FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Former permanent secretary at the international trade department weighs in...
Former permanent secretary at the international trade department weighs in...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Project fear is still alive I see!" Project fear of the EU, yeah. Its fucking obvious that Brexit will damage the economy terribly. David Davis’ own department think that some regions will be hit by a 16% down turn in GDP, it could be worse than that. The rest of the world will be happy to complete to take over our positions, and relocate companies, jobs and tax returns to their jurisdictions. | |||
| |||
"Project fear is still alive I see!" You do know who this guy is I take it? Or is knowledge of anything just completely unnecessary in Brexit Britain?? | |||
"Project fear is still alive I see! Project fear of the EU, yeah. Its fucking obvious that Brexit will damage the economy terribly. David Davis’ own department think that some regions will be hit by a 16% down turn in GDP, it could be worse than that. The rest of the world will be happy to complete to take over our positions, and relocate companies, jobs and tax returns to their jurisdictions." Not project fear the sensible people on here have a good idea it’s going to be a bloody mess It’s not scare tactics it’s not what we voted for | |||
"“You’re giving up a three-course meal, the depth and intensity of our trade relationship across the European Union and partners now, for the promise of a packet of crisps in the future, if we manage to do trade deals in the future outside the EU which aren’t going to compensate for what we’re giving up,” Donnelly said the EU was “the only functioning market for services in the world” and key to Britain’s prosperity as an advanced service economy. Damn experts poking their nose in again." Yeah, I mean, it's not like the experts get it wrong do they, I mean, that Mark Carny dude....erm, oh wait  | |||
| |||
"Project fear is still alive I see! Project fear of the EU, yeah. Its fucking obvious that Brexit will damage the economy terribly. David Davis’ own department think that some regions will be hit by a 16% down turn in GDP, it could be worse than that. The rest of the world will be happy to complete to take over our positions, and relocate companies, jobs and tax returns to their jurisdictions." I would suggest you read the article you are quoting again or is it a deliberate misrepresentation | |||
"i see Boris Johnson has put his foot in it again, comparing the border between the UK and Ireland to the border between Islington and Westminster and how simple it was to introduce a congestion charge. Does anyone need any more evidence how clueless our Brexit-chasing leaders are?" Having just looked at a picture of the gurning idiot Gove, I don't think much more evidence is needed. Not if you have a braincell with more capacity than a cornflake. | |||
"“You’re giving up a three-course meal, the depth and intensity of our trade relationship across the European Union and partners now, for the promise of a packet of crisps in the future, if we manage to do trade deals in the future outside the EU which aren’t going to compensate for what we’re giving up,” Donnelly said the EU was “the only functioning market for services in the world” and key to Britain’s prosperity as an advanced service economy. Damn experts poking their nose in again. Yeah, I mean, it's not like the experts get it wrong do they, I mean, that Mark Carny dude....erm, oh wait "You mean the Mark Carney who had to pump £70bn into the economy so we could 'save £350m a week for the NHS'? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Project fear is still alive I see! You do know who this guy is I take it? Or is knowledge of anything just completely unnecessary in Brexit Britain?? " 
The government can't be trusted, they barely made any impact assessments - though lied about them - so we may as well hear from people experienced in the matter.
There is a greed for confirmation bias from many in the brexit camp, probably because it's all looking catastrophic now and the dawn of realization is making them uncomfortable | |||
"Fox and Johnson try to cool the fallout from these statements by lying about Donnelly's work history. Both accused him of spending his life working within the European Union. This is NOT TRUE. He did spend a few years in the late 1980's at the EU but he has spent the vast majority of his career in the UK as a UK Civil Servant. Why lie??? " By the same logic, Johnson's time spent in Brussels as the correspondent of the Times (I think) ought to make him incapable of objective thought. Oh hold on! Objective thought? This was the "journalist" who invented the story the EU wanted to prohibit curved bananas, and dined out on the lie for years. | |||
"Project fear is still alive I see! You do know who this guy is I take it? Or is knowledge of anything just completely unnecessary in Brexit Britain??
The government can't be trusted, they barely made any impact assessments - though lied about them - so we may as well hear from people experienced in the matter.
