FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > With the new budget will there be even more strikes
With the new budget will there be even more strikes
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc" Of course there will, the Unions scent blood and want to bring down a democratically elected government by non-democratic means because they don’t like the party people voted for. And I say this agnositcally of politics, if we had PR and a centr-right coalition of parties the Unions would be doing the same. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc Of course there will, the Unions scent blood and want to bring down a democratically elected government by non-democratic means because they don’t like the party people voted for. And I say this agnositcally of politics, if we had PR and a centr-right coalition of parties the Unions would be doing the same. " I support the workers going in strike . They are striking for better pay and working conditions | |||
| |||
" I support the workers going in strike . They are striking for better pay and working conditions " Is that because we still have the working conditions of a Dickensian dystopia? I mean, pity the poor rail staff who can re-start their break if a manager says hello to them, or who have 15 mins of contracted “walking time” from one platform to the next, or who even though perfectly capable of fixing a lightbuld in Euston but won’t because they work in Kings X. It’s terrible I say, inhuman even. When do I get to go on strike? When do my kids get a tuition fee refund from the lecturers who are too busy decolonising their syllabi to teach and have gone on strike at the most criticval time of the University year for final year students? The demands of the unions are unreasonable and they are so for a reason, politics. They need to get over the fact that Corbyn comprehensivly lost and their hoped-for commy society of the 1970s went with Magic Grandad. | |||
" I support the workers going in strike . They are striking for better pay and working conditions Is that because we still have the working conditions of a Dickensian dystopia? I mean, pity the poor rail staff who can re-start their break if a manager says hello to them, or who have 15 mins of contracted “walking time” from one platform to the next, or who even though perfectly capable of fixing a lightbuld in Euston but won’t because they work in Kings X. It’s terrible I say, inhuman even. When do I get to go on strike? When do my kids get a tuition fee refund from the lecturers who are too busy decolonising their syllabi to teach and have gone on strike at the most criticval time of the University year for final year students? The demands of the unions are unreasonable and they are so for a reason, politics. They need to get over the fact that Corbyn comprehensivly lost and their hoped-for commy society of the 1970s went with Magic Grandad. " Blimey, do people really think like this or is this a parody post? | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc" I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc" I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. | |||
| |||
" I support the workers going in strike . They are striking for better pay and working conditions Is that because we still have the working conditions of a Dickensian dystopia? I mean, pity the poor rail staff who can re-start their break if a manager says hello to them, or who have 15 mins of contracted “walking time” from one platform to the next, or who even though perfectly capable of fixing a lightbuld in Euston but won’t because they work in Kings X. It’s terrible I say, inhuman even. When do I get to go on strike? When do my kids get a tuition fee refund from the lecturers who are too busy decolonising their syllabi to teach and have gone on strike at the most criticval time of the University year for final year students? The demands of the unions are unreasonable and they are so for a reason, politics. They need to get over the fact that Corbyn comprehensivly lost and their hoped-for commy society of the 1970s went with Magic Grandad. " Are you saying that they are striking because Corbyn lost the 2019 GE? Bizarre claim. You will have to start getting used to strikes  | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity." They are woefully underfunded and under paid | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid " They did get claps though. What more do they want! They should trade in their claps for electricity and food. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid " Hysterical. Do you actually know any doctors? | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid They did get claps though. What more do they want! They should trade in their claps for electricity and food." Ah yes, the clapping, however , it won’t be long until someone on here will criticise them for ‘dancing on tik Tok’  | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid Hysterical. Do you actually know any doctors?" Yeah, do you know any nurses? | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity." What do you propose as an alternative? | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid " Are you sure you have this the right way round? The NHS is grossly over funded but the money is wasted (rather than being used to pay a decent wage to the lowest paid staff). | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid Hysterical. Do you actually know any doctors? Yeah, do you know any nurses? " Yes I know plenty of doctors and nurses thanks. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid Hysterical. Do you actually know any doctors? Yeah, do you know any nurses? Yes I know plenty of doctors and nurses thanks. " Does the number of doctors and nurses that you know personally impact their pay? Seems like a bizarre thing to imply. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid Hysterical. Do you actually know any doctors? Yeah, do you know any nurses? Yes I know plenty of doctors and nurses thanks. " So what is your alternative to the NHS? | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid Are you sure you have this the right way round? The NHS is grossly over funded but the money is wasted (rather than being used to pay a decent wage to the lowest paid staff)." It is definitely not ‘grossly overfunded’ , are you satisfied with the NHS service you receive | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid Hysterical. Do you actually know any doctors? Yeah, do you know any nurses? Yes I know plenty of doctors and nurses thanks. " Excellent, | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid Are you sure you have this the right way round? The NHS is grossly over funded but the money is wasted (rather than being used to pay a decent wage to the lowest paid staff). It is definitely not ‘grossly overfunded’ , are you satisfied with the NHS service you receive " On the very few occasions I have had any dealings with them the service has been adequate. It is not a matter of pouring more money in. Money should be spent wisely. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. They are woefully underfunded and under paid Are you sure you have this the right way round? The NHS is grossly over funded but the money is wasted (rather than being used to pay a decent wage to the lowest paid staff). It is definitely not ‘grossly overfunded’ , are you satisfied with the NHS service you receive On the very few occasions I have had any dealings with them the service has been adequate. It is not a matter of pouring more money in. Money should be spent wisely." Public money should always be spent wisely, | |||
| |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ?" Definitely object. The NHS already takes about 45% of government spending. Way too much. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? Definitely object. The NHS already takes about 45% of government spending. Way too much." We have an ageing and unhealthy population, the NHS is being over stretched | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ?" If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect." Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? Definitely object. The NHS already takes about 45% of government spending. Way too much. We have an ageing and unhealthy population, the NHS is being over stretched " That is the fundamental problem (not helped by waste and inefficiency in the NHS). The scope of what the NHS does needs a rethink as it is unsustainable to keep throwing good money after bad. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? Definitely object. The NHS already takes about 45% of government spending. Way too much. We have an ageing and unhealthy population, the NHS is being over stretched That is the fundamental problem (not helped by waste and inefficiency in the NHS). The scope of what the NHS does needs a rethink as it is unsustainable to keep throwing good money after bad." I agree, money is being wasted , but their budget has to increase not decrease | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? Definitely object. The NHS already takes about 45% of government spending. Way too much. We have an ageing and unhealthy population, the NHS is being over stretched That is the fundamental problem (not helped by waste and inefficiency in the NHS). The scope of what the NHS does needs a rethink as it is unsustainable to keep throwing good money after bad. I agree, money is being wasted , but their budget has to increase not decrease " Fundamentally disagree. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? Definitely object. The NHS already takes about 45% of government spending. Way too much. We have an ageing and unhealthy population, the NHS is being over stretched That is the fundamental problem (not helped by waste and inefficiency in the NHS). The scope of what the NHS does needs a rethink as it is unsustainable to keep throwing good money after bad. I agree, money is being wasted , but their budget has to increase not decrease Fundamentally disagree." Why? We have an increasingly aging and unhealthy population , the NHS can’t cope | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? " What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't." It is a simple question, I am not sure why you can’t answer it  | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't. It is a simple question, I am not sure why you can’t answer it "Probably because I'm not interested in discussing my health with some random on the internet. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't. It is a simple question, I am not sure why you can’t answer it
Probably because I'm not interested in discussing my health with some random on the internet."I see, for the record, I have always been satisfied with the NHS and I thought their response to COVID and the vaccine roll out was remarkable | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? Definitely object. The NHS already takes about 45% of government spending. Way too much. We have an ageing and unhealthy population, the NHS is being over stretched That is the fundamental problem (not helped by waste and inefficiency in the NHS). The scope of what the NHS does needs a rethink as it is unsustainable to keep throwing good money after bad. I agree, money is being wasted , but their budget has to increase not decrease Fundamentally disagree. Why? We have an increasingly aging and unhealthy population , the NHS can’t cope " Money needs to be spent more wisely. It is much cheaper to provide care for elderly people in the community than allowing them to bed-block hospitals. Divert funding to ensure that happens. Should the NHS really be keeping people alive at great cost in their final few months? Should the NHS treat people for wholly self-inflicted disease if that person has been advised repeatedly to change their lifestyle? Should the NHS provide so many elective procedures? All difficult questions but nobody seems to want to address them. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't. It is a simple question, I am not sure why you can’t answer it
Probably because I'm not interested in discussing my health with some random on the internet.
I see, for the record, I have always been satisfied with the NHS and I thought their response to COVID and the vaccine roll out was remarkable "Ah yes the COVID Health Service. To be honest I doubt whether there could be any circumstances where you would say otherwise. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't. It is a simple question, I am not sure why you can’t answer it
Probably because I'm not interested in discussing my health with some random on the internet.
I see, for the record, I have always been satisfied with the NHS and I thought their response to COVID and the vaccine roll out was remarkable
Ah yes the COVID Health Service.
