Britons Back Respecting Referendum Result and Farage-Tory Pact for No Deal

This oaks is why the Remainers, many of who campaigned on a Leave platform fear another general election. They will get wiped out if Boris and Nigel get their act together.

Meanwhile these anti democratic Remoaners are trying everything to stop Brexit. its the people against parliament.

A majority of Britons back the 2016 EU referendum result being respected and Brexit being delivered, whilst a plurality want the Conservatives to agree an election pact with Nigel Farage’s party to secure a strong parliamentary majority for a no deal exit.

More than half, 54 per cent, of Britons agree that the referendum result should be respected, while just 25 per cent disagreed, according to a ComRes poll reported in The Telegraph. Further, more than one-third (35 per cent) of those that voted Remain in the referendum also now want Brexit to be delivered.

Last week, the Remain Alliance was successful in passing a law that would force Prime Minister Boris Johnson to ask for a Brexit delay to January 31st, 2020, if a deal is not passed in parliament next month. Related to that date, ComRes asked Britons whether they agreed that Brexit should be delayed, with almost half (49 per cent) disagreeing while only 29 per cent said it should be delayed.

Fifty per cent also agreed that it was “fundamentally undemocratic” for some MPs to prevent the UK leaving the EU in light of Prime Minister Johnson’s pledge to deliver Brexit by October 31st, with or without a deal, with 43 per cent agreeing with a separate statement that if the EU makes no concessions on the withdrawal treaty that the UK should leave by that date in a clean break.

In response to the statement, “Boris Johnson should make a pact with the Brexit Party to try to get enough MPs to secure a parliamentary majority for a no deal Brexit,” 36 per cent agreed, compared to 34 per cent who disagreed. Broken down by party affiliation, 89 per cent of Brexit Party supporters and 69 per cent of those who intend to vote Conservative agreed.

Mr Farage has been reaching out to Mr Johnson to discuss a ‘non-aggression’ tactical election pact, where each of their respective parties would agree to not field candidates in certain constituencies should it split the Brexit-supporting vote. The Brexit Party leader has already agreed to not challenge seats belonging to Tory Brexiteer “Spartans”, but according to reports, he upped that offer by asking the Tories for free run of 80 to 90 constituencies in exchange for not fielding candidates in the Conservatives’ target seats or against sitting Conservative MPs.

The offer has been relayed to the prime minister by Tory MPs after talks had reportedlyopened up between the two parties. A source close the the Brexit Party leader told The Sun: “Nigel has had some conversations with people who are very close to Boris, not MPs or ministers to keep them discreet. They’re more to scope out whether he’s serious about a deal than actual negotiations, and the Tories appreciate he is. It is a beginning.”

“It’s very simple, it’s all about the numbers. Boris knows he cannot win a majority without our help,” they added.

Mr Farage is said to be focusing on seats in the Midlands, North East, and Wales — the working-class, Brexit-supporting, but Labour-voting heartlands which have been let down by their traditional party home when Jeremy Corbyn threw Labour’s support behind a second referendum and Remain, despite pledging in his 2017 manifesto to respect the result.

Beeno

I can see where it is going here,   There will be an election this year in the UK.  So lets analyze the situation.   Both the Conservative Party, Labour Party and Scottish Nationalists supported the remain situation - but the ordinary working class citizens rejected it - realizing their standard of living has been declining for years.  

So what happened.   The Conservatives and Labour lost badly in the referendum in England and Wales, while in Scotland support for remain was won by the Remainders after support again by Labour and Conservatives - but the Scottish Nationalists claimed it was support for their party only that helped the reminder vote.  

So what would be a wise thing to do for Johnson - get rid of the wavering EU supporters in the Conservative Party as candidates in the upcoming election and do not a split votes by competition between Brexit and the CP.   The CP should not field candidates  get their supporters in Labour Party constituencies where Brexit won and leave those constirutencies to be contested between Brexit and the Labour parties.

On the other hand the two Parties should agree on Conservative Party seats where memebers actually sold out the  referendum results after they supported the remain group and is stills supporting the remain story - despite the outcome of the 2016 referendum.    Depending on the strength of the Labour vote in those constituencies they should determine which of those should be contested by the CP and which by the BP.   

Labour is afraid of supporting an election because they realize they do not have support of the working class to remain not going to fight an election on the basis of  Brexit - which their party leaders not want to happen,               

Dup lication

Great analysis Mike. These marxist slime balls like Corbyn and that Lib Dem twit have be calling for elections forever but are too cowardly to do it!

