Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%
  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%

  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
I see SKY have once again succeeded in causing as many problems as they can because they cannot accept the Brexit result. Sophie Ridge interviewed May yesterday and was basically putting words in her mouth regarding the single market and today the pound dropped 1% against the dollar because the media misrepresented her comments. Cheers Sky one day people will find other ways to watch TV without being ripped off and when your presenters lose their jobs I won't bat an eyelid.
Think a good 99% of that 1% is due to what May said and has been saying.
 
Well, I'm probably wrong then. But most of the commentators seem to agree, the message was we leave the EU and negotiate a trade deal with it. The only questions would be what does the trade deal look like and how soon can it be in place? If so, good, that's what I think the majority voted for in the referendum. Let's get on with it.

Who cares what Labour think nowadays?

Wouldn't you agree that a majority wanted to stay in the Single Market?
 
I have no evidence to support that. Just as valid to say most people voted to stop immigration. But certain that most people voted to leave the EU, whether they understood what that meant or not.

At least a small percentage of Leave voters wanted to stay in the Single Market. I forget his name, but a Tory MP resigned because, although he voted Leave, he didn't want the government to pursue 'hard Brexit'. If you allow that this minority might be 5% of Leave voters, it would be enough to change the arithmetic in favour of remaining in the Single Market. But our government knows exactly what the British public wanted, even if the British public didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QPR Oslo
At least a small percentage of Leave voters wanted to stay in the Single Market. I forget his name, but a Tory MP resigned because, although he voted Leave, he didn't want the government to pursue 'hard Brexit'. If you allow that this minority might be 5% of Leave voters, it would be enough to change the arithmetic in favour of remaining in the Single Market. But our government knows exactly what the British public wanted, even if the British public didn't.
You know where I stand on the referendum, but I think it's senseless to leave the EU but stay in the Single Market - you just stay in with all the obligations but no voice. Anyone voting to leave the EU but stay in the single market was I fear rather naive.

Jezza on the wireless in talking about everything - Brexit, trains, fat cat salaries. He had taken his brief well. He's comfortable on Brexit because it's what he wanted, and happy to rationalise cutting immigration in terms of reducing exploitation of both migrant and British workers.

Then he started arguing for an (unspecified) cap on fat cat wages. Which, as far as I can see, satisfies no need except hurting the rich - the salaries are obscene, but surely better for the public purse and public services to tax them hugely and make sure the taxes are paid.
 
what has copenhagen done

This one got me as well, haven't seen any type of report on this.
Where did you get this Stan? - The only thing I can think of is that a previous Boss of Maersk promised Putin personally that we would drill the Hell out of the Arctic for him, which, thankfully he could never back up.

Don't mind saying - sent a shiver up the spine at the thought of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
This one got me as well, haven't seen any type of report on this.
Where did you get this Stan? - The only thing I can think of is that a previous Boss of Maersk promised Putin personally that we would drill the Hell out of the Arctic for him, which, thankfully he could never back up.

Don't mind saying - sent a shiver up the spine at the thought of it.
Sunday Times mate, so hopefully unreliable. Can't find it now. I think the targets are down to how reliable Russian missiles are. Made me sit up sharpish.

Found it.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...6?shareToken=d158fed0bc462a7941b5a56ecb4093cb

It's a throwaway paragraph a couple of pages from the end. In response to a conventional attack from NATO in defence of the Baltic states, Russia could respond with limited nuclear strikes. Add Stockholm to the list.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: danishqp
Recent reports indicate the NHS sucks. A hour window for emergency treatment at the ER is the Limit before you're seen is what they achieve. Expensive health service in the US is often criticized but you see your doctor , you are looked at in the ER and operated on almost immediately.
Would people not agree to pay more to have a health service like we have in the US?
 
Recent reports indicate the NHS sucks. A hour window for emergency treatment at the ER is the Limit before you're seen is what they achieve. Expensive health service in the US is often criticized but you see your doctor , you are looked at in the ER and operated on almost immediately.
Would people not agree to pay more to have a health service like we have

No. The basic underlying principle of the NHS is that anyone can be seen and treated regardless of their ability to pay. Until the system in the USA can match that principle, I'm not interested, personally. I've seen too many posts on another forum from people living the US who cannot get the treatment they need for a life-threatening disease and are forced to make financial choices all the time about whether or not they can afford this test or that drug - as their savings vanish and they are driven into poverty.

Yes - I'd pay more for better care, but not at the expense of those who cannot afford it. What sort of a country do we want to be?
 
Recent reports indicate the NHS sucks. A hour window for emergency treatment at the ER is the Limit before you're seen is what they achieve. Expensive health service in the US is often criticized but you see your doctor , you are looked at in the ER and operated on almost immediately.
Would people not agree to pay more to have a health service like we have in the US?

You're not comparing like with like. What you describe there is the same level of service you'd get from private health insurance here - I have it through my employer and its much cheaper than what you'd pay in the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: durbar2003
No. The basic underlying principle of the NHS is that anyone can be seen and treated regardless of their ability to pay. Until the system in the USA can match that principle, I'm not interested, personally. I've seen too many posts on another forum from people living the US who cannot get the treatment they need for a life-threatening disease and are forced to make financial choices all the time about whether or not they can afford this test or that drug - as their savings vanish and they are driven into poverty.

Yes - I'd pay more for better care, but not at the expense of those who cannot afford it. What sort of a country do we want to be?
Every one has health care here (Obamacare)
 
You're not comparing like with like. What you describe there is the same level of service you'd get from private health insurance here - I have it through my employer and its much cheaper than what you'd pay in the US.
Do you pay or does you're employer?
Most working people here have heath care paid by their employer..