"No lies about impact assessments as the government never said they had done impact assessments in the first place. The government said they had done "Sectoral analysis" on Brexit. You're the one telling lies here pushing the bogus impact assessments line. | |||
"Fox and Johnson try to cool the fallout from these statements by lying about Donnelly's work history. Both accused him of spending his life working within the European Union. This is NOT TRUE. He did spend a few years in the late 1980's at the EU but he has spent the vast majority of his career in the UK as a UK Civil Servant. Why lie??? " What Fox and Johnson said in reply to Donnelly's comments today (which you and other remainers have failed to quote) is that Donnelly is not taking into account that the UK/EU percentage of trade has been consistently falling for the past 15 years, while our trade with the rest of the world outside of the EU has been steadily increasing. This trend is only going to continue as time goes by. We can increase trade outside of the EU by developing our own free trade deals with those countries, which is where the trend is heading anyway and has been for the last 15 years. The EU will become less and less relevant over time and our trade with other economies outside of the EU is where our future is. | |||
"Fox and Johnson try to cool the fallout from these statements by lying about Donnelly's work history. Both accused him of spending his life working within the European Union. This is NOT TRUE. He did spend a few years in the late 1980's at the EU but he has spent the vast majority of his career in the UK as a UK Civil Servant. Why lie??? What Fox and Johnson said in reply to Donnelly's comments today (which you and other remainers have failed to quote) is that Donnelly is not taking into account that the UK/EU percentage of trade has been consistently falling for the past 15 years, while our trade with the rest of the world outside of the EU has been steadily increasing. This trend is only going to continue as time goes by. We can increase trade outside of the EU by developing our own free trade deals with those countries, which is where the trend is heading anyway and has been for the last 15 years. The EU will become less and less relevant over time and our trade with other economies outside of the EU is where our future is. " Fair point, so why are we not already trading extensively with the rest of the world like France and Germany are? France & Germany trade more with China than the UK does, BECAUSE they exploit the tariff advantages brought about by the EU's WTO weighting. If the UK is really going to enjoy a bumper trading experience with the rest of the world why the need for Brexit? The UK won't get the EU's WTO weighting and so will immediately be at a disadvantage to Germany & France. The Brexit arguments about rest of the world trade and rest of the world immigration are just facile. The UK could right now be trading more the rest of the world - but it isn't. The UK could also be controlling ALL immigration better right now - but it isn't. Why are we expecting post Brexit miracles when there is nothing to stop these things happening right now? | |||
"Fox and Johnson try to cool the fallout from these statements by lying about Donnelly's work history. Both accused him of spending his life working within the European Union. This is NOT TRUE. He did spend a few years in the late 1980's at the EU but he has spent the vast majority of his career in the UK as a UK Civil Servant. Why lie??? What Fox and Johnson said in reply to Donnelly's comments today (which you and other remainers have failed to quote) is that Donnelly is not taking into account that the UK/EU percentage of trade has been consistently falling for the past 15 years, while our trade with the rest of the world outside of the EU has been steadily increasing. This trend is only going to continue as time goes by. We can increase trade outside of the EU by developing our own free trade deals with those countries, which is where the trend is heading anyway and has been for the last 15 years. The EU will become less and less relevant over time and our trade with other economies outside of the EU is where our future is. " Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. | |||
"Project fear is still alive I see! You do know who this guy is I take it? Or is knowledge of anything just completely unnecessary in Brexit Britain??
The government can't be trusted, they barely made any impact assessments - though lied about them - so we may as well hear from people experienced in the matter.
No lies about impact assessments as the government never said they had done impact assessments in the first place. The government said they had done "Sectoral analysis" on Brexit. You're the one telling lies here pushing the bogus impact assessments line. "The sectoral assessments said all the options were shit. Davis applied quantum physics to the analysis, in that they both existed and didn't exist at the same time. Schroedinger's impact assessments | |||
"Project fear is still alive I see! You do know who this guy is I take it? Or is knowledge of anything just completely unnecessary in Brexit Britain??
The government can't be trusted, they barely made any impact assessments - though lied about them - so we may as well hear from people experienced in the matter.
No lies about impact assessments as the government never said they had done impact assessments in the first place. The government said they had done "Sectoral analysis" on Brexit. You're the one telling lies here pushing the bogus impact assessments line. "'Sectoral analysis' for impact assessments. If they'd not done impact assessments, it further underscores the right wingers incompetence. I don't make any attempt to lie, so your offensive jibes are unwelcome and I suggest you try climbing to the level of a gentleman. In any event, these government clowns are so atrocious that they're beyond fantasy. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. " Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals." Have you conveniently forgotten we will not have to give the eu 18 Billion pounds a year when we have finally left! | |||
"Project fear is still alive I see! You do know who this guy is I take it? Or is knowledge of anything just completely unnecessary in Brexit Britain??