I wonder about the hapless Scots. Sturgeon  says they want independence from the UK but want to Remain in the EU and be ruled by Brussels!

Tell the Scots to p*ss off and take their bagpipes, skirts and haggis with them. Last I saw they were a drain on the fiscus.

William Wallace must be turning in his grave! Nicola Sturgeon said a child must be allowed to choose its sex by 4 years old. She is the immoral typical far left loon ou rooitwit so loves. Poor ou rooitwit he is sooooo lost. 

It is better for the Brexit deadline to be extended beyond 31st October 2019 than for the UK to leave without a deal

Agree: 43%

Disagree: 39%

Don't know: 10%

If the Government cannot get a Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament, they should go back to the EU and ask for an extension to the UK's leaving date

Agree: 41%

Disagree: 37%

Don't know: 12%

If the Government cannot get a Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament, they should leave the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement (i.e. without a deal)

Agree: 42%

Disagree: 38%

Don't know: 11%

No

I think Labour has a major problem - it was their voters who  voted for Brexit and remain the strongest majority in the still supporting Brexit scenario.   They cannot face an election - in most of their  constituencies the Brexit Party will give them serious uphill.   

Election notice is normally four to six weeks in the UK and Johnson will not extend that to 8 weeks to ensure them crashing out of the EU before an election date.

What Labour is proposing is to undermine the Brexit referendum result by putting in place conditions that would bind any future Parliament to what the fractured one did in desperation.

Farage reckons with a proper election Pact with the Tories they can win a 100 seat majority. 

Apparently Boris doesn't want one but who knows. 

@clevermike

Your wrong on that Labour Brexit vote. Various surveys conducted after the referendum had the Labour leave vote at somewhere between 24% to 34% but most indicated around the 30% mark. In the majority of Labour constituencies that voted leave the Labour vote was mostly remain, but it was combination of the other party voters voting for leave and the minority Labour leave vote that gave leave the win in those constituencies.

Surveys also indicated after the European Elections that every vote Labour lost to the Brexit Party the Conservatives lost three to the Brexit Party. In a bizzare way the Brexit party might be the remain sides secret weapon, if they end up splitting the Conservative vote. However polls do indicate Labour's will lose seats, mostly to the Lib Dems.

The opposition parties do not trust Johnson and for good reason. He lied when he said he would not prorogue parliament, he then prorogued parliament and lied about the reasons for doing so. I'm not making that up a Scottish Court of Session has just today ruled proroguing parliament was illegal and in effect he was lying about the reasons for doing so and lying to the Queen. The matter is now going before the Supreme Court of the UK. Then we have leaked documents indicating that from the start he was never intending to do a deal with the EU he was just giving that appearance and no deal was the intention all along. Apparently two different sources from within the government have gone on record saying they overheard the chief political adviser to Johnson, Dominic Cummings describe the negotiations with the EU as a sham. Johnson claims progress has been made in the negotiations with the EU. Both Ireland the EU say that's not true and no new proposals have put forward by the UK. The UK negotiating team with the EU has downsized to under a quarter of its size under Theresa May, does that sound like they are trying to get a deal. A cabinet minister Amber Rudd resigned saying negotiations where not really happening with the EU and the government was 90% focused on no deal. Hell even his own brother doesn't believe in what Johnson's doing and resigned from the government as well.

That doesn't even take into account his record before he became Prime Minister. He was fired as a newspaper columnist for making up quotes from his grandfather. He promised to resign from government if the 2nd runaway at Heathrow was built, it was and he didn't. He's had something like 4 affairs. The man is a serial liar.

Labour  along with the other parties and MP's who voted this legislation haven't binded any future Parliament. Basically the legislation they passed means Johnson has to get a deal by the next EU summit mid October and then parliament has to have a vote on it. If parliament reject the deal or he doesn't get a deal to bring back to them he must ask for a 3 month extension. If the EU proposes a longer extension, then its up to parliament to decide on whether to accept that longer extension or not. Regardless of the length of extension the next parliament will be free to pursue Brexit in whatever manner they see fit for when the extension ends.

Labour and opposition don't fear an election. That's just a Conservative party spin when Labour outmaneuvered them in parliament. Labour and opposition want an election as soon as the extension is obtained.

Just to clarify the position of all the current parties.

