...again...maybe you'd feel differently if you couldn't have kids and couldn't afford to pay for the treatment yourself...I've been lucky and had three kids without it..not everyone is so lucky
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom