RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:Catherine Blaiklock of the Brexit National Party



I'm guessing that "someone" just so happened to be called Steve Bannon, because tours straight out of his playbook of lies.
Please note, not only is the above completely implausible (it's the other way round, NHS will sometimes pay for operations overseas), but Slough General doesn't exist. Also notice, Pakistan is not in the EU

There is more sale of NHS services overseas than I believe anyone would like made clear, such is my understanding from speaking to some NHS accountants, but even if politically damaging it's surely still a tiny % of the whole.

In other news Mssr. Farage said that Dominic Cummings of Vote Leave and newly appointed senior advisor to Brave Sir Boris is not a “true believer” in Brexit and suggests that he secretly wants the UK “bound to the EU”.

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Catherine Blaiklock of the Brexit National Party



I'm guessing that "someone" just so happened to be called Steve Bannon, because tours straight out of his playbook of lies.
Please note, not only is the above completely implausible (it's the other way round, NHS will sometimes pay for operations overseas), but Slough General doesn't exist. Also notice, Pakistan is not in the EU

There is more sale of NHS services overseas than I believe anyone would like made clear, such is my understanding from speaking to some NHS accountants, but even if politically damaging it's surely still a tiny % of the whole.

In other news Mssr. Farage said that Dominic Cummings of Vote Leave and newly appointed senior advisor to Brave Sir Boris is not a “true believer” in Brexit and suggests that he secretly wants the UK “bound to the EU”.

It seems that there is considerable rivalry between Cummings and Farage. My take on it is that Cummings believes that Farage and his personality cult followers are a bunch of neanderthals who are at best borderline racist, while Farage sees Cummings as a supercilious intellectual.

They’re probably both right.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Catherine Blaiklock of the Brexit National Party



I'm guessing that "someone" just so happened to be called Steve Bannon, because tours straight out of his playbook of lies.
Please note, not only is the above completely implausible (it's the other way round, NHS will sometimes pay for operations overseas), but Slough General doesn't exist. Also notice, Pakistan is not in the EU

There is more sale of NHS services overseas than I believe anyone would like made clear, such is my understanding from speaking to some NHS accountants, but even if politically damaging it's surely still a tiny % of the whole.

In other news Mssr. Farage said that Dominic Cummings of Vote Leave and newly appointed senior advisor to Brave Sir Boris is not a “true believer” in Brexit and suggests that he secretly wants the UK “bound to the EU”.

It seems that there is considerable rivalry between Cummings and Farage. My take on it is that Cummings believes that Farage and his personality cult followers are a bunch of neanderthals who are at best borderline racist, while Farage sees Cummings as a supercilious intellectual.

They’re probably both right.

Farage is probably not reminding the government he can be an awkward sod, not when they're busy trying to decide on a new ambassador to the US

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:
There is more sale of NHS services overseas than I believe anyone would like made clear, such is my understanding from speaking to some NHS accountants, but even if politically damaging it's surely still a tiny % of the whole.

In other news Mssr. Farage said that Dominic Cummings of Vote Leave and newly appointed senior advisor to Brave Sir Boris is not a “true believer” in Brexit and suggests that he secretly wants the UK “bound to the EU”.

It seems that there is considerable rivalry between Cummings and Farage. My take on it is that Cummings believes that Farage and his personality cult followers are a bunch of neanderthals who are at best borderline racist, while Farage sees Cummings as a supercilious intellectual.

They’re probably both right.

Farage is probably not reminding the government he can be an awkward sod, not when they're busy trying to decide on a new ambassador to the US

I didn’t think that was a realistic option anyway. Uk Ambassadors are, as far as I know, always promoted from within the Civil Service rather bing political appointees for favours done.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: It seems that there is considerable rivalry between Cummings and Farage. My take on it is that Cummings believes that Farage and his personality cult followers are a bunch of neanderthals who are at best borderline racist, while Farage sees Cummings as a supercilious intellectual.

They’re probably both right.

Farage is probably not reminding the government he can be an awkward sod, not when they're busy trying to decide on a new ambassador to the US

I didn’t think that was a realistic option anyway. Uk Ambassadors are, as far as I know, always promoted from within the Civil Service rather bing political appointees for favours done.

I don't think they would go for it, but it doesn't stop Nigel wanting the gig, and given the last few years a political appointment over promoting from within the Civil Service wouldn't be welcome but also wouldn't surprise

Digby wrote:There is more sale of NHS services overseas than I believe anyone would like made clear, such is my understanding from speaking to some NHS accountants, but even if politically damaging it's surely still a tiny % of the whole.