Conservative: Officially they want to leave with a deal but are prepared to leave without one if they believe the deal on offer isn't in the UK's interests in their view. Originally most conservative MP's where remain but there was a small but had hardcore faction of Brexiteers within the Tory party known as the ERG. Most MP's moved to supporting Brexit in order to honor the results of the referendum but are not prepared to leave without a deal due to the economic risks. However the hard line Brexiteers even though a minority in the party have effectively taken control of the party. However the rebelling Tories have effectively taken away the hardliners means of actually governing.

Labour: Their policy is a joke to be honest. Labour want to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement for a more soft version of Brexit often referred to as Leftxit where the UK will remain in the Customs Union. They they will offer a second referendum to the people with a choice between their version of Brexit and remaining. In the referendum they will campaign for remain...yes remain and not their deal. This is because the party is overwhelming remain with one or two Brexit supporters among its ranks, the most notable of whom is actually Jeremy Corbyn. If you think he isn't, look at his anti EU voting record in the House of Commons through the years. They are trying to appeal to all sides here and I don't think it will work.

Brexit: Nice and simple. Leave with no deal.

Lib Dem: They have started just today to moving from a 2nd referendum where they would campaign to remain, to outright straight up revoking article 50 and just cancelling Brexit.

SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru are all remain. 

In Northern Ireland the DUP is for Brexit as long as it doesn't weaken NI position in the union. Sinn Fein is the Nationalist party in NI that have 7 MP's currently but there position is irrelevant due to there abstention policy towards Westminister.

Its not a fact, the polls for Brexit were accurate enough. They caught the rise of the leave vote in the last week or so before the referendum. Things of course are not set in stone. New factors can arise that change peoples opinions. Also just because a poll is not accurate does not mean the inaccuracy was intentional. The polls may have just missed something.

The Tory's have so far rejected the election pact with Brexit. Most likely the moderates in the Conservatives would puck their guts out at the thought of sharing power with Farage and his backer Arron Banks.

Stav

Maybe I was a bit hard on the manipulating the outcome of the Brexit opinion polls - there were very few of those and even at the last day of the referendum the polls were still about 8% out from the actual outcome - the latest polls before the referendum indicated that remain was to win by 4%  - they lost by 4% 

In the USA there were dozens of polls commissioned by the media and the DP that was as much as 15%  out insofar as the actual result was concerned,   Take the examples of the following:-

*    The polls indicated that Clinton would win by 5% in Ohio - she lost by 9%;

*    The polls indicated Trump will win by 1%  in South Carolina - he won by 18%;

*    The polls indicated that Clinton would win in Wisconsin by 13% - Trump won by 4%.   

I can go on and on and give differences in polls predictions and in some other cases the differences were even bigger,   In the national polls only one poll indicate a 1% chance of Trump becoming President - the rest supported Clinton by wide margins.

There is no way the polls was not manufactured to support a pre-determined outcome the pollsters desired.   One can understand a 3% difference - any bigger flaw is really manufacturing of data to fit the specific findings to be attained.

Maybe you misinterpreted what I said about the Labour Party - I was not really referring to the referendum - but what would happen in Labour-orientated constituencies where the Brexit vote  prevailed by huge margins - many by 20% majorities, and how small a chance Labour would be able to prevail in a general election.   In the end one wonders whether the Lib-Dems would not get additional support from the left-leaning Conservatives in a general election and how strong that would be in a general election.   In the EU election it represented a shift of about 10% to them from the Conservative Party and that may give them back the seats they lost in  the 2016 general election - but not much  more.

I am sure the real reasons for the Brexit and Trump wins came out clearer afterwards as stated repeatedly by observers.   The situation is that the support came from a large  group of people who saw that the new world economic order established after the fall of Communism in Russia was not working for them and their families - they factually got poorer with a lower standard of living than they were 30 years ago.  It happened in both the USA  and the UK - but also in many of the other EU countries as well.  It is likely to even have a greater political impact in future.

@mozart

The EU is no corpse. Just look the economic forecasts for the EU and compare them to the UK's if the leave with no deal. 

Southern Europe  on life support?. Again check the projected growth figures for 2020. Only Italy is struggling, remaining virtually stagnant, but Portugal, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Hungary are all forecast to grows next year. Some of those economies will grow at moderate rates and others quite strongly.

You have made the point on German car manufacturing before. I'm not that familiar with the industry so I'm not dismissing what your saying. I've read a few news articles on the topic and there seems to be a range of opinions on how the move will effect the affect the German car industry. I've seen claims that it will cost Germany 114,000 jobs by 2035 and cost billions to the economy. Others are claiming its an opportunity for Germany. But as important as Germany is in the EU, the EU is greater than one country and one industry in one company. Its success and failures have to judged long term across the whole of the EU, not just in one country in one particular time frame.

"If Britain dumps Europe there will be an explosion of creativity and vibrant new alliances.....with the USA, but even more notably the Commonwealth will emerge from irrelevancy. And there will be a new sense that Westminster has a powerful voice in world affairs." 

There will be an explosion alright, an explosion of job losses. Sorry but to suggest the trade deals/new relationships with the US and Commonwealth can come anywhere near close to offset the trade loss of no deal is frankly ludicrous.

Trump has said he will back a quick trade deal on certain conditions, like the NHS being offered up as part of the deal, something the UK public strongly opposes. Zippy Duvall President of the American Farm Bureau has already said UK food standards will need to be lowered to American standards for the US to back a trade deal. Trade deals take time and even with a President favoring a quick deal its very unlikely a trade deal would conclude before his time in office is over and that's even if he gets a second term. But the US congress is threatening to block a trade deal with the UK over what they see as the UK failing to honor their end of the peace process in Northern Ireland. So a trade deal with the US will not be straight forward. And remember this is Donald Trump the UK is dealing with, Mr America first, you know with Trump at the helm the US will be the ones getting a far better deal than the UK. All the more so with the UK holding a gun to its own head. Hell the US has already raised objections to the UK's planned WTO schedules.

As for the Commonwealth. Trade negotiations with Canada have stalled. India says its in no hurry to do a trade deal with the UK. The UK does less trade with the whole continent of Africa, Oceania, and Canada than does with Ireland alone. 

A no deal exit would significantly reduced trade with the UK's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th largest trading partners. 55% of UK trade is with the EU or routed via the EU. It makes sense because these countries are so close to the UK, most of the Commonwealth countries are thousands of miles away with massive big oceans in the way. Again ludicrous to think trade could every be as large, fast or efficient with the Commonwealth as it is with the EU. Have you checked do the Commonwealth countries have the need or capacity to expand trade with the UK, can their economies support it, do the UK and Commonwealth have the capability to reproduce the same type of trade/products/services the UK trades between itself and the EU ?

Leaving the economics out of it. Are you looking for the UK to take a leadership role in the Commonwealth. After watching the Brexit omni-shambles clusterf**k for the last three years, what country would want to follow the UK's political lead on anything?

The UK needs to understand its current place in the world. It's no longer a super power. The Empire is gone and not coming back. Its a middle sized, middle powered country with a lot to be proud of. But it will never on its own again wield the power and influence countries like the US/China/India now or will wield. But they can wield influence in the EU which does stand among the great powers. That's the best they can do.

"A no deal exit would significantly reduced trade with the UK's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th largest trading partners"

Why?

"The UK needs to understand its current place in the world. It's no longer a super power. The Empire is gone and not coming back. Its a middle sized, middle powered country with a lot to be proud of. But it will never on its own again wield the power and influence countries like the US/China/India "

Hint of a chip there?

And that is exactly why they should leave the EU....India? LOL

Middle powered country?...good luck with that!

Merkel is saying they fear Britain as a rival on Europe's doorstep.

I have no doubt whatsoever that after a few initial hiccups the UK will prosper like never before. 

The EU countries are not doing well at all. 

It is indeed wonderful to read about economic growth is some states forming part of the EU.  I hope that the improved economies would reach the primary people in those countries.   I am not sure it will.

In the Obama years for two years the GDP increased by 1,8%  - but the workers got 1% poorer and the unemployment figures going up.  I  do remember that food stamps were given to 17 million people and since has been reduced by the Trump administration to 4 million.  That makes me wonder about economic growth in the EU.   France already suffered the same fate as the USA and the UK.  The working class gets poorer and poorer.  

The other story about Trump wanting the NHS eliminated as a condition for a trade deal is to my mind another of the fake news issues,   Trump has problems with Obama Care and never said anything about the NHS other than it leads to problems as to waiting periods for treatment.   He would never put that down as a condition for a Trade deal.  Would like to know where the proof for that statement comes from?                   

Dupliation

@DbDraad,

They are all EU member states. In order Germany, Netherlands, France, Ireland, Belgium, Italy and Spain. In the event of a no deal the current tariff free and unrestricted movement of trade comes to an end between the UK and those member states. The tariffs alone will render many businesses not viable and companies that use "just in time" supply chains from Europe are also screwed.

No chip on my shoulder. But in fairness I probably should have said Brexiteers, not the UK as the whole. There is a certain small section of the UK population that do pine for the return of Empire or at least the UK somewhat regaining super power status. Its just not a realistic proposition. 

Middle powered, that's what Germany and France are  as well. Individually even the most powerful European countries cannot compete with the likes of the USA, China and in the future of India. They are simply too small and lack the resources to compete.

@sharkbok

As much as I dislike Blair he's probably right on that. Your not the only one board of the debate. Which is a bit of a danger, people are so sick and tired of the issue in the UK they may opt for a terrible idea of no deal just to get it over with.

Your right the EU is bringing in tax evasion laws next year that will hit rich Tories and Brexiteers like Farrage quite badly. Its one of the reasons the Brexiteers are so desperate to leave.

@Beeno1

What she said is she fears the UK becoming a tax haven like Singapore on the EU's doorstep.

A few hiccups!. Check out Operation YellowHammer the UK governments own assessment (this is Boris Johnson government, the document is dated 2nd of August) for the consequences of a no deal exit. They withheld this from the public but where compelled to release it by parliament yesterday. They even changed the name from base case scenario to reasonable worst case planning before releasing it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/operation-yellowhammer-fears-no-deal-brexit-chaos-forced-to-publish-secret-papers

That is not even the worst case scenario, that is known as Operation Black Swan and hasn't been released yet thought parts of it have apparently leaked out.

@clevermike

He said it during the state visit to the UK and to the BBC on the Andrew Marr Show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hH5PTUJeU8

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/02/us-wants-access-to-nhs-in-post-brexit-deal-ambassador-to-uk-says

They are all EU member states. In order Germany, Netherlands, France, Ireland, Belgium, Italy and Spain. In the event of a no deal the current tariff free and unrestricted movement of trade comes to an end between the UK and those member states. The tariffs alone will render many businesses not viable and companies that use "just in time" supply chains from Europe are also screwed.

I ask again, why? Will some other better trade partner appear miraculously? Tariffs? Cut your nose to spite your face? Or just for the hell of it? Or is this whole thing to force the will of the masses on the freedom of a supposedly free country?

This is about centralized control...and it's EVIL....like in the DEVILLE...horns and all.

@mozart

I wouldn't say its clear but I'd say on the balance of probabilities the UK will most likely leave, the question is in what way.

Ah yes the old Brexiteer fallacy, we have a trade deficit with the EU, therefore they need us more than than we need them. The EU is a much larger economy than the UK. The UK accounts for 18% of EU trade. While the EU accounts for 44% of UK trade with another 11-12% of world trade that UK does routed through the EU.  Disrupting that trade is a significant issue for the EU but its its complete disaster for the UK.

Ireland has around a €5 billion Euro trade deficit with the UK but we are not saying they need us more than we need them for the exact same reason as above. The Brexiteers are in agreement that a no deal screws Ireland's economy, pointing out that's a reason for the EU to fold in negotiations. Except for some reason they are denial about their own situation.

Europe does want to preserve the exports to the UK and the dependent jobs but not at any price. Easy for you say worst case scenario's well not occur, your not going to be directly affected if they do.

@DbDraad

Why? As I've explained in previous posts, the tariffs the UK and EU will have to impose on each other is nothing to do with spite or for the hell of it or to force the will of EU on the UK. Its to do with the terms they will be trading under. They will be trading on WTO terms (which is effectively the default way to trade when you don't have a trade agreement between two countries) of which both the UK and the EU are members and the WTO rule/principal of most favored nation.

What ever the EU offers in terms of tariffs with the UK under WTO rules they have to offer every other country in the world they trade with under WTO rules. So the EU can't let the UK keep trading with it tariff free or it has to do the same with everyone other country it trades with under WTO rules. The EU currently puts an 13.5% tariff on agriculture produce from Russia via WTO trade rules. If it doesn't put the same tariff on UK agriculture products or has none then it has to lower or remove them from Russia produce or any other country it trades with under WTO terms. So lets say the EU lets the UK trade completely tariff free with it as it does now as a member. Well then Russia and any other country trading under WTO rules will get to trade with the EU tariff free on everything the UK does. Every country effectively gets to join the EU trade block and get one of its major benefits without actually being members. The EU can't give a third party country a better deal or even the same deal it does to member countries, it defeats the whole point of the EU. You join, you get membership perks in terms of trade. Countries would just end their trade deals with the EU and move over to trading with them on WTO.

Likewise the UK can't just not put tariffs on EU trade as if it does it can't put tariffs on any country it trades with under WTO, except the UK's position is worse than the EU because as it stands the UK will have bugger all trade deals in place and will have to trade with nearly all the worlds countries under WTO rules. In effect no one would want to sign trade deals with the UK because if they trading tariff free with them they already have the best deal possible.

Stav

I watched the Al Jazeera clip and Trump never said anything like the following:-

"Trump has said he will back a quick trade deal on certain conditions, like the NHS being offered up as part of the deal, something the UK public strongly opposes."

I am afraid you got caught in the middle of a fake news approach.   The Guardian can be trusted to produce and repeat fake news stories about Trump.   Last week CNN came up with a story that Trump in a meeting with the Russian Minster of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Ambassador betrayed the identity pf a US agent in Russia, which resulted in the withdrawal of the agent.   Even the New York Times rejected the story as a myth - but the Guardian published the story and from there it found its way to the on-line news media in SA,   When the truth came out - the story  vanished from the SA on-line media.

The above is just one example of the Guardian's campaign against Trump - there are dozens more.   

Sorry - but I differ from you here.   But a nice debate anyway.              

@clevermike

Go to 1 minute 10 seconds in that video. He clearly says the NHS should be on table when he's asked about a trade a deal.

My mistake on the Guardian article, is wasn't Trump who said it, it was the American ambassador to the UK. The journalist in the video asked Trump if he agreed with the ambassador which at the time he clearly indicated he did.

@mozart

Germany's cars are not easily replaced by the UK. Firstly the UK plans to put a 10.6% tariff on finished cars coming into the UK. So straight a way German (and Italian) cars are 10.6% more expensive in the UK leading to reduced trade.  So what about the UK importing cars from America and Japan instead. Because the UK is dealing with the EU, America and Japan under WTO rules and the most favored nation principal applies they also get hit with the same tariffs.  They are effectively stuck with those tariffs unless they get a trade deal with the EU, America and Japan. In fact they are walking away from the EU who have a trade deal with Japan. Also note the fact that America and Japan are many thousands of miles away, meaning higher shipping costs.  

So what about the UK car manufacturing industry. Well the EU will put 13% tariffs on UK cars meaning they are more expensive in Europe leading to reduced demand. Worse still many of the parts the UK use to build their cars are sourced from mainland Europe, some of those parts will have tariffs on them increasing the cost to build the cars. New custom checks and inspections are anticipated to disrupt the just in time supply system car manufacturers in the UK use.  All economic forecasts including those of pro brexit economists (and there is very few of them) anticipate the UK car manufacturing industry will collapse in a no deal Brexit.

Your right that both parties are at risk, just the UK risks substantially more, and for what, to placate the deluded Brexiteers view that the EU is somehow terribly oppressing them, yet can't say how, or make up daft sh*t about the EU banning countries from crushing grapes with there bare-feet, having 437 regulations on paper sizes, or banning UK fishermen posting smoked-kippers in the mail or gasp banning fish and chips being served in newspaper warping (hint the first two are not true, the second two are UK laws not EU laws)

 I hope your right and sanity prevails.

Slav

That I am afraid that is a nonsense deduction from what was  the real issue.  Trump did not refer to the NHS in making that remark - even though somebody did asked the question on the issue,   He just said everything should be on the table.   To imply that the NHS would be affected by the deal arrived at is far-fetched at best.   

Fact is the question was nonsensical,  I have never heard that internal health services would ever be p art of an international trade agreement.

At best I am afraid the deduction is just not logical at all.               

@clevermike Journalist asks at 1.10. "Do you agree with your ambassador that the entire economy needs to be on the table in a future trade talk...trade deal, including the NHS?"

Quote Donald Trump at 1.17 "Look I think everything with a trade deal is on the table, when you...when your dealing with trade everything's on the table, so NHS or anything else."

Mike I'm trying to be polite here but its extremely hard to take you seriously when you say Trump did not refer to the NHS. There is 100% irrefutably evidence unless your saying the video is a fake.

Slav

I find it difficult when a question asked totally irrelevant on the issue being discussed is turned into something crucial to the trade deal.    It was clear that the question was really BS and also clear that Trump was just saying something to get rid of the issue.  

What was discussed was a TRADE DEAL and NHS has NOTHING to do with a Trade Deal.   That is totally ridiculous anyway - and the type of question that really deserve NO ANSWER anyway.

Sorry - maybe I should have put my hearing aid on and not missed out on anything.    

I can see that Trump may be interested in bringing in some elements of the NHS in the USA where the Obama Care program has been a serial flop and Trump in fact had a new programme devised and could use part of the processes  used by NHS in the USA.   That in any way cannot be part of a TRADE DEAL,   It will have to be a secondary agreement of a different sort.   A deal on the NHS would be in a completely different professional sphere from a Trade Deal.  

The NHS is the normal Labour and Remoaner diatribe. Somewhere along the line it was suggested that the NHS could be outsourced to the USA. The reality is that a trade deal "involving" the NHS would probably be in regard to the trade in medicines and medical supplies.

It is no secret that the MHRA, in the UK, is as rigorous as the FDA in the USA. The only concern would be the lobbyists for the big pharma in the USA but I'm sure that the MHRA is well aware of that. Having said that, the Trump administration has been coming down hard on the big pharma lately. One wouldn't know what would happen if the Dems had to get back in power, though. 

If anything, the left and the socialists in the USA is quite envious of the NHS despite the fact that the NHS also have their struggles in certain ares. I am not saying this to rubbish the NHS. On the contrary. I have only ever had great service from the NHS, particularly lately. The A & E depts all over are in a bit of a shambles but that is a different story altogether. It is difficult to get access to everyday medical care due to the laborious system but once you have a serious issue and into the mainstream medical system, so to speak, the service is second to none. Probably even better than many, if not most of the private medical care that I have experienced in South Africa. 

Bear in mind that I haven't had any experience of SA medical services for about ten years. I have no idea what it is like nowadays.

And on another note, the Brexit Party have just booted out labour and  taken control of their first council following a pact with the Tories. All the independents in the council joined the Brexit party who then formed an alliance with the Tories to kick out Labour in Hartlepool. Labour have now effectively lost control of all five councils in the Tees Valley.

@clevermike 

The American Ambassador to the UK in an interview with the BBC that the NHS should be part of a trade deal between the UK and US. The journalist asked Trump did he agree with him, his reply indicated that he did. He later back tracked on this something I wasn't aware of until yesterday so I'm no longer of the view that its an issue in any potential trade agreement between the US and UK.

Its hardly an irrelevant issue. people in the UK have strong opinions on how the NHS should be operated. So not a BS question. Also I don't think Trump was making up answer in this case, it was his feelings at the time, but your basically saying its okay for Trump to make stuff up to avoid answering questions. 

@Ceradyne 

As the US position has changed, I no longer feel the NHS is a potential issue in the US-UK reaching a trade deal. Other issues like food standards and Congress being against a trade deal in the event of a no deal remain significant issues though.

The fear people have was not so much of an outsourcing of the NHS to the US but a fear of the UK health system changing into the America healthcare system in terms of cost of care . Nigel Farage was on record back in 2012 calling for the UK to move to insurance based healthcare system run by private companies. Talk like that makes people nervous when the horror stories you hear coming from the US of injured people begging people not call them an ambulance because they can't afford the fees.

Slav

I am not saying that Trump is to be excused at all - what I am saying is that scare tactics like the one on the NHS normally goes hand in hand with fake news.   

A trade deal with the USA must be negotiated between experts and if the UK cannot stand up  and defend the NHS then they are deserving to be in the EU and governed as a province of Europe .    

Trump is a businessman - he will negotiate  on business principles and not play political gamesmanship.  In an event he does not like the EU and would give the UK extremely favourable terms in negotiations and will do nothing to undermine Brexit.        

Slav

I am not saying that Trump is to be excused at all - what I am saying is that scare tactics like the one on the NHS normally goes hand in hand with fake news.   

A trade deal with the USA must be negotiated between experts and if the UK cannot stand up  and defend the NHS then they are deserving to be in the EU and governed as a province of Europe .    

Trump is a businessman - he will negotiate  on business principles and not play political gamesmanship.  In an event he does not like the EU and would give the UK extremely favourable terms in negotiations and will do nothing to undermine Brexit.        

Slav

I am not saying that Trump is to be excused at all - what I am saying is that scare tactics like the one on the NHS normally goes hand in hand with fake news.   

A trade deal with the USA must be negotiated between experts and if the UK cannot stand up  and defend the NHS then they are deserving to be in the EU and governed as a province of Europe .    

Trump is a businessman - he will negotiate  on business principles and not play political gamesmanship.  In an event he does not like the EU and would give the UK extremely favourable terms in negotiations and will do nothing to undermine Brexit.        