To be honest I doubt whether there could be any circumstances where you would say otherwise. "I am only speaking from personal experience, unfortunately you can’t do the same | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't." And a fair chunk of that £2b goes to lawyers. Maybe that's an issue to tackle | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't. And a fair chunk of that £2b goes to lawyers. Maybe that's an issue to tackle" Why? Are you saying that people who are injured by the NHS should not be helped to obtain justice? | |||
| |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't. And a fair chunk of that £2b goes to lawyers. Maybe that's an issue to tackle Why? Are you saying that people who are injured by the NHS should not be helped to obtain justice? " Are these ‘lefty’ lawyers? | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? Definitely object. The NHS already takes about 45% of government spending. Way too much. We have an ageing and unhealthy population, the NHS is being over stretched That is the fundamental problem (not helped by waste and inefficiency in the NHS). The scope of what the NHS does needs a rethink as it is unsustainable to keep throwing good money after bad." The scope of what the NHS dose needs a rethink as it is? Can you elaborate on that. I can only think of onething that might save the NHS lots of money but that's a diferant debate. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ?" 2% on VAT I would support and 10% on a sugger / processed food Dutie I would support. If its going to help. As for care for the elderly I'd add 5% to rates so the money is with local council not central government. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? Definitely object. The NHS already takes about 45% of government spending. Way too much. We have an ageing and unhealthy population, the NHS is being over stretched That is the fundamental problem (not helped by waste and inefficiency in the NHS). The scope of what the NHS does needs a rethink as it is unsustainable to keep throwing good money after bad. I agree, money is being wasted , but their budget has to increase not decrease Fundamentally disagree. Why? We have an increasingly aging and unhealthy population , the NHS can’t cope Money needs to be spent more wisely. It is much cheaper to provide care for elderly people in the community than allowing them to bed-block hospitals. Divert funding to ensure that happens. Should the NHS really be keeping people alive at great cost in their final few months? Yes Should the NHS treat people for wholly self-inflicted disease if that person has been advised repeatedly to change their lifestyle? Yes Should the NHS provide so many elective procedures? Yes All difficult questions but nobody seems to want to address them." All medical staff do the best for a patient so would you want a 111 or 999 call handler to answer the phone with sorry they might have had a hart attack but at 75 it's not worth sending a crew out. Where would you draw a line ?? | |||
| |||
" 2% on VAT I would support and 10% on a sugger / processed food Dutie I would support. If its going to help. As for care for the elderly I'd add 5% to rates so the money is with local council not central government." Both of those would have a greater affect on those less well off Income tax is much fairer as if you don't earn much you don't pay as much .,.. simple | |||
"Back to the original question. I do not support any strikes, if you are not happy with the benefits then find another job or work harder and get promoted. And asking for a 17% pay rise is a joke One of the biggest problems in the public sector is many are still on final salary pensions which the private sector stopped in early 2000's. It also makes me laugh that they cancelled the recent rail strike and only 1 in 5 trains ran anyway on the Monday." So you would be OK if 50% of nurses left the NHS by Xmas And if 20% of civil servets left there position leveing under staffed services more under staffed. And a spiral down. | |||
" 2% on VAT I would support and 10% on a sugger / processed food Dutie I would support. If its going to help. As for care for the elderly I'd add 5% to rates so the money is with local council not central government. Both of those would have a greater affect on those less well off Income tax is much fairer as if you don't earn much you don't pay as much .,.. simple " But if you earn alot you don't pay income tax anyway you run a limited company to get round it. But you still buy top end goods so surly the rich how spend more would pay more. The pore who only can afford food would not be effected as most food is Vat exempt. | |||
| |||
" 2% on VAT I would support and 10% on a sugger / processed food Dutie I would support. If its going to help. As for care for the elderly I'd add 5% to rates so the money is with local council not central government. Both of those would have a greater affect on those less well off Income tax is much fairer as if you don't earn much you don't pay as much .,.. simple But if you earn alot you don't pay income tax anyway you run a limited company to get round it. But you still buy top end goods so surly the rich how spend more would pay more. The pore who only can afford food would not be effected as most food is Vat exempt." Lol, you obviously don't know much about limited companies or UK taxation ! Many foods are NOT vat exempt neither are most services or fuel. Turkeys don't support Christmas | |||
" 2% on VAT I would support and 10% on a sugger / processed food Dutie I would support. If its going to help. As for care for the elderly I'd add 5% to rates so the money is with local council not central government. Both of those would have a greater affect on those less well off Income tax is much fairer as if you don't earn much you don't pay as much .,.. simple But if you earn alot you don't pay income tax anyway you run a limited company to get round it. But you still buy top end goods so surly the rich how spend more would pay more. The pore who only can afford food would not be effected as most food is Vat exempt. Lol, you obviously don't know much about limited companies or UK taxation ! Many foods are NOT vat exempt neither are most services or fuel. Turkeys don't support Christmas " I know a bit about limited companys am a director of 2. So I do know a bit an no I don't pay ANY National insurance.dont have to. As I don't earn enough lol. | |||
"How many would object to a 3% increase in the basic rate of income tax and 2% increase in national insurance to fund a 20% pay rise for NHS staff and improve care for the elderly ? If that was the last increase the NHS would ever get I'd say go for it, but in reality the day after the increase the NHS would be asking for more. I can't see anything from the last two years' experience that would suggest that giving such an increase would improve the quality of the service, in fact it may well have the opposite effect. Are you satisfied with the NHS service you have received? What has one person's experience with the NHS got to do with anything? I'm sure some people are satisfied. Given that the NHS pays out £2 billion a year in clinical negligence claims I guess others aren't. And a fair chunk of that £2b goes to lawyers. Maybe that's an issue to tackle Why? Are you saying that people who are injured by the NHS should not be helped to obtain justice? Are these ‘lefty’ lawyers? " I guess if they are suing the NHS Cult they must be "Alt Right". I mean don't these people suing the NHS realise how lucky they are, being treated by the best health service in the world? | |||
" 2% on VAT I would support and 10% on a sugger / processed food Dutie I would support. If its going to help. As for care for the elderly I'd add 5% to rates so the money is with local council not central government. Both of those would have a greater affect on those less well off Income tax is much fairer as if you don't earn much you don't pay as much .,.. simple But if you earn alot you don't pay income tax anyway you run a limited company to get round it. But you still buy top end goods so surly the rich how spend more would pay more. The pore who only can afford food would not be effected as most food is Vat exempt. Lol, you obviously don't know much about limited companies or UK taxation ! Many foods are NOT vat exempt neither are most services or fuel. Turkeys don't support Christmas I know a bit about limited companys am a director of 2. So I do know a bit an no I don't pay ANY National insurance.dont have to. As I don't earn enough lol." Yeah I'm an astronaut and I get free chewing gum lol | |||
"Back to the original question. I do not support any strikes, if you are not happy with the benefits then find another job or work harder and get promoted. And asking for a 17% pay rise is a joke One of the biggest problems in the public sector is many are still on final salary pensions which the private sector stopped in early 2000's. It also makes me laugh that they cancelled the recent rail strike and only 1 in 5 trains ran anyway on the Monday. So you would be OK if 50% of nurses left the NHS by Xmas And if 20% of civil servets left there position leveing under staffed services more under staffed. And a spiral down." If it meant I did not have to pay NI and a reduced council tax bill, definitely. There is so much wasted in the NHS and public sector | |||
| |||
"You often read that the NHS is not fit for purpose but the problem actually is it's not being used for purpose. For example, go to your average A&E. Department and it isn't folk with broken arms you'll find, it's junkies overdosed and often causing bother along with the d*unks. Then we have the wards which are full of elderly with nowhere to go, delayed discharges it's called. Many in for weeks waiting for a package of are to get home or an even longer wait for a nursing home. It becomes glorified babysitting and let me tell you it's hard work. You try looking after 30 dependant elderly people, many of whom are demented and need 1 to 1 care which isn't easy for 5 maybe 6 staff if you're lucky to do. Patients requiring assistance of 2 to do everything from wash, toilet and even move about the bed. All for crap wage. It's mentally and physically draining work for very little reward. Bigger wage isn't going to make it less hard work of course but it may help in retaining the staff the NHS does have who currently feel the wage they get just isn't worth the backbreaking work they do " I completely agree. The NHS should have a massive pay rise so they are paid for what they are worth. My local Yodel delivery driver told me a few days ago that she worked as a NHS nurse for 8 years and gave it up to deliver parcels for less hours, more money and a better quality of life | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc Of course there will, the Unions scent blood and want to bring down a democratically elected government by non-democratic means because they don’t like the party people voted for. And I say this agnositcally of politics, if we had PR and a centr-right coalition of parties the Unions would be doing the same. " Hahaha what an absolute load of claptrap and typical rhetoric of what the Tory Party spews.. The Unions ,my friend,are standing up for the workers the represent.. Wages have stagnated while every goes up.. The Government were shouting " Clap for the NHS" during covid but when it comes to paying the nurses it's a different matter..Stop reading the Sun and look all around you.. If the corporates can pay their shareholders record dividends they, with the Government, can pay real wages.. For me I'd support a General strike.. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc I say they should go on strike. I doubt whether anyone will notice. It's not like "Our NHS" is providing much of a service anyway. The sooner people wake up and realise throwing money at them isn't making any difference to the service the better. The amount of money given to the NHS seems to be inversely proportional to its productivity. What do you propose as an alternative?" A socially funded insurance scheme like they have in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal and many other countries with far better health outcomes for a lower proportion of GDP expenditure. The fact is the model of the NHS is fundamentally broken. The problem we have is that the discourse on how to fund and operate a health care system is never going to happen because the second anyone speaks this truth they get shouted down by the hysterical left for breaching the article of faith that is the creed and cult of the NHS. The model of the NHS was the solution for the late 1940’s, 80 years on a different solution is needed. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc Of course there will, the Unions scent blood and want to bring down a democratically elected government by non-democratic means because they don’t like the party people voted for. And I say this agnositcally of politics, if we had PR and a centr-right coalition of parties the Unions would be doing the same. Hahaha what an absolute load of claptrap and typical rhetoric of what the Tory Party spews.. The Unions ,my friend,are standing up for the workers the represent.. Wages have stagnated while every goes up.. The Government were shouting " Clap for the NHS" during covid but when it comes to paying the nurses it's a different matter..Stop reading the Sun and look all around you.. If the corporates can pay their shareholders record dividends they, with the Government, can pay real wages.. For me I'd support a General strike.. " I’m no Tory, they are just the other cheek on the socialist arse. I’d support legislative change to de-link union funding from the Labour Party, a requirement for a strike ballot to achieve a 70% threshold of all members (not a simple majority of returned ballots), the banning of picket lines and for a baseline minimum service to be maintained during strike action in all sectors linked to vital infrastructure like transport, logistics, health and public services, and any of their vital supply chains. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc Of course there will, the Unions scent blood and want to bring down a democratically elected government by non-democratic means because they don’t like the party people voted for. And I say this agnositcally of politics, if we had PR and a centr-right coalition of parties the Unions would be doing the same. Hahaha what an absolute load of claptrap and typical rhetoric of what the Tory Party spews.. The Unions ,my friend,are standing up for the workers the represent.. Wages have stagnated while every goes up.. The Government were shouting " Clap for the NHS" during covid but when it comes to paying the nurses it's a different matter..Stop reading the Sun and look all around you.. If the corporates can pay their shareholders record dividends they, with the Government, can pay real wages.. For me I'd support a General strike.. I’m no Tory, they are just the other cheek on the socialist arse. I’d support legislative change to de-link union funding from the Labour Party, a requirement for a strike ballot to achieve a 70% threshold of all members (not a simple majority of returned ballots), the banning of picket lines and for a baseline minimum service to be maintained during strike action in all sectors linked to vital infrastructure like transport, logistics, health and public services, and any of their vital supply chains. " If Nurses are offered 2.5% and benefits go up buy 10% is that right Nurses often even have to pay £10 to £17 a day to park at a hospital WTF | |||
" If Nurses are offered 2.5% and benefits go up buy 10% is that right Nurses often even have to pay £10 to £17 a day to park at a hospital WTF" The parking issue is a red herring in one respect, in that it is entirely within the gift of the NHS trust to set (or waive) parking charges for staff. I agree, it is extortionate, just like the parking charges I and tens of thousands of others have to pay to park at a railway station on top of the thousands I have to pay to commute (currently costing me around £890 a month for railcard and parking, the latter being £1600 a year). If the CEO’s or FDs of the Trusts wanted to set lower parking charges, they could, it’s not got nothing to do with pay bargaining with Government. Nurses are reasonably well paid. Nurses start on Band 5 which is £27k rising to £34 after 4 years. That’s basic pay and doesn’t include shift allowances and overtime which means an average nurse who does minimal or no overtime will expect to earn around £35k in their first year. Accepting that it represents a very small amount of the profession, a nurse on band 9c in a senior management role can earn up to £109k. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc Of course there will, the Unions scent blood and want to bring down a democratically elected government by non-democratic means because they don’t like the party people voted for. And I say this agnositcally of politics, if we had PR and a centr-right coalition of parties the Unions would be doing the same. Hahaha what an absolute load of claptrap and typical rhetoric of what the Tory Party spews.. The Unions ,my friend,are standing up for the workers the represent.. Wages have stagnated while every goes up.. The Government were shouting " Clap for the NHS" during covid but when it comes to paying the nurses it's a different matter..Stop reading the Sun and look all around you.. If the corporates can pay their shareholders record dividends they, with the Government, can pay real wages.. For me I'd support a General strike.. I’m no Tory, they are just the other cheek on the socialist arse. I’d support legislative change to de-link union funding from the Labour Party, a requirement for a strike ballot to achieve a 70% threshold of all members (not a simple majority of returned ballots), the banning of picket lines and for a baseline minimum service to be maintained during strike action in all sectors linked to vital infrastructure like transport, logistics, health and public services, and any of their vital supply chains. " Why 70%? | |||
 | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit…. "Exactly, | |||
| |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit…. "Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery. It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off. | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off. "Actually, the Brexit vote would have been nowhere near meeting the thresholds that unions have to meet to strike. Not even close. | |||
"And if there is do you support them whether nursing staff, teachers etc Of course there will, the Unions scent blood and want to bring down a democratically elected government by non-democratic means because they don’t like the party people voted for. And I say this agnositcally of politics, if we had PR and a centr-right coalition of parties the Unions would be doing the same. Hahaha what an absolute load of claptrap and typical rhetoric of what the Tory Party spews.. The Unions ,my friend,are standing up for the workers the represent.. Wages have stagnated while every goes up.. The Government were shouting " Clap for the NHS" during covid but when it comes to paying the nurses it's a different matter..Stop reading the Sun and look all around you.. If the corporates can pay their shareholders record dividends they, with the Government, can pay real wages.. For me I'd support a General strike.. I’m no Tory, they are just the other cheek on the socialist arse. I’d support legislative change to de-link union funding from the Labour Party, a requirement for a strike ballot to achieve a 70% threshold of all members (not a simple majority of returned ballots), the banning of picket lines and for a baseline minimum service to be maintained during strike action in all sectors linked to vital infrastructure like transport, logistics, health and public services, and any of their vital supply chains. " political finding in general needs looking at. Of a union cam influence the Labour party then a rich Tory benefactor has equal power. I have some sympathy for your views but would go as far as saying if a service is seen as vital, it needs more protection than a purely capitalist venture. Especially if we are restricting their way to influence their paymasters. That goes as far looking at funding. | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off. "How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ? | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ? "multicoloured immigration. Less over farming More pretty stamps in passports. (Tbh, I'm sure Brexit is a good thing for some people, and not just the elite. We need to agree what "good" means before we can discuss... Of course, noone agrees !!) | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ? multicoloured immigration.
Less over farming
More pretty stamps in passports.
(Tbh, I'm sure Brexit is a good thing for some people, and not just the elite. We need to agree what "good" means before we can discuss... Of course, noone agrees !!)"Good, ie , better than it was before Brexit  | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ? multicoloured immigration.
Less over farming
More pretty stamps in passports.
(Tbh, I'm sure Brexit is a good thing for some people, and not just the elite. We need to agree what "good" means before we can discuss... Of course, noone agrees !!)"I believe part of the problem is that saying brexit will negatively impact the GDP of the UK by c.4% a year, every year, is too abstract a concept for many/most people. Possibly a better way is to say that a 4% hit to GDP is c.£100bn less in the UK economy equating to c.£40-50bn in lost revenue to the Exchequer, which means the £50bn black hole in govt finances would not need filling so tax rises and cuts to public services would not be needed. In my mind getting through Covid and helping Ukraine and not having a “black hole” would be GOOD! | |||
" If Nurses are offered 2.5% and benefits go up buy 10% is that right Nurses often even have to pay £10 to £17 a day to park at a hospital WTF The parking issue is a red herring in one respect, in that it is entirely within the gift of the NHS trust to set (or waive) parking charges for staff. I agree, it is extortionate, just like the parking charges I and tens of thousands of others have to pay to park at a railway station on top of the thousands I have to pay to commute (currently costing me around £890 a month for railcard and parking, the latter being £1600 a year). If the CEO’s or FDs of the Trusts wanted to set lower parking charges, they could, it’s not got nothing to do with pay bargaining with Government. Nurses are reasonably well paid. Nurses start on Band 5 which is £27k rising to £34 after 4 years. That’s basic pay and doesn’t include shift allowances and overtime which means an average nurse who does minimal or no overtime will expect to earn around £35k in their first year. Accepting that it represents a very small amount of the profession, a nurse on band 9c in a senior management role can earn up to £109k. Not meany are on top band 9 as they joined to care not manage people. And if benefits keep going up and Civil servers pay is not in line more will strike Government universal credit.. If you live with your partner and either of you are 25 or over£525.72 (for you both)If you have limited capability for work and work-related activity£354.28You could get money to help pay your housing costs. The payment can cover rent and some service charges. So could get £22,812 for staying at home or 5k more working long hours as a nurse ?? take off travel and parking £10 fule £10 parking 4 shifts a week 4k so working at the lower end for about £20 a week " | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ? "Multi-national trade deals struck with countries and trading blocs that would have been impossible had we remained inside the EU. Non-EU trade makes up around 60% of our total, so the losses in terms of trade within the EU are far outweighed by the gains without. Had we still been in the EU we would not have been able to invest in the development of a COVID vaccine in the way we did, nor would we have been able to approve its use without the EU authorising it, nor would we have been able to do a commercial deal with Astra Zenica et al without the EU deeming it illegal, and even then, they attempted to illegally intervene in a binding contract to breech it. Our vaccine roll out programme would have been 6 months behind where it was just like the rest of the EU bloc. The EU has ambitions of state that include an “EU Army” as a command bloc similar to NATO, but without the direction. Domestic defence policy is being skewed through this optic and it will be a serious foreign policy disaster. You can see this playing out in the response to the Ukraine crisis. Britain is free (now) of many of the Defence Single Sourcing Regulations that prevent the arming and re-stocking of Ukraine in order to allow it to defend itself. We are also providing training in the UK in a way that being in the EU would have made extremely difficult for a variety of policy reasons, and if you think Putin being in your back garden is a good thing…. On the issue of international security, AUKUS and the “5 Eyes” arrangements. Again, hampered by the EU. I could give you a long list of ways in which we are free now to develop detailed foreign and domestic policy that will have far reaching positive impact that would be hampered, or just plain impossible in the EU, but which you won’t see or perceive the benefit of for many years yet. It isn’t all down to the usual anti-Brexit attack likes of “immigrants, Yuman Rites, and a miniscule amount of trade”. When you get into the detail it makes a massive positive difference, the issue is whether and how the government of the day chooses to use that advantage. | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ?
Multi-national trade deals struck with countries and trading blocs that would have been impossible had we remained inside the EU. Non-EU trade makes up around 60% of our total, so the losses in terms of trade within the EU are far outweighed by the gains without.
Had we still been in the EU we would not have been able to invest in the development of a COVID vaccine in the way we did, nor would we have been able to approve its use without the EU authorising it, nor would we have been able to do a commercial deal with Astra Zenica et al without the EU deeming it illegal, and even then, they attempted to illegally intervene in a binding contract to breech it. Our vaccine roll out programme would have been 6 months behind where it was just like the rest of the EU bloc.
The EU has ambitions of state that include an “EU Army” as a command bloc similar to NATO, but without the direction. Domestic defence policy is being skewed through this optic and it will be a serious foreign policy disaster. You can see this playing out in the response to the Ukraine crisis. Britain is free (now) of many of the Defence Single Sourcing Regulations that prevent the arming and re-stocking of Ukraine in order to allow it to defend itself. We are also providing training in the UK in a way that being in the EU would have made extremely difficult for a variety of policy reasons, and if you think Putin being in your back garden is a good thing….
On the issue of international security, AUKUS and the “5 Eyes” arrangements. Again, hampered by the EU.
I could give you a long list of ways in which we are free now to develop detailed foreign and domestic policy that will have far reaching positive impact that would be hampered, or just plain impossible in the EU, but which you won’t see or perceive the benefit of for many years yet.
It isn’t all down to the usual anti-Brexit attack likes of “immigrants, Yuman Rites, and a miniscule amount of trade”. When you get into the detail it makes a massive positive difference, the issue is whether and how the government of the day chooses to use that advantage. "Even after all this time, people are still this confused about what the EU is and how it works. I'm not sure if this post was intended as a piss take or not. Either way, I'm sure there are people out there who believe this kind of nonsense after years of being bombarded with anti-EU propaganda. | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ?
Multi-national trade deals struck with countries and trading blocs that would have been impossible had we remained inside the EU. Non-EU trade makes up around 60% of our total, so the losses in terms of trade within the EU are far outweighed by the gains without.
Had we still been in the EU we would not have been able to invest in the development of a COVID vaccine in the way we did, nor would we have been able to approve its use without the EU authorising it, nor would we have been able to do a commercial deal with Astra Zenica et al without the EU deeming it illegal, and even then, they attempted to illegally intervene in a binding contract to breech it. Our vaccine roll out programme would have been 6 months behind where it was just like the rest of the EU bloc.
The EU has ambitions of state that include an “EU Army” as a command bloc similar to NATO, but without the direction. Domestic defence policy is being skewed through this optic and it will be a serious foreign policy disaster. You can see this playing out in the response to the Ukraine crisis. Britain is free (now) of many of the Defence Single Sourcing Regulations that prevent the arming and re-stocking of Ukraine in order to allow it to defend itself. We are also providing training in the UK in a way that being in the EU would have made extremely difficult for a variety of policy reasons, and if you think Putin being in your back garden is a good thing….
On the issue of international security, AUKUS and the “5 Eyes” arrangements. Again, hampered by the EU.
I could give you a long list of ways in which we are free now to develop detailed foreign and domestic policy that will have far reaching positive impact that would be hampered, or just plain impossible in the EU, but which you won’t see or perceive the benefit of for many years yet.
It isn’t all down to the usual anti-Brexit attack likes of “immigrants, Yuman Rites, and a miniscule amount of trade”. When you get into the detail it makes a massive positive difference, the issue is whether and how the government of the day chooses to use that advantage. "That’s not all quite true though is it! That is actually gaslighting as it steers a path that is almost true but not quite when yiu examine the details. It is a lot to unpack and I simply do not have time but all these points have been debunked over the last few years. The vaccine one is a doozy that fails to acknowledge that each EU member has sovereignty over matters of emergency health situations. The UK could have taken the exact path it did even within the EU. The fact that member states decided to act collectively does not indicate that they could not exercise that sovereignty. | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ?
Multi-national trade deals struck with countries and trading blocs that would have been impossible had we remained inside the EU. Non-EU trade makes up around 60% of our total, so the losses in terms of trade within the EU are far outweighed by the gains without.
Had we still been in the EU we would not have been able to invest in the development of a COVID vaccine in the way we did, nor would we have been able to approve its use without the EU authorising it, nor would we have been able to do a commercial deal with Astra Zenica et al without the EU deeming it illegal, and even then, they attempted to illegally intervene in a binding contract to breech it. Our vaccine roll out programme would have been 6 months behind where it was just like the rest of the EU bloc.
The EU has ambitions of state that include an “EU Army” as a command bloc similar to NATO, but without the direction. Domestic defence policy is being skewed through this optic and it will be a serious foreign policy disaster. You can see this playing out in the response to the Ukraine crisis. Britain is free (now) of many of the Defence Single Sourcing Regulations that prevent the arming and re-stocking of Ukraine in order to allow it to defend itself. We are also providing training in the UK in a way that being in the EU would have made extremely difficult for a variety of policy reasons, and if you think Putin being in your back garden is a good thing….
On the issue of international security, AUKUS and the “5 Eyes” arrangements. Again, hampered by the EU.
I could give you a long list of ways in which we are free now to develop detailed foreign and domestic policy that will have far reaching positive impact that would be hampered, or just plain impossible in the EU, but which you won’t see or perceive the benefit of for many years yet.
It isn’t all down to the usual anti-Brexit attack likes of “immigrants, Yuman Rites, and a miniscule amount of trade”. When you get into the detail it makes a massive positive difference, the issue is whether and how the government of the day chooses to use that advantage.
That’s not all quite true though is it! That is actually gaslighting as it steers a path that is almost true but not quite when yiu examine the details. It is a lot to unpack and I simply do not have time but all these points have been debunked over the last few years.
The vaccine one is a doozy that fails to acknowledge that each EU member has sovereignty over matters of emergency health situations. The UK could have taken the exact path it did even within the EU. The fact that member states decided to act collectively does not indicate that they could not exercise that sovereignty."And just to prove I am not making that up, here’s an extract from the Institute of Government: “That said, none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.” | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ?
Multi-national trade deals struck with countries and trading blocs that would have been impossible had we remained inside the EU. Non-EU trade makes up around 60% of our total, so the losses in terms of trade within the EU are far outweighed by the gains without.
Had we still been in the EU we would not have been able to invest in the development of a COVID vaccine in the way we did, nor would we have been able to approve its use without the EU authorising it, nor would we have been able to do a commercial deal with Astra Zenica et al without the EU deeming it illegal, and even then, they attempted to illegally intervene in a binding contract to breech it. Our vaccine roll out programme would have been 6 months behind where it was just like the rest of the EU bloc.
The EU has ambitions of state that include an “EU Army” as a command bloc similar to NATO, but without the direction. Domestic defence policy is being skewed through this optic and it will be a serious foreign policy disaster. You can see this playing out in the response to the Ukraine crisis. Britain is free (now) of many of the Defence Single Sourcing Regulations that prevent the arming and re-stocking of Ukraine in order to allow it to defend itself. We are also providing training in the UK in a way that being in the EU would have made extremely difficult for a variety of policy reasons, and if you think Putin being in your back garden is a good thing….
On the issue of international security, AUKUS and the “5 Eyes” arrangements. Again, hampered by the EU.
I could give you a long list of ways in which we are free now to develop detailed foreign and domestic policy that will have far reaching positive impact that would be hampered, or just plain impossible in the EU, but which you won’t see or perceive the benefit of for many years yet.
It isn’t all down to the usual anti-Brexit attack likes of “immigrants, Yuman Rites, and a miniscule amount of trade”. When you get into the detail it makes a massive positive difference, the issue is whether and how the government of the day chooses to use that advantage. " | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ?
Multi-national trade deals struck with countries and trading blocs that would have been impossible had we remained inside the EU. Non-EU trade makes up around 60% of our total, so the losses in terms of trade within the EU are far outweighed by the gains without.
Had we still been in the EU we would not have been able to invest in the development of a COVID vaccine in the way we did, nor would we have been able to approve its use without the EU authorising it, nor would we have been able to do a commercial deal with Astra Zenica et al without the EU deeming it illegal, and even then, they attempted to illegally intervene in a binding contract to breech it. Our vaccine roll out programme would have been 6 months behind where it was just like the rest of the EU bloc.
The EU has ambitions of state that include an “EU Army” as a command bloc similar to NATO, but without the direction. Domestic defence policy is being skewed through this optic and it will be a serious foreign policy disaster. You can see this playing out in the response to the Ukraine crisis. Britain is free (now) of many of the Defence Single Sourcing Regulations that prevent the arming and re-stocking of Ukraine in order to allow it to defend itself. We are also providing training in the UK in a way that being in the EU would have made extremely difficult for a variety of policy reasons, and if you think Putin being in your back garden is a good thing….
On the issue of international security, AUKUS and the “5 Eyes” arrangements. Again, hampered by the EU.
I could give you a long list of ways in which we are free now to develop detailed foreign and domestic policy that will have far reaching positive impact that would be hampered, or just plain impossible in the EU, but which you won’t see or perceive the benefit of for many years yet.
It isn’t all down to the usual anti-Brexit attack likes of “immigrants, Yuman Rites, and a miniscule amount of trade”. When you get into the detail it makes a massive positive difference, the issue is whether and how the government of the day chooses to use that advantage. "Wow your pants must be burning right now | |||
"Why not 50 per cent? If it’s good enough for Brexit….
Actually is was just under 52% and Brexit was a good thing, strikes just cause mayhem and misery.
It was a great example of how democracy is great when it delivers the result that the metropolitan blob wants, not so great when the great unwashed who pay for it and suffer at their hands tell them to fuck off.
How was Brexit ‘a good thing’ ?
Multi-national trade deals struck with countries and trading blocs that would have been impossible had we remained inside the EU. Non-EU trade makes up around 60% of our total, so the losses in terms of trade within the EU are far outweighed by the gains without.
Had we still been in the EU we would not have been able to invest in the development of a COVID vaccine in the way we did, nor would we have been able to approve its use without the EU authorising it, nor would we have been able to do a commercial deal with Astra Zenica et al without the EU deeming it illegal, and even then, they attempted to illegally intervene in a binding contract to breech it. Our vaccine roll out programme would have been 6 months behind where it was just like the rest of the EU bloc.
The EU has ambitions of state that include an “EU Army” as a command bloc similar to NATO, but without the direction. Domestic defence policy is being skewed through this optic and it will be a serious foreign policy disaster. You can see this playing out in the response to the Ukraine crisis. Britain is free (now) of many of the Defence Single Sourcing Regulations that prevent the arming and re-stocking of Ukraine in order to allow it to defend itself. We are also providing training in the UK in a way that being in the EU would have made extremely difficult for a variety of policy reasons, and if you think Putin being in your back garden is a good thing….
On the issue of international security, AUKUS and the “5 Eyes” arrangements. Again, hampered by the EU.
I could give you a long list of ways in which we are free now to develop detailed foreign and domestic policy that will have far reaching positive impact that would be hampered, or just plain impossible in the EU, but which you won’t see or perceive the benefit of for many years yet.
It isn’t all down to the usual anti-Brexit attack likes of “immigrants, Yuman Rites, and a miniscule amount of trade”. When you get into the detail it makes a massive positive difference, the issue is whether and how the government of the day chooses to use that advantage. "which trade deals ? I accept it could be an advantage.... But so far the only really new ones are oz and NZ, I believe. Others look like they have stalled. We could have invested in OU vaccines under the EU. The illegal bit is a complex contractual nightmare. The EU signed with AZ before the UK. But there may have been some terms in teh OU/AZ contract that have the UK preferred rights that AZ didnt disclose to the EU. I accept that we may been greatly compelled to go alongside the EU. However while the outcome worked well for us with the OU, there was a degree of luck. I wonder how the world would have looked had OU not been successful. Good outcomes do not mean good decisions. I will admit I dont understand the security bits. So you have anything you can share so I can educate myself ? | |||
" Wow your pants must be burning right now "No, I just don’t agree with some, most, or all of the points you make. We can debate it until the cows come home, I’m just not sure we are going to achieve anything in terms of an appreciation of differing views - you are simply getting to ad hominen and I’m not going there. | |||
| |||
"So, taking apart various specious anti-EU arguments becomes conveniently ad hominem..." We should stick to the points. But it's very hard when the points made are so far detached from reality. The interesting thing for me is, why people believe in things that are blatantly false. | |||
" Wow your pants must be burning right now
No, I just don’t agree with some, most, or all of the points you make. We can debate it until the cows come home, I’m just not sure we are going to achieve anything in terms of an appreciation of differing views - you are simply getting to ad hominen and I’m not going there. "Will you acknowledge that the point you made on Covid Vaccines was incorrect and at very least also misleading because you conflated the AZ contractual issues with everything else? | |||
| |||
"Ad hominem Play the ball not the man? I do agree that fundamentally we would probably disagree about everything but one thing really bothers me is the EU army assertion because it’s a viewpoint but not a fact especially as NATO carries rather more weight regarding the response to Russian adventurism than anything the EU does. Just for the reality of what’s happening on the ground, I was in Poland a few months ago and was made well aware by friends of US/NATO advisers in one of the garrison towns I was in so I don’t see where your EU army assertion fits within that?" Also wondering about this brexit benefit related to military cooperation. In the last few weeks Sunak has signed up to an EU defense initiative to make it easier to move armed forces around the Continent. | |||
| |||
"Neither of the companies we work at are talking of strikes. Hubby isn't expecting a very good pay rise this year but is actively looking for roles that pay more. Already turned one offer down as the commute was a bit awkward. Always ways and means of improving your own situation, regardless of the crap the government pulls." good luck. Although I'd encourage you to reflect on any good fortune you have here. Not everyone can jump companies (eg nurses, barristers). Quite often these folk are serving a public good and so may also have a moral aspect to. As someone who is in private sector, I recognise that I'm less essential, yet have more options and this helps drive my salary up. | |||
" That’s not all quite true though is it! That is actually gaslighting as it steers a path that is almost true but not quite when yiu examine the details. It is a lot to unpack and I simply do not have time but all these points have been debunked over the last few years. The vaccine one is a doozy that fails to acknowledge that each EU member has sovereignty over matters of emergency health situations. The UK could have taken the exact path it did even within the EU. The fact that member states decided to act collectively does not indicate that they could not exercise that sovereignty. And just to prove I am not making that up, here’s an extract from the Institute of Government: “That said, none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.”" And yet the Peterson Institute for International Economics states: “Initial European government contacts with global pharmaceutical companies by an ad hoc Inclusive Vaccine Alliance—consisting only of Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands—ended with the decision in mid-June 2020 to task the European Commission with negotiating vaccine procurement on behalf of all of the EU27 (plus Norway).“ Could they have acted independently, I will take your word for it and say on the face of it yes, did they, no. PIIE also notes that compared to the US approach “ By contrast, the European Commission, acting on behalf of an adult population roughly 43 percent larger than that of the United States,[1] was a month behind and fell far short of the commitment of the US government.” Which shows poor planning if nothing else. The EU also created needless bureaucracy, the report citing “ the Commission has also made serious mistakes. Targeted by political criticism from member state political leaders, especially Germany (Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is German), the Commission in January 2021 needlessly escalated a contractual dispute with AstraZeneca over the company’s failure to meet early vaccine supply commitments. Starting in January 2021, the Commission required all the pharmaceutical firms that signed advanced purchase agreements to apply for an export certification ahead of shipping any vaccines outside the European Union. This demand is superfluous and counterproductive. Vaccine export data are available from regular EU customs declaration processes, so rather than providing more “vaccine export transparency,” the Commission merely provided member states with the opportunity to block vaccine exports by denying permission. ” By acting unilaterally, investing in the research and production infrastructure, using the military to plan the distribution network, and not joining the EU we got there quicker and more effectively and better managed the risks. There are 2 debates, the first the technical “what do the EU rules and regulations say” debate and the”what did the EU actually do” debate. So no, not gaslighting, that is making someone doubt the reality around them. What it is is debate. The fact is there is a difference of opinion on the benefits of membership of the EU which was put to the largest vote in British history, and more people wanted out than wanted in. I wanted out, I still want out, and I want to stay out. I don’t ascribe moral superiority to that view, I don’t look down on Remainers as intellectual inferiors, as being morally defective, or even on the wrong side of history as the world will move on. Just as the East India Company no longer exists, I doubt in 100 years whether the EU will. Whether it is replaced, and if so, what with will be a debate for those at that time. What strikes me is you are staunchly supportive of the EU and would prefer to see the UK remain part of it. I can disagree with that viewpoint and still be respectful of your right to hold it. And I do disagree with it. The key difference between settled debate and ongoing is that we had the vote, we decided, and we should now be out in every respect (but are not - yet). What I am glad for is that the Remain Establishment intransigence didn’t lead to bloodshed, my fear was it could have. | |||
" That’s not all quite true though is it! That is actually gaslighting as it steers a path that is almost true but not quite when yiu examine the details. It is a lot to unpack and I simply do not have time but all these points have been debunked over the last few years. The vaccine one is a doozy that fails to acknowledge that each EU member has sovereignty over matters of emergency health situations. The UK could have taken the exact path it did even within the EU. The fact that member states decided to act collectively does not indicate that they could not exercise that sovereignty. And just to prove I am not making that up, here’s an extract from the Institute of Government: “That said, none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.” And yet the Peterson Institute for International Economics states: “Initial European government contacts with global pharmaceutical companies by an ad hoc Inclusive Vaccine Alliance—consisting only of Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands—ended with the decision in mid-June 2020 to task the European Commission with negotiating vaccine procurement on behalf of all of the EU27 (plus Norway).“ Could they have acted independently, I will take your word for it and say on the face of it yes, did they, no. PIIE also notes that compared to the US approach “ By contrast, the European Commission, acting on behalf of an adult population roughly 43 percent larger than that of the United States,[1] was a month behind and fell far short of the commitment of the US government.” Which shows poor planning if nothing else. The EU also created needless bureaucracy, the report citing “ the Commission has also made serious mistakes. Targeted by political criticism from member state political leaders, especially Germany (Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is German), the Commission in January 2021 needlessly escalated a contractual dispute with AstraZeneca over the company’s failure to meet early vaccine supply commitments. Starting in January 2021, the Commission required all the pharmaceutical firms that signed advanced purchase agreements to apply for an export certification ahead of shipping any vaccines outside the European Union. This demand is superfluous and counterproductive. Vaccine export data are available from regular EU customs declaration processes, so rather than providing more “vaccine export transparency,” the Commission merely provided member states with the opportunity to block vaccine exports by denying permission. ” By acting unilaterally, investing in the research and production infrastructure, using the military to plan the distribution network, and not joining the EU we got there quicker and more effectively and better managed the risks. There are 2 debates, the first the technical “what do the EU rules and regulations say” debate and the”what did the EU actually do” debate. So no, not gaslighting, that is making someone doubt the reality around them. What it is is debate. The fact is there is a difference of opinion on the benefits of membership of the EU which was put to the largest vote in British history, and more people wanted out than wanted in. I wanted out, I still want out, and I want to stay out. I don’t ascribe moral superiority to that view, I don’t look down on Remainers as intellectual inferiors, as being morally defective, or even on the wrong side of history as the world will move on. Just as the East India Company no longer exists, I doubt in 100 years whether the EU will. Whether it is replaced, and if so, what with will be a debate for those at that time. What strikes me is you are staunchly supportive of the EU and would prefer to see the UK remain part of it. I can disagree with that viewpoint and still be respectful of your right to hold it. And I do disagree with it. The key difference between settled debate and ongoing is that we had the vote, we decided, and we should now be out in every respect (but are not - yet). What I am glad for is that the Remain Establishment intransigence didn’t lead to bloodshed, my fear was it could have. " You start by believing the Peterson Institute for International Economic. Who have a specific agenda. So your assumptions based on this bias US think tank start on shaky ground then get less attached to reality as you go on, straying into some weird conspiracy theory stuff and culminating in implying that people who didn't want the UK to leave the EU would go on a killing spree. | |||
" That’s not all quite true though is it! That is actually gaslighting as it steers a path that is almost true but not quite when yiu examine the details. It is a lot to unpack and I simply do not have time but all these points have been debunked over the last few years. The vaccine one is a doozy that fails to acknowledge that each EU member has sovereignty over matters of emergency health situations. The UK could have taken the exact path it did even within the EU. The fact that member states decided to act collectively does not indicate that they could not exercise that sovereignty. And just to prove I am not making that up, here’s an extract from the Institute of Government: “That said, none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.” And yet the Peterson Institute for International Economics states: “Initial European government contacts with global pharmaceutical companies by an ad hoc Inclusive Vaccine Alliance—consisting only of Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands—ended with the decision in mid-June 2020 to task the European Commission with negotiating vaccine procurement on behalf of all of the EU27 (plus Norway).“ Could they have acted independently, I will take your word for it and say on the face of it yes, did they, no. PIIE also notes that compared to the US approach “ By contrast, the European Commission, acting on behalf of an adult population roughly 43 percent larger than that of the United States,[1] was a month behind and fell far short of the commitment of the US government.” Which shows poor planning if nothing else. The EU also created needless bureaucracy, the report citing “ the Commission has also made serious mistakes. Targeted by political criticism from member state political leaders, especially Germany (Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is German), the Commission in January 2021 needlessly escalated a contractual dispute with AstraZeneca over the company’s failure to meet early vaccine supply commitments. Starting in January 2021, the Commission required all the pharmaceutical firms that signed advanced purchase agreements to apply for an export certification ahead of shipping any vaccines outside the European Union. This demand is superfluous and counterproductive. Vaccine export data are available from regular EU customs declaration processes, so rather than providing more “vaccine export transparency,” the Commission merely provided member states with the opportunity to block vaccine exports by denying permission. ” By acting unilaterally, investing in the research and production infrastructure, using the military to plan the distribution network, and not joining the EU we got there quicker and more effectively and better managed the risks. There are 2 debates, the first the technical “what do the EU rules and regulations say” debate and the”what did the EU actually do” debate. So no, not gaslighting, that is making someone doubt the reality around them. What it is is debate. The fact is there is a difference of opinion on the benefits of membership of the EU which was put to the largest vote in British history, and more people wanted out than wanted in. I wanted out, I still want out, and I want to stay out. I don’t ascribe moral superiority to that view, I don’t look down on Remainers as intellectual inferiors, as being morally defective, or even on the wrong side of history as the world will move on. Just as the East India Company no longer exists, I doubt in 100 years whether the EU will. Whether it is replaced, and if so, what with will be a debate for those at that time. What strikes me is you are staunchly supportive of the EU and would prefer to see the UK remain part of it. I can disagree with that viewpoint and still be respectful of your right to hold it. And I do disagree with it. The key difference between settled debate and ongoing is that we had the vote, we decided, and we should now be out in every respect (but are not - yet). What I am glad for is that the Remain Establishment intransigence didn’t lead to bloodshed, my fear was it could have. " can I ask how this is relevant to people striking for better pay ??  | |||