Source from my local CCG (so trustworthy, but I don't have access to his figures to verify - is the guy who brought the tweet to my attention; he wasn't happy about it) says about one third of one percent of health care expenditure is on non-residents; almost all of which is emergency care for people in the country for holiday/business. This is chargeable to their personal / travel insurance; and "mostly" recouped.
I didn't pin him down on what "mostly" meant, and I''m not sure if his 0.3% was local or national.
You are right though, that 0.% of a huge figure would end up being a large number

That's now £6.3bn committed to planning for a no-deal Brexit. It seems rather a large amount of money for an outcome that has been described by the clown-in-chief as having a "vanishingly small" probability of happening.

Last figure I read was £240 million a year that hasn’t been recouped.

Mellsblue wrote:Last figure I read was £240 million a year that hasn’t been recouped.

It's okay though - we don't need those pesky EU grants for the homeless - we're sending the money back!

Stones of granite wrote:That's now £6.3bn committed to planning for a no-deal Brexit. It seems rather a large amount of money for an outcome that has been described by the clown-in-chief as having a "vanishingly small" probability of happening.

Does that sum include the vast numbers of civil servants from all departments being redirected into Brexit planning? And does that sum include a calculation for lost progression and lost efficiencies elsewhere owing to so much focus going on Brexit?

I know it doesn't include the fact the economy is already billions of pounds worse off and investment continues to stagnate. But at least Raab was honest about us going for no deal and the consequences of that, else he'd be a useless lying arsehole (possibly a delusional one in fairness)

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:That's now £6.3bn committed to planning for a no-deal Brexit. It seems rather a large amount of money for an outcome that has been described by the clown-in-chief as having a "vanishingly small" probability of happening.

Does that sum include the vast numbers of civil servants from all departments being redirected into Brexit planning? And does that sum include a calculation for lost progression and lost efficiencies elsewhere owing to so much focus going on Brexit?

I know it doesn't include the fact the economy is already billions of pounds worse off and investment continues to stagnate. But at least Raab was honest about us going for no deal and the consequences of that, else he'd be a useless lying arsehole (possibly a delusional one in fairness)

No idea tbh. It's not even clear if the latest £2.1bn is a new money, or if some if it overlaps with the previously announced £4.2bn.

But for me, it does give the lie to BoJo's promises that they are trying to reach a deal. It looks to me like they are deliberately and consciously heading for a no-deal crash out, and all this manoeuvring is aimed at trying to place the blame on the EU.

I'm really, really glad that I'm not a sheep farmer right now.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:That's now £6.3bn committed to planning for a no-deal Brexit. It seems rather a large amount of money for an outcome that has been described by the clown-in-chief as having a "vanishingly small" probability of happening.

Does that sum include the vast numbers of civil servants from all departments being redirected into Brexit planning? And does that sum include a calculation for lost progression and lost efficiencies elsewhere owing to so much focus going on Brexit?

I know it doesn't include the fact the economy is already billions of pounds worse off and investment continues to stagnate. But at least Raab was honest about us going for no deal and the consequences of that, else he'd be a useless lying arsehole (possibly a delusional one in fairness)

No idea tbh. It's not even clear if the latest £2.1bn is a new money, or if some if it overlaps with the previously announced £4.2bn.

But for me, it does give the lie to BoJo's promises that they are trying to reach a deal. It looks to me like they are deliberately and consciously heading for a no-deal crash out, and all this manoeuvring is aimed at trying to place the blame on the EU.

I'm really, really glad that I'm not a sheep farmer right now.

There is some merit in the idea that the only way to get a deal is to threaten no deal, but we've never seemingly had a good handle on what the EU can reasonably offer us, not what we're willing to trade for it. And there does remain if we go no deal the EU can cherry pick going forwards as we then start to assemble a deal, and this is a particular concern for Fintech as the EU right now physically can't replace what London does, not on a product or regulatory front, but if we give them time they can start to pull at the threads as and when they're ready to take business off London

Doesn't seem to be much change recently. Still can't get answers out of government as a country of a business. Parliament doesn't know what it wants or whether it even has any options left, and the government seems settled it can ignore parliament until it's all done in any event.

Why Parliament pissed so many chances to take control of this process away up the wall I don't know, bar it's seen many putting party over country.

Digby wrote:Doesn't seem to be much change recently. Still can't get answers out of government as a country of a business. Parliament doesn't know what it wants or whether it even has any options left, and the government seems settled it can ignore parliament until it's all done in any event.

Why Parliament pissed so many chances to take control of this process away up the wall I don't know, bar it's seen many putting party over country.

Some of those indicative votes were very close, just a bit of compromise and we could have had a semi sensible answer.

Digby wrote:Doesn't seem to be much change recently. Still can't get answers out of government as a country of a business. Parliament doesn't know what it wants or whether it even has any options left, and the government seems settled it can ignore parliament until it's all done in any event.

Why Parliament pissed so many chances to take control of this process away up the wall I don't know, bar it's seen many putting party over country.