Once the UK leaves they will be in a position to have trade deals with not only the USA (A considerably larger market than Europe) and every other country in the world!

They will regain control over their borders. Absolutely vital if Britain is to remain British and not become a Caliphate. 

They regain control of their laws!

They will not be governed from beauracratic Brussels whose over regulation and one size fits all is a total disaster. 

The facts are very clear. The Globalist controlled EU is a tyranny in the making. Note the crack down on free speech (Thank God Tommy Robinson was released today you should hear what he has to say about the lying globalist rag the Daily Mirror - about as big a rag as the Guardian)

The top economy in Europe, Germany, is floundering. One wonders how long the Germans will fund this failing EU Project. 

There are few if any EU  countries where populist/nationalist support isn't growing.

People are seeing through the horror of Globalism. I give the EU 5 to 10 years. 

I believe UK will Brexit. 

I believe Salvini will come to power and will attempt an Italexit. He will need to get low loan interest financing hitherto provided by the EU. If he can do that they will go. 

The failing EU will unravel with Britain being the MORTAL blow. 

This is what Eurocrats are saying and what even that scumbag Soros is saying. When will this rat he tried and hung for treason! 

"Once the UK leaves they will be in a position to have trade deals with not only the USA (A considerably larger market than Europe) and every other country in the world! "

Not quite correct. The EU is about 500m people v the 312m in the USA.

" They will regain control over their borders. Absolutely vital if Britain is to remain British and not become a Caliphate.  "

That is exaggerating the issue a bit. The average Brit is not concerned about Muslims per se. Their beef is with "underground" extremists. There have been Muslims in the UK for ages and there are many mosques. The issue with immigration has many facets. Their concern is the overcrowding of the islands at first, the strain on the health care services as well as on the education system. An additional strain on education is the fact that the SJWs are happy to bend over and accommodate minorities which is why you have schools where English is a second language. 

This, IMO, is outrages. It links to the fact that many of the foreigners, with the backing of the EU and the SJWs are not to keen or interested in integrating with and adapt to the British way of life and norms. For some reason they expect the Brits to adapt to them. My first priority, when I arrived in the UK, was to find out as much of the British way of life as possible. It was my responsibility to adapt and not the other way around. It was my responsibility to understand that half four means half past four. They do not generally talk about half past four but rather half four. It can be confusing initially, especially for an Afrikaans speaker like myself. It was my responsibility to learn and understand what they mean when they ask you what you are having for tea, i.e. to know that they refer to what we generally know as dinner. There are many many examples.

The long and the short of it is that the immigration issue is not about Muslims, like so many, including specifically Labour and the left in general, would like you to believe.

"The failing EU will unravel with Britain being the MORTAL blow. " 

Actually, nobody, least of all the average senseful Brit, want the EU to fail. Nobody in the world should want that. 

A failed EU means a failed Europe. The world economy just cannot afford that in any way. We have one mainly failed continent already - although some African countries seem to be getting right slowly. There is no way that the world can afford another failed continent, particularly Europe. A failed Europe will most certainly be the end of western civilisation. Can you imagine the orchestra of the world with the likes of China, Russia, NK and the Arab countries on the conductor's podium with the baton in hand?

Islam is most certainly a threat to Britain. Remember a mosque is the centre of Islamic life, superseding local laws. A mosque is a symbol on conquest and control of that area. Worse yet, Globalist politicians are very shariah compliant. There is a greater understanding of Islam and the Arab people than ever before, but white's still have a long way to go in understanding these cultures. 

Windpomp from what i can glean the USA and Britain have a combined GDP of $ 24.4 trillion

The EU minus Britain $16 trillion

From my travels around the internet British people express massive concern regarding the islamification of Britain and of the invasion generally.

The EU nation states are floundering economically and some are in dire straits. The EU powerhouse economy, Germany is struggling , and that before Trump deals with them.

The policies of the EU are purposely designed to destroy Eu nations states, thevr culture trqdvobs and values via mass third world and chiefly muslim migration.

So these EU nations states must do 1 of 2 things. Either they change the EU into a trading group or they get out.

Staying in an unchanged EU will be the end of them as that is the plan. As good ol George Soros said the globalist NWO cannot be implemented unless Western Civilization is DESTROYED! He also said the USA is the biggest impediment to the NWO. Hence also the Globalist alliance wvth vslam which again thankfully so many are now speaking about but which i noticed a few years ago.

Nothing is more calculated to to destroy European Nations than its current globali st rulers.