"Neither of the companies we work at are talking of strikes. Hubby isn't expecting a very good pay rise this year but is actively looking for roles that pay more. Already turned one offer down as the commute was a bit awkward. Always ways and means of improving your own situation, regardless of the crap the government pulls." So would guess both ate private sector. But would you be happy if like they are more move from government to the private sector. Or would this just be like privatisation. If all teachers moved to private schools you would have to pay to send your children to one more doctors nurse are pulling out of the NHS every day. | |||
"Neither of the companies we work at are talking of strikes. Hubby isn't expecting a very good pay rise this year but is actively looking for roles that pay more. Already turned one offer down as the commute was a bit awkward. Always ways and means of improving your own situation, regardless of the crap the government pulls. So would guess both ate private sector. But would you be happy if like they are more move from government to the private sector. Or would this just be like privatisation. If all teachers moved to private schools you would have to pay to send your children to one more doctors nurse are pulling out of the NHS every day." It’s called market forces, so to take your point, I would send my kids to a private school and in doing so, would vote for any government that taxed me less to reflect the lesser burden I place on the state, ditto the NHS. If you weren’t forced to pay for it, you simply wouldn’t. | |||
" That’s not all quite true though is it! That is actually gaslighting as it steers a path that is almost true but not quite when yiu examine the details. It is a lot to unpack and I simply do not have time but all these points have been debunked over the last few years. The vaccine one is a doozy that fails to acknowledge that each EU member has sovereignty over matters of emergency health situations. The UK could have taken the exact path it did even within the EU. The fact that member states decided to act collectively does not indicate that they could not exercise that sovereignty. And just to prove I am not making that up, here’s an extract from the Institute of Government: “That said, none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.” And yet the Peterson Institute for International Economics states: “Initial European government contacts with global pharmaceutical companies by an ad hoc Inclusive Vaccine Alliance—consisting only of Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands—ended with the decision in mid-June 2020 to task the European Commission with negotiating vaccine procurement on behalf of all of the EU27 (plus Norway).“ Could they have acted independently, I will take your word for it and say on the face of it yes, did they, no. PIIE also notes that compared to the US approach “ By contrast, the European Commission, acting on behalf of an adult population roughly 43 percent larger than that of the United States,[1] was a month behind and fell far short of the commitment of the US government.” Which shows poor planning if nothing else. The EU also created needless bureaucracy, the report citing “ the Commission has also made serious mistakes. Targeted by political criticism from member state political leaders, especially Germany (Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is German), the Commission in January 2021 needlessly escalated a contractual dispute with AstraZeneca over the company’s failure to meet early vaccine supply commitments. Starting in January 2021, the Commission required all the pharmaceutical firms that signed advanced purchase agreements to apply for an export certification ahead of shipping any vaccines outside the European Union. This demand is superfluous and counterproductive. Vaccine export data are available from regular EU customs declaration processes, so rather than providing more “vaccine export transparency,” the Commission merely provided member states with the opportunity to block vaccine exports by denying permission. ” By acting unilaterally, investing in the research and production infrastructure, using the military to plan the distribution network, and not joining the EU we got there quicker and more effectively and better managed the risks. There are 2 debates, the first the technical “what do the EU rules and regulations say” debate and the”what did the EU actually do” debate. So no, not gaslighting, that is making someone doubt the reality around them. What it is is debate. The fact is there is a difference of opinion on the benefits of membership of the EU which was put to the largest vote in British history, and more people wanted out than wanted in. I wanted out, I still want out, and I want to stay out. I don’t ascribe moral superiority to that view, I don’t look down on Remainers as intellectual inferiors, as being morally defective, or even on the wrong side of history as the world will move on. Just as the East India Company no longer exists, I doubt in 100 years whether the EU will. Whether it is replaced, and if so, what with will be a debate for those at that time. What strikes me is you are staunchly supportive of the EU and would prefer to see the UK remain part of it. I can disagree with that viewpoint and still be respectful of your right to hold it. And I do disagree with it. The key difference between settled debate and ongoing is that we had the vote, we decided, and we should now be out in every respect (but are not - yet). What I am glad for is that the Remain Establishment intransigence didn’t lead to bloodshed, my fear was it could have. " An interesting article from a think tank. It's a bit amiss that it only looks at EU spend. Not that of its member states too. Id also say that it's not proven that the "unnecessary" legal action was not a factor in alter decisions by vaccine companies. Finally, it compares EU speed to the US. The UK signed the AZ contract the day after the EU. That doesn't help the "we are quicker than EU arguement". And to your point we managed risks better I'd argue that's not shown either. We were successful because the OU was. That put us front of a queue. Had the OU not been lucky, where would we have been ? | |||
" That’s not all quite true though is it! That is actually gaslighting as it steers a path that is almost true but not quite when yiu examine the details. It is a lot to unpack and I simply do not have time but all these points have been debunked over the last few years. The vaccine one is a doozy that fails to acknowledge that each EU member has sovereignty over matters of emergency health situations. The UK could have taken the exact path it did even within the EU. The fact that member states decided to act collectively does not indicate that they could not exercise that sovereignty. And just to prove I am not making that up, here’s an extract from the Institute of Government: “That said, none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.” And yet the Peterson Institute for International Economics states: “Initial European government contacts with global pharmaceutical companies by an ad hoc Inclusive Vaccine Alliance—consisting only of Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands—ended with the decision in mid-June 2020 to task the European Commission with negotiating vaccine procurement on behalf of all of the EU27 (plus Norway).“ Could they have acted independently, I will take your word for it and say on the face of it yes, did they, no. PIIE also notes that compared to the US approach “ By contrast, the European Commission, acting on behalf of an adult population roughly 43 percent larger than that of the United States,[1] was a month behind and fell far short of the commitment of the US government.” Which shows poor planning if nothing else. The EU also created needless bureaucracy, the report citing “ the Commission has also made serious mistakes. Targeted by political criticism from member state political leaders, especially Germany (Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is German), the Commission in January 2021 needlessly escalated a contractual dispute with AstraZeneca over the company’s failure to meet early vaccine supply commitments. Starting in January 2021, the Commission required all the pharmaceutical firms that signed advanced purchase agreements to apply for an export certification ahead of shipping any vaccines outside the European Union. This demand is superfluous and counterproductive. Vaccine export data are available from regular EU customs declaration processes, so rather than providing more “vaccine export transparency,” the Commission merely provided member states with the opportunity to block vaccine exports by denying permission. ” By acting unilaterally, investing in the research and production infrastructure, using the military to plan the distribution network, and not joining the EU we got there quicker and more effectively and better managed the risks. There are 2 debates, the first the technical “what do the EU rules and regulations say” debate and the”what did the EU actually do” debate. So no, not gaslighting, that is making someone doubt the reality around them. What it is is debate. The fact is there is a difference of opinion on the benefits of membership of the EU which was put to the largest vote in British history, and more people wanted out than wanted in. I wanted out, I still want out, and I want to stay out. I don’t ascribe moral superiority to that view, I don’t look down on Remainers as intellectual inferiors, as being morally defective, or even on the wrong side of history as the world will move on. Just as the East India Company no longer exists, I doubt in 100 years whether the EU will. Whether it is replaced, and if so, what with will be a debate for those at that time. What strikes me is you are staunchly supportive of the EU and would prefer to see the UK remain part of it. I can disagree with that viewpoint and still be respectful of your right to hold it. And I do disagree with it. The key difference between settled debate and ongoing is that we had the vote, we decided, and we should now be out in every respect (but are not - yet). What I am glad for is that the Remain Establishment intransigence didn’t lead to bloodshed, my fear was it could have. " Others have already tackled your chosen source of info and their agenda. So I will just point out that you say: “Could they have acted independently, I will take your word for it and say on the face of it yes, did they, no.” What I posted were not my words so you do not need to “take my word for it”. I referenced where the words cane from, the Institute of Government. You can find the words there and they reflect the simple truth that Brexit provided no benefit when it came to Covid vaccines or their distribution etc. That false claim by you brings into question the other things you also raised as brexit benefits. I believe that not quite telling the truth on a topic, but sailing close to the truth with clever use of semantics, is in fact a form of gaslighting in my book. Like you, I respect your right to have a different opinion re brexit. In fact I have far more respect for someone who genuinely believes brexit will benefit them and the country and can discuss the reasons why, then I do for those who voted for it for unresearched spurious reasons driven by lies and soundbites. | |||
" That’s not all quite true though is it! That is actually gaslighting as it steers a path that is almost true but not quite when yiu examine the details. It is a lot to unpack and I simply do not have time but all these points have been debunked over the last few years. The vaccine one is a doozy that fails to acknowledge that each EU member has sovereignty over matters of emergency health situations. The UK could have taken the exact path it did even within the EU. The fact that member states decided to act collectively does not indicate that they could not exercise that sovereignty. And just to prove I am not making that up, here’s an extract from the Institute of Government: “That said, none of these successes can be chalked up to Brexit. As the chief executive of the MHRA swiftly pointed out, Mr Hancock was wrong to say that the UK could approve the vaccine early because it was no longer subject to EU rules. The MHRA’s decision was taken in accordance with the relevant EU legislation, which allows member states to grant temporary authorisation for a medicinal product in response to the spread of infectious diseases (among others). This legislation still applies to the UK until the end of the transition period. Any EU member state could have used the same provision of the legislation to approve the vaccine. They decided not to for political and technical reasons, not legal ones. Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them.” And yet the Peterson Institute for International Economics states: “Initial European government contacts with global pharmaceutical companies by an ad hoc Inclusive Vaccine Alliance—consisting only of Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands—ended with the decision in mid-June 2020 to task the European Commission with negotiating vaccine procurement on behalf of all of the EU27 (plus Norway).“ Could they have acted independently, I will take your word for it and say on the face of it yes, did they, no. PIIE also notes that compared to the US approach “ By contrast, the European Commission, acting on behalf of an adult population roughly 43 percent larger than that of the United States,[1] was a month behind and fell far short of the commitment of the US government.” Which shows poor planning if nothing else. The EU also created needless bureaucracy, the report citing “ the Commission has also made serious mistakes. Targeted by political criticism from member state political leaders, especially Germany (Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is German), the Commission in January 2021 needlessly escalated a contractual dispute with AstraZeneca over the company’s failure to meet early vaccine supply commitments. Starting in January 2021, the Commission required all the pharmaceutical firms that signed advanced purchase agreements to apply for an export certification ahead of shipping any vaccines outside the European Union. This demand is superfluous and counterproductive. Vaccine export data are available from regular EU customs declaration processes, so rather than providing more “vaccine export transparency,” the Commission merely provided member states with the opportunity to block vaccine exports by denying permission. ” By acting unilaterally, investing in the research and production infrastructure, using the military to plan the distribution network, and not joining the EU we got there quicker and more effectively and better managed the risks. There are 2 debates, the first the technical “what do the EU rules and regulations say” debate and the”what did the EU actually do” debate. So no, not gaslighting, that is making someone doubt the reality around them. What it is is debate. The fact is there is a difference of opinion on the benefits of membership of the EU which was put to the largest vote in British history, and more people wanted out than wanted in. I wanted out, I still want out, and I want to stay out. I don’t ascribe moral superiority to that view, I don’t look down on Remainers as intellectual inferiors, as being morally defective, or even on the wrong side of history as the world will move on. Just as the East India Company no longer exists, I doubt in 100 years whether the EU will. Whether it is replaced, and if so, what with will be a debate for those at that time. What strikes me is you are staunchly supportive of the EU and would prefer to see the UK remain part of it. I can disagree with that viewpoint and still be respectful of your right to hold it. And I do disagree with it. The key difference between settled debate and ongoing is that we had the vote, we decided, and we should now be out in every respect (but are not - yet). What I am glad for is that the Remain Establishment intransigence didn’t lead to bloodshed, my fear was it could have. " Oh dear god, the rioting in the streets trope….what were you hoping for, kristallnacht? People riot when they are poor and oppressed neither of which was the case in the EU. Post brexit we are tangibly worse off, have lost our freedom of movement and lost massive amounts of trade. Companies are relocating parts of their businesses to Europe to enable trade to continue meaning less jobs here and more in Europe. Rocket science it is not!!! | |||
" What I posted were not my words so you do not need to “take my word for it”. I referenced where the words cane from, the Institute of Government. You can find the words there and they reflect the simple truth that Brexit provided no benefit when it came to Covid vaccines or their distribution etc. That false claim by you brings into question the other things you also raised as brexit benefits. I believe that not quite telling the truth on a topic, but sailing close to the truth with clever use of semantics, is in fact a form of gaslighting in my book. Like you, I respect your right to have a different opinion re brexit. In fact I have far more respect for someone who genuinely believes brexit will benefit them and the country and can discuss the reasons why, then I do for those who voted for it for unresearched spurious reasons driven by lies and soundbites." You mean the Institute for Government, the left wing think tank that was set up and is bankrolled by The Gatsby Foundation which is wholly funded by Lord Sainsbury, the former Labour peer and pro-European and now a major donor to the Liberal Democrats whose policy it is to re-join the EU? That Institute for Government? What a surprise it would be then if the pro-European think tank funded by a pro-European donor argued that there was no benefit to the UK for being outside of the EU when it came to the development, licencing and distribution of a covid vaccine. I’d add more weight to their opinion if they were a truely neutral policy think tank with no axe to grind either way. | |||
| |||
" What I posted were not my words so you do not need to “take my word for it”. I referenced where the words cane from, the Institute of Government. You can find the words there and they reflect the simple truth that Brexit provided no benefit when it came to Covid vaccines or their distribution etc. That false claim by you brings into question the other things you also raised as brexit benefits. I believe that not quite telling the truth on a topic, but sailing close to the truth with clever use of semantics, is in fact a form of gaslighting in my book. Like you, I respect your right to have a different opinion re brexit. In fact I have far more respect for someone who genuinely believes brexit will benefit them and the country and can discuss the reasons why, then I do for those who voted for it for unresearched spurious reasons driven by lies and soundbites. You mean the Institute for Government, the left wing think tank that was set up and is bankrolled by The Gatsby Foundation which is wholly funded by Lord Sainsbury, the former Labour peer and pro-European and now a major donor to the Liberal Democrats whose policy it is to re-join the EU? That Institute for Government? What a surprise it would be then if the pro-European think tank funded by a pro-European donor argued that there was no benefit to the UK for being outside of the EU when it came to the development, licencing and distribution of a covid vaccine. I’d add more weight to their opinion if they were a truely neutral policy think tank with no axe to grind either way. " But was anything they said and I quoted that was/is untrue? | |||
" What I posted were not my words so you do not need to “take my word for it”. I referenced where the words cane from, the Institute of Government. You can find the words there and they reflect the simple truth that Brexit provided no benefit when it came to Covid vaccines or their distribution etc. That false claim by you brings into question the other things you also raised as brexit benefits. I believe that not quite telling the truth on a topic, but sailing close to the truth with clever use of semantics, is in fact a form of gaslighting in my book. Like you, I respect your right to have a different opinion re brexit. In fact I have far more respect for someone who genuinely believes brexit will benefit them and the country and can discuss the reasons why, then I do for those who voted for it for unresearched spurious reasons driven by lies and soundbites. You mean the Institute for Government, the left wing think tank that was set up and is bankrolled by The Gatsby Foundation which is wholly funded by Lord Sainsbury, the former Labour peer and pro-European and now a major donor to the Liberal Democrats whose policy it is to re-join the EU? That Institute for Government? What a surprise it would be then if the pro-European think tank funded by a pro-European donor argued that there was no benefit to the UK for being outside of the EU when it came to the development, licencing and distribution of a covid vaccine. I’d add more weight to their opinion if they were a truely neutral policy think tank with no axe to grind either way. But was anything they said and I quoted that was/is untrue?" It’s an interpretation of events as they wished to portray them. I’m not being evasive when I say it, I don’t know what details they may or may not have omitted, or emphasised, but what they have sated is an opinion - that there was no benefit to the UK being out of the EU, and like any think tank wishing to make an argument to sway opinion and policy in a particular direction, they wish to make the point specifically and in general that the place of the UK should be in the EU and the IoG will continue to present events in that optic because that’s what the guy funding them set them up to do. I don’t doubt that this is a complex and nuanced issue - there will be as many ways we have suffered from not being in the EU as there are ways in which we have benefitted. What is all boils down to is this, where do you see the UK in terms of its standing as a nation, everything else is just a discussion of how you interpret the technicalities and what spin is put on them. | |||
" What I posted were not my words so you do not need to “take my word for it”. I referenced where the words cane from, the Institute of Government. You can find the words there and they reflect the simple truth that Brexit provided no benefit when it came to Covid vaccines or their distribution etc. That false claim by you brings into question the other things you also raised as brexit benefits. I believe that not quite telling the truth on a topic, but sailing close to the truth with clever use of semantics, is in fact a form of gaslighting in my book. Like you, I respect your right to have a different opinion re brexit. In fact I have far more respect for someone who genuinely believes brexit will benefit them and the country and can discuss the reasons why, then I do for those who voted for it for unresearched spurious reasons driven by lies and soundbites. You mean the Institute for Government, the left wing think tank that was set up and is bankrolled by The Gatsby Foundation which is wholly funded by Lord Sainsbury, the former Labour peer and pro-European and now a major donor to the Liberal Democrats whose policy it is to re-join the EU? That Institute for Government? What a surprise it would be then if the pro-European think tank funded by a pro-European donor argued that there was no benefit to the UK for being outside of the EU when it came to the development, licencing and distribution of a covid vaccine. I’d add more weight to their opinion if they were a truely neutral policy think tank with no axe to grind either way. But was anything they said and I quoted that was/is untrue? It’s an interpretation of events as they wished to portray them. I’m not being evasive when I say it, I don’t know what details they may or may not have omitted, or emphasised, but what they have sated is an opinion - that there was no benefit to the UK being out of the EU, and like any think tank wishing to make an argument to sway opinion and policy in a particular direction, they wish to make the point specifically and in general that the place of the UK should be in the EU and the IoG will continue to present events in that optic because that’s what the guy funding them set them up to do. I don’t doubt that this is a complex and nuanced issue - there will be as many ways we have suffered from not being in the EU as there are ways in which we have benefitted. What is all boils down to is this, where do you see the UK in terms of its standing as a nation, everything else is just a discussion of how you interpret the technicalities and what spin is put on them. " Yes and no. I specifically quoted them in reference to your point/assertion that brexit enabled the UK to have a better covid vaccine response. It didn’t. Not an opinion but an explanation on how the process works. I haven’t the time to dig through the other points you made but I do believe that assertion by you was incorrect. | |||
" Oh dear god, the rioting in the streets trope….what were you hoping for, kristallnacht? People riot when they are poor and oppressed neither of which was the case in the EU. Post brexit we are tangibly worse off, have lost our freedom of movement and lost massive amounts of trade. Companies are relocating parts of their businesses to Europe to enable trade to continue meaning less jobs here and more in Europe. Rocket science it is not!!! "One thing I am really going to take issue with is where you ask if I was hoping for a “kristalnacht” Not only is it a gross mischaracterisation of what I said, but the choice of phrase is illuminating - you are trying to suggest that because I disagree with you I’m a Nazi, or to give them their proper name the National Socialist Workers Party. Let’s be clear, that is a disgusting slur. People don’t just riot when they are “poor and oppressed”, but to take the latter as a definition of cause, political oppression occurs when extra-democratic means are used to overturn or deny the democratically voiced will of the people. The behaviour of Bercow and others in trying to do everything they could to stop the enactment of the result of a legally binding referendum fits that definition. Did I wish for it? No. Did I see a risk that violence on a local or national scale could have been the end result if the situation had continued? Yes, you only have to look at the murder of Jo Cox to see how far someone people could go in that regard. Then you have the situation in Northern Ireland, which having served out there at the end of the Troubles I know is a tinder box and will remain one for generations to come. | |||
" Oh dear god, the rioting in the streets trope….what were you hoping for, kristallnacht? People riot when they are poor and oppressed neither of which was the case in the EU. Post brexit we are tangibly worse off, have lost our freedom of movement and lost massive amounts of trade. Companies are relocating parts of their businesses to Europe to enable trade to continue meaning less jobs here and more in Europe. Rocket science it is not!!!
One thing I am really going to take issue with is where you ask if I was hoping for a “kristalnacht”
Not only is it a gross mischaracterisation of what I said, but the choice of phrase is illuminating - you are trying to suggest that because I disagree with you I’m a Nazi, or to give them their proper name the National Socialist Workers Party. Let’s be clear, that is a disgusting slur.
People don’t just riot when they are “poor and oppressed”, but to take the latter as a definition of cause, political oppression occurs when extra-democratic means are used to overturn or deny the democratically voiced will of the people. The behaviour of Bercow and others in trying to do everything they could to stop the enactment of the result of a legally binding referendum fits that definition. Did I wish for it? No. Did I see a risk that violence on a local or national scale could have been the end result if the situation had continued? Yes, you only have to look at the murder of Jo Cox to see how far someone people could go in that regard. Then you have the situation in Northern Ireland, which having served out there at the end of the Troubles I know is a tinder box and will remain one for generations to come. "1. The referendum wasn't legally binding. It was advisory. Actually, if it would have been legally binding, the result wouldn't have been voided under British law due to the illegal funding of both leave campaigns. 2. Did Bercow try to stop brexit? Didn't he just try to get it don't legally and in an appropriate timeframe instead of rushing head first into the most ruinous hard brexit that the Tories were pushing for (and lying to the queen about). | |||
" Oh dear god, the rioting in the streets trope….what were you hoping for, kristallnacht? People riot when they are poor and oppressed neither of which was the case in the EU. Post brexit we are tangibly worse off, have lost our freedom of movement and lost massive amounts of trade. Companies are relocating parts of their businesses to Europe to enable trade to continue meaning less jobs here and more in Europe. Rocket science it is not!!!
One thing I am really going to take issue with is where you ask if I was hoping for a “kristalnacht”
Not only is it a gross mischaracterisation of what I said, but the choice of phrase is illuminating - you are trying to suggest that because I disagree with you I’m a Nazi, or to give them their proper name the National Socialist Workers Party. Let’s be clear, that is a disgusting slur.
People don’t just riot when they are “poor and oppressed”, but to take the latter as a definition of cause, political oppression occurs when extra-democratic means are used to overturn or deny the democratically voiced will of the people. The behaviour of Bercow and others in trying to do everything they could to stop the enactment of the result of a legally binding referendum fits that definition. Did I wish for it? No. Did I see a risk that violence on a local or national scale could have been the end result if the situation had continued? Yes, you only have to look at the murder of Jo Cox to see how far someone people could go in that regard. Then you have the situation in Northern Ireland, which having served out there at the end of the Troubles I know is a tinder box and will remain one for generations to come.
1. The referendum wasn't legally binding. It was advisory. Actually, if it would have been legally binding, the result wouldn't have been voided under British law due to the illegal funding of both leave campaigns.
2. Did Bercow try to stop brexit? Didn't he just try to get it don't legally and in an appropriate timeframe instead of rushing head first into the most ruinous hard brexit that the Tories were pushing for (and lying to the queen about)."Let’s deal with the first issue first. Are you calling me directly, or suggesting indirectly that I am a fascist Nazi because I disagree with you as to whether membership of the EU is a good thing? If you are, what is the basis for this assertion? If not, will you retract the comment you made? | |||
" Oh dear god, the rioting in the streets trope….what were you hoping for, kristallnacht? People riot when they are poor and oppressed neither of which was the case in the EU. Post brexit we are tangibly worse off, have lost our freedom of movement and lost massive amounts of trade. Companies are relocating parts of their businesses to Europe to enable trade to continue meaning less jobs here and more in Europe. Rocket science it is not!!!
One thing I am really going to take issue with is where you ask if I was hoping for a “kristalnacht”
Not only is it a gross mischaracterisation of what I said, but the choice of phrase is illuminating - you are trying to suggest that because I disagree with you I’m a Nazi, or to give them their proper name the National Socialist Workers Party. Let’s be clear, that is a disgusting slur.
People don’t just riot when they are “poor and oppressed”, but to take the latter as a definition of cause, political oppression occurs when extra-democratic means are used to overturn or deny the democratically voiced will of the people. The behaviour of Bercow and others in trying to do everything they could to stop the enactment of the result of a legally binding referendum fits that definition. Did I wish for it? No. Did I see a risk that violence on a local or national scale could have been the end result if the situation had continued? Yes, you only have to look at the murder of Jo Cox to see how far someone people could go in that regard. Then you have the situation in Northern Ireland, which having served out there at the end of the Troubles I know is a tinder box and will remain one for generations to come.
1. The referendum wasn't legally binding. It was advisory. Actually, if it would have been legally binding, the result wouldn't have been voided under British law due to the illegal funding of both leave campaigns.
2. Did Bercow try to stop brexit? Didn't he just try to get it don't legally and in an appropriate timeframe instead of rushing head first into the most ruinous hard brexit that the Tories were pushing for (and lying to the queen about).
Let’s deal with the first issue first. Are you calling me directly, or suggesting indirectly that I am a fascist Nazi because I disagree with you as to whether membership of the EU is a good thing? If you are, what is the basis for this assertion? If not, will you retract the comment you made?"It seems to me that you are talking up the chance of rioting and violence in the streets and as a reference you should perhaps watch the wonderful rebuttal that Jonathon Miller gave to Enoch Powell about the irresponsibility of people in the establishment talking up violence and thereby empowering those who think it is a simple answer to their I’ll considered grievances. Hitler did it, Farage has used the same techniques, and yes indeed look what happened to Jo Cox because idiotic political meddlers wound up a man whose only solution was to resort to violence. Bercow may have been abrasive but he kept the politicians in line and if you look at what has happened in Parliament since he has gone and the disdain that the government have for parliament (lies, obfuscation, none appearance of ministers at UQ’s) then I have to wonder what on earth you imagine is going right with this country. As for NI, I do agree that it will be almost impossible to resolve that especially with the DUP getting in the way of democracy both here and there. Oh and I never called you a fascist btw | |||
| |||
" It seems to me that you are talking up the chance of rioting and violence in the streets and as a reference you should perhaps watch the wonderful rebuttal that Jonathon Miller gave to Enoch Powell about the irresponsibility of people in the establishment talking up violence and thereby empowering those who think it is a simple answer to their I’ll considered grievances. Hitler did it, Farage has used the same techniques, and yes indeed look what happened to Jo Cox because idiotic political meddlers wound up a man whose only solution was to resort to violence. Bercow may have been abrasive but he kept the politicians in line and if you look at what has happened in Parliament since he has gone and the disdain that the government have for parliament (lies, obfuscation, none appearance of ministers at UQ’s) then I have to wonder what on earth you imagine is going right with this country. As for NI, I do agree that it will be almost impossible to resolve that especially with the DUP getting in the way of democracy both here and there. Oh and I never called you a fascist btw " Quite the opposite, my point is that when democracy fails - and in this instance whether legally binding or not, people voted to leave the EU and that clear statement of intent was being blatantly disregarded by a political class that sees itself of the masters of the people - there is always the risk it will spill out into protest, and from there conflict and I do not want to see that. My view is that Bercow abused his position to act partially in the way he selected Bill ammendments to be debated and voted on and the way he conducted the business of Parliament. He was not the impartial “referee” that the role calls for. Unlike the US we don’t have a partial Speakership who votes with the Whip, the Speaker is supposed only to break a tie in the favour of the Government and he went much further than that. Do I think the political system is broken? yes I do. I never used to be in favour of PR, but lately I am open to being convinced largely because you no longer have any ideological difference between the 2 parties and so you get tribalism. The upside to PR is that the 2017 election would have potentially seen more UKIP MPs in Parliament than the Lib Dems who were elected if they had been allocated seats according to polling %age rather than the outcome of the votes being disaggregated in the FPTP system. The downside is that you are more likely to get coalition government and that always ends up being the compromise consisting of everything people don’t want. The other thing that I’d point out is that it’s not as if the political machinations you describe are anything new or unique, it’s been going on since Brutus did for Julius Caesar. | |||
" It seems to me that you are talking up the chance of rioting and violence in the streets and as a reference you should perhaps watch the wonderful rebuttal that Jonathon Miller gave to Enoch Powell about the irresponsibility of people in the establishment talking up violence and thereby empowering those who think it is a simple answer to their I’ll considered grievances. Hitler did it, Farage has used the same techniques, and yes indeed look what happened to Jo Cox because idiotic political meddlers wound up a man whose only solution was to resort to violence. Bercow may have been abrasive but he kept the politicians in line and if you look at what has happened in Parliament since he has gone and the disdain that the government have for parliament (lies, obfuscation, none appearance of ministers at UQ’s) then I have to wonder what on earth you imagine is going right with this country. As for NI, I do agree that it will be almost impossible to resolve that especially with the DUP getting in the way of democracy both here and there. Oh and I never called you a fascist btw Quite the opposite, my point is that when democracy fails - and in this instance whether legally binding or not, people voted to leave the EU and that clear statement of intent was being blatantly disregarded by a political class that sees itself of the masters of the people - there is always the risk it will spill out into protest, and from there conflict and I do not want to see that. My view is that Bercow abused his position to act partially in the way he selected Bill ammendments to be debated and voted on and the way he conducted the business of Parliament. He was not the impartial “referee” that the role calls for. Unlike the US we don’t have a partial Speakership who votes with the Whip, the Speaker is supposed only to break a tie in the favour of the Government and he went much further than that. Do I think the political system is broken? yes I do. I never used to be in favour of PR, but lately I am open to being convinced largely because you no longer have any ideological difference between the 2 parties and so you get tribalism. The upside to PR is that the 2017 election would have potentially seen more UKIP MPs in Parliament than the Lib Dems who were elected if they had been allocated seats according to polling %age rather than the outcome of the votes being disaggregated in the FPTP system. The downside is that you are more likely to get coalition government and that always ends up being the compromise consisting of everything people don’t want. The other thing that I’d point out is that it’s not as if the political machinations you describe are anything new or unique, it’s been going on since Brutus did for Julius Caesar. " Oh I am under no illusions re the baseness of politics but my objection to the current mob is that they no longer even appear to be paying lip service to parliament which did not appear to be the case (to me) in Bercow’s day. Perhaps I am wrong but my belief that MP’s are elected to serve Parliament is misguided? As for the idea that UKIP is anything other than a cult intent on making us more isolated in the world than I have to say that I am quite glad we didn’t have PR back then although I am in general more favourable to it than FPTP | |||
" Oh dear god, the rioting in the streets trope….what were you hoping for, kristallnacht? People riot when they are poor and oppressed neither of which was the case in the EU. Post brexit we are tangibly worse off, have lost our freedom of movement and lost massive amounts of trade. Companies are relocating parts of their businesses to Europe to enable trade to continue meaning less jobs here and more in Europe. Rocket science it is not!!!
One thing I am really going to take issue with is where you ask if I was hoping for a “kristalnacht”
Not only is it a gross mischaracterisation of what I said, but the choice of phrase is illuminating - you are trying to suggest that because I disagree with you I’m a Nazi, or to give them their proper name the National Socialist Workers Party. Let’s be clear, that is a disgusting slur.
People don’t just riot when they are “poor and oppressed”, but to take the latter as a definition of cause, political oppression occurs when extra-democratic means are used to overturn or deny the democratically voiced will of the people. The behaviour of Bercow and others in trying to do everything they could to stop the enactment of the result of a legally binding referendum fits that definition. Did I wish for it? No. Did I see a risk that violence on a local or national scale could have been the end result if the situation had continued? Yes, you only have to look at the murder of Jo Cox to see how far someone people could go in that regard. Then you have the situation in Northern Ireland, which having served out there at the end of the Troubles I know is a tinder box and will remain one for generations to come. "Interesting career. Twenties in military (rank?). Thirties in Civil Service (G7-SCS2). Forties in NHS (Director). Roughly. So do you admit your point on covid vaccine response being quicker etc in UK was due to Brexit was in fact incorrect? | |||