The Emotionless,Rich and Greedy group knows exactly what it wants. Deregulation,deregulation and deregulation.
We've seen what Orban has done to employment law and what Trump is doing to environmental law. The ERG will have it's eyes on the pensions and insurance sector, the accountancy industry and the banking sector. Three areas where this country desperately need tighter regulation. But that ain't what the ERG psychopaths wants.

I see the Telegraph are leading with the headline - "Boris isn't bluffing" - as if they are still trying to convince us that he is interested in negotiating but is taking a strong line. Of course, his puppetmaster has absolutely no intention of allowing him to negotiate and his plan has been a no-deal crash out from the beginning.

The lie that he believes that the chances of a no-deal Brexit are 1 in a million is become ever more exposed.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Doesn't seem to be much change recently. Still can't get answers out of government as a country of a business. Parliament doesn't know what it wants or whether it even has any options left, and the government seems settled it can ignore parliament until it's all done in any event.

Why Parliament pissed so many chances to take control of this process away up the wall I don't know, bar it's seen many putting party over country.

Some of those indicative votes were very close, just a bit of compromise and we could have had a semi sensible answer.

Hard to see a way out now. We either need legislation now saying absent of a deal the government is instructed to revoke A50, or in the event Boris loses a vote of confidence we need a government of national unity ready to take over else Boris can delay until after we've left (probably, based on what the lawyers say)

Or I suppose Boris could land a good deal, but that seems less likely still.

I see that Gove has now waded in, blaming the EU for refusing to negotiate. Entirely predictable and consistent with Dominic's strategy for a no-deal Brexit.

Stones of granite wrote:I see that Gove has now waded in, blaming the EU for refusing to negotiate. Entirely predictable and consistent with Dominic's strategy for a no-deal Brexit.

A position that one Michael Gove was calling retarded just a few weeks back

Did he actually say "retarded"?

That's not OK, especially if you look like he does.

Michael Gove (2016): "If we vote Leave then we're in a position to dictate the terms."

Michael Gove (2019): "At the moment it's the EU that seems to be saying they're not interested. I think that's wrong and sad."

Where are those German car makers when you need them?

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Doesn't seem to be much change recently. Still can't get answers out of government as a country of a business. Parliament doesn't know what it wants or whether it even has any options left, and the government seems settled it can ignore parliament until it's all done in any event.

Why Parliament pissed so many chances to take control of this process away up the wall I don't know, bar it's seen many putting party over country.

Some of those indicative votes were very close, just a bit of compromise and we could have had a semi sensible answer.

Hard to see a way out now. We either need legislation now saying absent of a deal the government is instructed to revoke A50, or in the event Boris loses a vote of confidence we need a government of national unity ready to take over else Boris can delay until after we've left (probably, based on what the lawyers say)

Or I suppose Boris could land a good deal, but that seems less likely still.

MPs (re) screwed the pooch, as was always likely. They are cretins.

I'm increasingly suspicious that Jacob rees-cunt is shorting the pound.
20% wiped off in 3 years.....that's a good return.

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Doesn't seem to be much change recently. Still can't get answers out of government as a country of a business. Parliament doesn't know what it wants or whether it even has any options left, and the government seems settled it can ignore parliament until it's all done in any event.

Why Parliament pissed so many chances to take control of this process away up the wall I don't know, bar it's seen many putting party over country.

Some of those indicative votes were very close, just a bit of compromise and we could have had a semi sensible answer.

Hard to see a way out now. We either need legislation now saying absent of a deal the government is instructed to revoke A50, or in the event Boris loses a vote of confidence we need a government of national unity ready to take over else Boris can delay until after we've left (probably, based on what the lawyers say)

Or I suppose Boris could land a good deal, but that seems less likely still.

Unless the E27 completely cave in, then it’s going to be a no deal exit. I’d actually be happy to see Corbym bring down a Conservative government to avoid that fate. But if Boris’ talk of carrying on regardless is true, even a vote of no confidence might not be enough to avoid a complete crash out.

The only solutions that will avoid a No Deal Brexit to my mind are either a court challenge or a vote of no confidence followed by a temporary government of national unity that lasted long enough to seek an extension.

Thankfully, the latter hope has been thoroughly quashed by the increasingly shite opposition, as Labour have come out and said that they're not interested in the government of national unity ideas as they'd rather have a General Election. The useless cunts. Boris has already made it clear that an election would just be delayed until after 31st October, making that utterly pointless in stopping No Deal, so taking that approach is supporting No Deal by any other name. And what exactly do they think would happen after the GoNU apart from a General Election? It's not like they're going to be stuck serving in a Kenneth Clarke administration for 5 years - it would last just long enough to not crash out and *then* there'd be your sodding precious election.

What a bunch of pricks.

Puja