Maggz

No one actually. However it's definitely what they stand for and the narrative they're pushing. I couldn't say who you'll vote for and honestly I don't care. I'm more talking about the similarities between your statements and their rhetoric. Never belittle, I try to educate. The difference is massive. I also never said everything. No need to twist my words when everything is written, just go back and read my posts again. Every country and government has the obligation to ensure basic public services are available to all its citizens, and that includes things like public transport, energy, water, healthcare, etc. Without any of those services, individual people would not have a normal life, or even worse, would suffer horrifically on daily basis. My problem is that some people don't understand, that calling for privatisation instead of reorganization and optimization means, that the core services become expensive due to profits which private organisations chase, and with that, poor people lose them all together as they can't afford them. It's one of the most unpatriotic thing anyone can do. For a proud country like the UK, I'm shocked how little some people care about their fellow countrymen. It's honestly making me sad on daily basis. Nothing to do with Corbyn, Labour, socialism or Boris...but only with the expectation that all people deserve basic and free or at least cheap public services, as otherwise they will be left behind and will not have a half decent life.

I'd vote labour as I don't believe there is a single type of brexit that all wanted 3 years ago. Show the people what brexit means in detail and reality, and let them pick. I don't care if it's hard Vs remain, bojos deal Vs remain, or whatever else. But everyone I talk to is explaining brexit to me in a completely unique way, so obviously loads of people still don't know what it actually means in practice, as it can't be a thousand different things... Now queue all the brexit means brexit, let's get brexit done, no deal is better than bad deal soundbites

It doesn't fit his capitalist and free market (cough tory) narrative. Also, I assume as it was posted by a politician he doesn't like, he just decided it's not true.

You're missing one option buddy, which is "can't vote, I'm European"

@Ekona and @coldel is this one of you?

I'm sure you know this already, but I'll play the game... No public service in modern days gets sold like a pair of sneakers...with a fixed price, and on a specific date when it goes from public to private. How I see this happening is closer to taking a 20K piece puzzle which is assembled, and you take 1 piece and privatise it. Then another, and another, and before you know it you've removed a dozen, and as the companies running them are interested in profits, and not in the best possible service, things tend to degrade. As service degrades and people complain, company says they can't make it better with the low fees they're charging and huge costs they have, and that prices will go up to ensure a better service. And so the govt. helps with some public funding so the people wouldn't need to pay everything (doh, it's still a public service) and to reduce a bit of outrage. So it's not fully privatised, but it is in the process. Govt. is spending billions trying to keep it somewhat good and accessible to all, while having more and more sections private. So you end up with private hospitals, private ambulances, outsourced nurses, doctors, and probably full treatments as well, as it's easier to pay someone to do your job, than sort out and reorganise your own public service. As the costs of outsourcing increases, all this time the govt. is convincing people that they just can't afford a public NHS, that it's spending billions maintaining it, and that costs are going up year after year, and it's still failing, and after it runs out of foreigners and immigration to blame, it comes up with a perfect solution to all the problems - insurance, which you can get as an extra to whatever is in place at that moment. It's a fair (cough) one as well...The more you pay, the better and more luxurious the service you get. Insurance companies have deals with private clinics. All the money and treatment of 'better off' people goes to private insurance companies and private clinics, making the NHS only a service for the poor.... By this time 1/3 of the NHS is private, outsourced, and ran still with @*!# loads of public money, but only the poor ones use it. Because the govt. obviously can't afford the NHS which performs worse and private sections work gloriously (for those that can afford it), the media campaign starts which convinces people the public NHS is money burned, and that with some proper regulation, private healthcare with subsidized insurance for the poorest will be loads better. Makes sense, right? We know the govt. pisses millions on daily basis on inefficiencies and what not, and private businesses don't....so it makes sense. Right? This can happen within a single full government term. Now someone please tell me how many Brits will see, or protest, or fight for each individual puzzle being privatised? Also if you're well off (I am), or not barely making ends meet, this may sound like a great idea. I'll pay a bit more (I can afford it) and I'll get a lot better service. The problem is, I don't want people who can't afford to pay a bit more, to be shafted and forgotten, as all poorer people always are in a privatised public service...no money, no service or no money no product (medicine).

Why would it not happen here?

Yup, just like the US one is. Can't wait it works as well as there.

I think you should have probably focus on your missus and not try and create a whole conspiracy theory from what you thought a few half heard words meant across another table lol.

Your problem is that you think your perception of the railways is the same as the reality. While you can be happy to believe that, your opinions don't make reality different. Reality is what it is. I'll post this here in hopes you'll actually read it, but I'm already sceptical you even want to know what actually happened and is happening with UK railways as you'll have to do something incredibly hard...change your mind. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0155998214000416 In case you don't...public funding in the 2000s (after privatisation) is higher than it was before privatisation, tickets are more expensive making train travel less accessible than before, and we still have companies making a profit. Also how can it be cheaper to fly from London to Manchester and back, than taking a train?

Finally some sense in this thread

Everything was worse in the 80s, what kind of an argument is that?

Yup, I've never met a single person called Marx I liked! Using a concept and trying to implement it in its entirety is retarded anyway. I'm assuming you're a free market promoter, or at least think it's a good idea if you have such a strong opinion on Marxism or basic/core country services privatisation. You should probably read about the Friedman's Chicago school of economics, and their free market ideas. They've done some great work in Panama, Chile and a few other countries which were their playground. Privatised everything, including things like water (rivers, lakes, etc).

I had to read your reply 5 times as I was sure it was the best piece of sarcasm I've seen in a while, but it seems you're serious... Are we talking about the amazing privatisation of railways in the UK which is taught all across EU Unis as the best case study, and the biggest reason why governments should not privatise basic services which the general population needs for normal functioning? Privatisation in the UK has caused criminal levels of neglect when it comes to maintenance and repairs as private companies worried about profits first, and good service second, and safety third. You're literally supporting the most famous privatisation disaster in modern history in western Europe, which clearly shows why countries should not even attempt to fully privatise public transport without insanely heavy legislation which would ensure safety. Oh...and why additional safety legislation was implemented and after how many derailed trains and accidents? Also how much does the trains cost today? And how good are they? How on time are they? And lastly, have you traveled on train across any other countries?

I'm really interested who fits that description from the current list of candidates.

Let me help. His socialist, communist policies don't fit the hyper capitalist world we live in. Why should people like me pay for working class or poor people, who are according to our holiness likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless, and hopeless and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment.’ It's clear they don't want or deserve the help they get. Or why should my tax contributions be spent on council houses which just breed ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate kids. The UK doesn't need these people or policies, what we need is proper educated, well paid real Brits and not 'uppity and irresponsible women' which have a 'natural desire to have babies' and anyone who supports these archaic policies should seriously reconsider their position Let me help. His socialist, Communist policies don't fit the hyper capitalist world we live in. Why should people like me pay for working class or poor people who are according to our holiness 'likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless, and hopeless and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment.’ It's clear they don't want or deserve the help they get. Or why should my tax contributions be spent on council houses which just breed ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate kids. The UK doesn't need these people or policies, what we need is proper educated, well paid real Brits and not 'uppity and irresponsible women' which have a 'natural desire to have babies' and anyone who supports these archaic policies should seriously reconsider their position

It is monumentally ironic that the Member State planning to leave the EU because they want to make their own decisions, can't take any decision on leaving the EU

You clearly know absolutely nothing about what the EU is, why it was created and why it is being maintained. You could have at least read the wiki page on it and your question would be answered. However, I know you're actually not looking for an answer but rather making a point of how great and rich the UK is and how leaching counties are joining it and taking our money (so very Trumpian of you), and implying we don't want to help others, which is fine. Anyone who knows nothing about its countries history, or the history of the continent they belong to, can have that opinion, it's just sad how oblivious some people are. History has thought us that nationalism, borders, heritage, pride and land claims cause wars. Please do yourself a favour and check the list of all wars waged on the European continent, to get an idea how often we've had them. No one wins in wars, everyone loses. Some more than others but no one has ever benefited from it. It kills and maims, it destroys families and communities, and it bankrupts countries - UK was quite good from living of handouts and credits from the US until it joined the EU. Now coming back to your "pay less invest more" theory...Our government already said they can't guarantee they will make up the lost funding in Wales or NI or anywhere else because it doesn't have that money. It's fictional... The economy is shrinking, pound falling and that's not the best investment environment, it's a lot better for austerity actually. Next, the govt also said that we've lost a lot more per month than you guys were promised we'll save, by just the pound tanking, and we've not even left yet. There will be less money than we have now, and Wales and NI will have no reimbursement, and NHS will have less money as well. Crazy right? So no, global economy doesn't work like your personal wallet, where if you take out £5 less, you are actually left with more money....

The rules the EU uses for wealth distribution is quite similar to what every country uses for taxes...which is the rich pay most, the poor pay least. I've been in both brackets in my life and agree this is the easiest way it can work. So your question is like asking if we, who earn above the average salary in the UK, really need the poor? And do they really need us, or only our money? It's quite a twisted view of the world we live in especially as half the money we pay to EU is returned to us and is invested frequently in poorer regions like Wales, NI, etc. We're a society where everyone needs everyone and as we've been enjoying the longest peace and prosperity in Europe in generations or maybe forever, keeping the union literally saves millions of lives. So the question is... Do you need peace, prosperity, good neighbors, alliances and live in a continent where we work together to compete with Chinese, Americans, and Russians, and not compete between ourselves? I'd say yes to all above,...

You need to check more of Pies content. It's quite good, stand-up is debatable, but these clips are golden. Fully aware someone may say there's no opinions and only social media links, but this was quite eye opening for me. If anyone has the time to watch it, I'd highly recommend it

People who work in any industry which operates internationally and are working on a management level know it will be really bad. People who understand that there is not a single country which is self sufficient know it will be really bad. And anyone which took part in any negotiations in any shape of form knows the UK will be in an inferior position when negotiating any - and this part is important - any trade deals due to the UK market size, due to the fact the UK desperately needs deals (no one else does as bad), and due to the fact that there is no allies in business and international trade, it's every man, or in this case country, for himself. The problem is, that that's a minority population wise, and anyone with any experience was dismissed by Gove and his comments about being tired of experts. Also as soon as everyone basically couldn't hide behind fake numbers the discussion focused on unelected EU officials, sovereignty, fisheries and everything else which a basic person can't even understand due to the complexity, but they can definitely have a very strong emotion around it. And when it comes to national pride for the better word and sovereignty, people are ready to sacrifice everything for it. Which is funny as all sovereignty and pride will go out the window during US, China, India, Australia, or any other country trade negotiations. All will want concessions on healthcare, standards, visas, and everything else we're now supposedly fighting for. A global world does not have room for Trumpian protectionism and nationalism. At the end of the day it'll be US, China, Russia, EU, maybe India, and everyone else fragmented. And everyone else never had any influence, power or impact on anything. They're just noise unfortunately. But I get it... emotions are a bit** and it's hard to think rationally when people are telling you everyone (EU) is out to get you

The discussion is the whole thread btw. The whole 30 page thread. What you're talking about is a post, and yes, a post can contain useful information from a 3rd party credible source, and is considered part of the discussion if it's on topic. Now... If anyone posts a knitting guide here from Facebook, then I'd say that's definitely not part of the discussion.

I went back 6 pages... Either you don't know what most means or we're not looking at the same thread. There was like 4 memes and 2 Twitter screenshots (from the top of my head - did not write down an official count!). The rest were articles from political institutions, media outlets, etc. Part of discussing a topic is actually supporting claims with resources and hopefully credible ones. Just because someone only types things without providing anything else, does not mean he contributed more. Unless... You're counting key strokes as contribution?!

Am I'm missing a sarcasm tag or something? This is the most confusing post in this 30 page thread

This is a great summary. How I see this vote against no deal brexit, is that it is what is forcing the parliament into a decision - any decision apart from not doing anything and falling out on 29th. This means that they now need to do one of the following things - accept May's deal or get an extension - there's no other option. May's deal is probably not going through, so extension is the only possibility left. Now what the extension is for is where it gets interesting. Is it for a GE, for a referendum or for trying to renegotiate with the block who won't negotiate any more, or if the impossible happens and May's deal gets somehow voted in, the extension could only be needed for legislating May's withdrawal agreement. But that's basically it. Depending on what is the reason for the extension, will (I assume) define the time or length of the extension.