The government can't be trusted, they barely made any impact assessments - though lied about them - so we may as well hear from people experienced in the matter.
No lies about impact assessments as the government never said they had done impact assessments in the first place. The government said they had done "Sectoral analysis" on Brexit. You're the one telling lies here pushing the bogus impact assessments line. "Oh, good grief. WTF do you think those "sectoral analysis's" were mean to be analysing? The colour of Davis's pants? No. The impact and effects of Brexit. Hence why they have been referred to as "Impact assessments on different sectors of the economy" Davis said on the 25th June 2017: "No, no, I’m being very clear about this. In my job I don’t think out loud and I don’t make guesses. Those two things. I try and make decisions. You make those based on the data. That data’s being gathered, we’ve got 50, nearly 60 sector analyses already done, we’ve got planning work going on in the customs, we’ve got planning work going on 22 other issues which are critical, 127 all told. All of them have got to be grounded before we come to a conclusion what it looks like. " Then when asked In December in the select committee very directly by Hilary Benn if the govenments had undertaken any economic assessments on the implications of leaving the EU for different sectors of the British economy to which Davis replied they had not. Just in the same was Davis said he had been planning for 'All eventualities' and then admitted again to Hilary Benn that in fact they had not done any assessment of the impact of 'no deal' on the British economy and businesses. Benn pointed out that 'no deal, was certainly a possible eventuality'. -Matt | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. Have you conveniently forgotten we will not have to give the eu 18 Billion pounds a year when we have finally left!" How will we pay for the services we need to replicate here in the UK to replace those we lose access to in the EU? That money has already been quoted as being spent about 100 times over already. Take just one example, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). How much will it cost to replicate that once we lose access to it? Or if we don't lose access to it, how much will it cost us to be an associate member? -Matt | |||
"Fox and Johnson try to cool the fallout from these statements by lying about Donnelly's work history. Both accused him of spending his life working within the European Union. This is NOT TRUE. He did spend a few years in the late 1980's at the EU but he has spent the vast majority of his career in the UK as a UK Civil Servant. Why lie??? What Fox and Johnson said in reply to Donnelly's comments today (which you and other remainers have failed to quote) is that Donnelly is not taking into account that the UK/EU percentage of trade has been consistently falling for the past 15 years, while our trade with the rest of the world outside of the EU has been steadily increasing. This trend is only going to continue as time goes by. We can increase trade outside of the EU by developing our own free trade deals with those countries, which is where the trend is heading anyway and has been for the last 15 years. The EU will become less and less relevant over time and our trade with other economies outside of the EU is where our future is. Fair point, so why are we not already trading extensively with the rest of the world like France and Germany are? France & Germany trade more with China than the UK does, BECAUSE they exploit the tariff advantages brought about by the EU's WTO weighting. If the UK is really going to enjoy a bumper trading experience with the rest of the world why the need for Brexit? The UK won't get the EU's WTO weighting and so will immediately be at a disadvantage to Germany & France. The Brexit arguments about rest of the world trade and rest of the world immigration are just facile. The UK could right now be trading more the rest of the world - but it isn't. The UK could also be controlling ALL immigration better right now - but it isn't. Why are we expecting post Brexit miracles when there is nothing to stop these things happening right now?" Exactly and the reason the UK is currently trading more outside the Eu is because the Eu has more free trade deals and is currently negotiating a lot more with so many countries or as noted above even if not free trade the terms are more relaxed and because of the Eus weight the deals tilt towards eu members Thus every country or trade group with a deal with the Eu will have to stick to the eu mandate when negotiating a deal with the UK oh dear The point being to have less restrictive trade there needs to be single regulations and standards alignment India want an Eu trade deal The UK want a trade deal with India The Eu will insist that the deal agreed between UK and India must not conflict these principles and India would much prefer Eu trade access than just UK There are good reasons the Eu takes it's time with trade deals and let us remember the UK was part of the Eu trade team The UK is illustrating it too will either take ages striking strong coherent comprehensive deals with lots of small countries which it already has great trade terms with or it will make quicker knee jerk agreements which will not be better History shows that the UK humans are no different to any others in the world are stubborn greedy and will argue the toss endlessly , stormont anyone ? Emphasis upon the words Ridiculous il informed cluster fuck | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. Have you conveniently forgotten we will not have to give the eu 18 Billion pounds a year when we have finally left! How will we pay for the services we need to replicate here in the UK to replace those we lose access to in the EU? That money has already been quoted as being spent about 100 times over already. Take just one example, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). How much will it cost to replicate that once we lose access to it? Or if we don't lose access to it, how much will it cost us to be an associate member? -Matt" Here is another. Euratom. Overseas the movement of nuclear material to ensure none is diverted. Completely separate from the EU. Over a third of its activity is in the UK because of the fuel cycle here. But because the European Court of Justice is the body that resolves any Euratom disputes, it's a red line and the Tories handed in our notice. The official estimate to replicate its functions? £10 million. It'll be a lot more than that, for sure. Without it, there is no new nuclear power plant in the UK because the technology will be prohibited from arriving in this country. Ideology trumps common sense, again. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals." These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. Have you conveniently forgotten we will not have to give the eu 18 Billion pounds a year when we have finally left! How will we pay for the services we need to replicate here in the UK to replace those we lose access to in the EU? That money has already been quoted as being spent about 100 times over already. Take just one example, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). How much will it cost to replicate that once we lose access to it? Or if we don't lose access to it, how much will it cost us to be an associate member? -Matt Here is another. Euratom. Overseas the movement of nuclear material to ensure none is diverted. Completely separate from the EU. Over a third of its activity is in the UK because of the fuel cycle here. But because the European Court of Justice is the body that resolves any Euratom disputes, it's a red line and the Tories handed in our notice. The official estimate to replicate its functions? £10 million. It'll be a lot more than that, for sure. Without it, there is no new nuclear power plant in the UK because the technology will be prohibited from arriving in this country. Ideology trumps common sense, again." Or medical isotopes | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. Have you conveniently forgotten we will not have to give the eu 18 Billion pounds a year when we have finally left! How will we pay for the services we need to replicate here in the UK to replace those we lose access to in the EU? That money has already been quoted as being spent about 100 times over already. Take just one example, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). How much will it cost to replicate that once we lose access to it? Or if we don't lose access to it, how much will it cost us to be an associate member? -Matt Here is another. Euratom. Overseas the movement of nuclear material to ensure none is diverted. Completely separate from the EU. Over a third of its activity is in the UK because of the fuel cycle here. But because the European Court of Justice is the body that resolves any Euratom disputes, it's a red line and the Tories handed in our notice. The official estimate to replicate its functions? £10 million. It'll be a lot more than that, for sure. Without it, there is no new nuclear power plant in the UK because the technology will be prohibited from arriving in this country. Ideology trumps common sense, again. Or medical isotopes "Ah sorry , Liam fox has said not to worry his free trade deal with North Korea will solve all our nuclear problems  | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. Have you conveniently forgotten we will not have to give the eu 18 Billion pounds a year when we have finally left!" The answer is the same as the one above. The £18 billion 9or whatever the actual figure) is already wearing thin as it has been promised to outlying regions, to farmers, to fisherman and of course its "loss" is all very relative to the loss of GDP and tax revenue (as mentioned above) | |||
"“You’re giving up a three-course meal, the depth and intensity of our trade relationship across the European Union and partners now, for the promise of a packet of crisps in the future, if we manage to do trade deals in the future outside the EU which aren’t going to compensate for what we’re giving up,” Donnelly said the EU was “the only functioning market for services in the world” and key to Britain’s prosperity as an advanced service economy. Damn experts poking their nose in again." yep, do them "Dam Experts" ever get it right  | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. " If all assessments were wrong, then you would expect by the law of averages that some would be forecasting a that Britains economy would boom after Brexit. They are not forecasting that because all of the weight of data is in one direction only. You don't really need to have common sense to know that if you make trading with your close and wealthy neighbours more difficult, it is going to have a negative impact. Everything else is just about - by how much... It is telling that your measure of success is that whilst the UK has gone from being the fastest growing economy in the EU to being amongst the slowest, it is a victory because some people said it would be worse. Perhaps you have forgotten the £70billion or so worth of QE immediately following the referendum? Do you know why Carney did that and why the Govt immediately abandoned their budget? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. If all assessments were wrong, then you would expect by the law of averages that some would be forecasting a that Britains economy would boom after Brexit. They are not forecasting that because all of the weight of data is in one direction only. You don't really need to have common sense to know that if you make trading with your close and wealthy neighbours more difficult, it is going to have a negative impact. Everything else is just about - by how much... It is telling that your measure of success is that whilst the UK has gone from being the fastest growing economy in the EU to being amongst the slowest, it is a victory because some people said it would be worse. Perhaps you have forgotten the £70billion or so worth of QE immediately following the referendum? Do you know why Carney did that and why the Govt immediately abandoned their budget?" Ah yes the budget, that was another false forecast from the Remain campaign as I recall. Ex chancellor George Osborne said there would have to be an 'emergency budget' in the event of a leave vote. No such emergency budget ever happened. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. If all assessments were wrong, then you would expect by the law of averages that some would be forecasting a that Britains economy would boom after Brexit. They are not forecasting that because all of the weight of data is in one direction only. You don't really need to have common sense to know that if you make trading with your close and wealthy neighbours more difficult, it is going to have a negative impact. Everything else is just about - by how much... It is telling that your measure of success is that whilst the UK has gone from being the fastest growing economy in the EU to being amongst the slowest, it is a victory because some people said it would be worse. Perhaps you have forgotten the £70billion or so worth of QE immediately following the referendum? Do you know why Carney did that and why the Govt immediately abandoned their budget? Ah yes the budget, that was another false forecast from the Remain campaign as I recall. Ex chancellor George Osborne said there would have to be an 'emergency budget' in the event of a leave vote. No such emergency budget ever happened. " and where has that George Osborne disappeared to? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. " How has a UK civil servant got a vested interest in the EU? I'd like that explained, as it sounds like it's a phrase you've heard but don't understand. At least to the point that it makes them write negative reports which would easily be disproved? And the pressure on our NHS won't be eased at all. As we are still spawning like rabbits, still aging and living longer, still be having immigration, wether controlled or not. And we may also be getting a shitload of OAP's back from Spain yet! And please don't parrot the bus lie again. That money has been spent ten times over. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. If all assessments were wrong, then you would expect by the law of averages that some would be forecasting a that Britains economy would boom after Brexit. They are not forecasting that because all of the weight of data is in one direction only. You don't really need to have common sense to know that if you make trading with your close and wealthy neighbours more difficult, it is going to have a negative impact. Everything else is just about - by how much... It is telling that your measure of success is that whilst the UK has gone from being the fastest growing economy in the EU to being amongst the slowest, it is a victory because some people said it would be worse. Perhaps you have forgotten the £70billion or so worth of QE immediately following the referendum? Do you know why Carney did that and why the Govt immediately abandoned their budget?" And was the BOE the only European financial institution to embark on a path of QE? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. " Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No? 
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
| |||
"Fox and Johnson try to cool the fallout from these statements by lying about Donnelly's work history. Both accused him of spending his life working within the European Union. This is NOT TRUE. He did spend a few years in the late 1980's at the EU but he has spent the vast majority of his career in the UK as a UK Civil Servant. Why lie??? " Theyre genetically programmed to lie.....they simply cannot help themselves | |||
"Fox and Johnson try to cool the fallout from these statements by lying about Donnelly's work history. Both accused him of spending his life working within the European Union. This is NOT TRUE. He did spend a few years in the late 1980's at the EU but he has spent the vast majority of his career in the UK as a UK Civil Servant. Why lie??? What Fox and Johnson said in reply to Donnelly's comments today (which you and other remainers have failed to quote) is that Donnelly is not taking into account that the UK/EU percentage of trade has been consistently falling for the past 15 years, while our trade with the rest of the world outside of the EU has been steadily increasing. This trend is only going to continue as time goes by. We can increase trade outside of the EU by developing our own free trade deals with those countries, which is where the trend is heading anyway and has been for the last 15 years. The EU will become less and less relevant over time and our trade with other economies outside of the EU is where our future is. " You do realise that our increased trade outside the EU is supported by the EU trade deals with 60+ no EU countries dont you? You do acknowledge that surely? | |||
"Fox and Johnson try to cool the fallout from these statements by lying about Donnelly's work history. Both accused him of spending his life working within the European Union. This is NOT TRUE. He did spend a few years in the late 1980's at the EU but he has spent the vast majority of his career in the UK as a UK Civil Servant. Why lie??? What Fox and Johnson said in reply to Donnelly's comments today (which you and other remainers have failed to quote) is that Donnelly is not taking into account that the UK/EU percentage of trade has been consistently falling for the past 15 years, while our trade with the rest of the world outside of the EU has been steadily increasing. This trend is only going to continue as time goes by. We can increase trade outside of the EU by developing our own free trade deals with those countries, which is where the trend is heading anyway and has been for the last 15 years. The EU will become less and less relevant over time and our trade with other economies outside of the EU is where our future is. Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. " 10% of doctors are EU nationals and 4% of nurses actually | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. If all assessments were wrong, then you would expect by the law of averages that some would be forecasting a that Britains economy would boom after Brexit. They are not forecasting that because all of the weight of data is in one direction only. You don't really need to have common sense to know that if you make trading with your close and wealthy neighbours more difficult, it is going to have a negative impact. Everything else is just about - by how much... It is telling that your measure of success is that whilst the UK has gone from being the fastest growing economy in the EU to being amongst the slowest, it is a victory because some people said it would be worse. Perhaps you have forgotten the £70billion or so worth of QE immediately following the referendum? Do you know why Carney did that and why the Govt immediately abandoned their budget? And was the BOE the only European financial institution to embark on a path of QE?" The £70bn QE was in addition to the QE that was already taking place and was a specific response to the £ going through the floor overnight | |||
"“You’re giving up a three-course meal, the depth and intensity of our trade relationship across the European Union and partners now, for the promise of a packet of crisps in the future, if we manage to do trade deals in the future outside the EU which aren’t going to compensate for what we’re giving up,” Donnelly said the EU was “the only functioning market for services in the world” and key to Britain’s prosperity as an advanced service economy. Damn experts poking their nose in again. Yeah, I mean, it's not like the experts get it wrong do they, I mean, that Mark Carny dude....erm, oh wait
You mean the Mark Carney who had to pump £70bn into the economy so we could 'save £350m a week for the NHS'? "How much has the ECB put into the EU in QE in the same period? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. If all assessments were wrong, then you would expect by the law of averages that some would be forecasting a that Britains economy would boom after Brexit. They are not forecasting that because all of the weight of data is in one direction only. You don't really need to have common sense to know that if you make trading with your close and wealthy neighbours more difficult, it is going to have a negative impact. Everything else is just about - by how much... It is telling that your measure of success is that whilst the UK has gone from being the fastest growing economy in the EU to being amongst the slowest, it is a victory because some people said it would be worse. Perhaps you have forgotten the £70billion or so worth of QE immediately following the referendum? Do you know why Carney did that and why the Govt immediately abandoned their budget? Ah yes the budget, that was another false forecast from the Remain campaign as I recall. Ex chancellor George Osborne said there would have to be an 'emergency budget' in the event of a leave vote. No such emergency budget ever happened. " That's factually wrong. Did you miss out on the massive round of quantative easing? Sorry was that planned all along? Did you miss out on the changes to deficit reduction, again was that planned all along? And I have to pick up on your points about the NHS. The growth in demand in the NHS is down primarily to an aging population. Not immigration. Please don't pedal lies. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
"fitter my arse majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track fitter than general population, bollocks | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks"Yes because post Brexit, dragging the food your tribe has killed back to the yurt village will be something we all need to do
What a ridiculous measure of someones fitness. I can't do that either, but I can probably cycle circles round you.
| |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks"I've done that and organise community day trip for kids, teenagers and young adults out to national trust sites. Most kids get involved in tiring work cheers. P.s, do you know who chips in 80% of the funding for us to run this scheme between the local schools, national trusts, and local NHS and mental health groups? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks"Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss? Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No. So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS? | |||
" So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?" The absence on any demographic forward planning and the allocation of resources to match the changing needs of the population. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. How has a UK civil servant got a vested interest in the EU? I'd like that explained, as it sounds like it's a phrase you've heard but don't understand. At least to the point that it makes them write negative reports which would easily be disproved? And the pressure on our NHS won't be eased at all. As we are still spawning like rabbits, still aging and living longer, still be having immigration, wether controlled or not. And we may also be getting a shitload of OAP's back from Spain yet! And please don't parrot the bus lie again. That money has been spent ten times over. " We've also got the current EU citizens here, with rights to stay on the cards, so the current demands on services would remain. What we do know about EU nationals in the UK is that they are net positive contributors to the UK economy. Any service failings due to capacity are due to lack of investment - health, transport, education etc. Those were key gripes before the referendum but were complaints due to government lack of planning and funding. The anger was misdirected to immigrants instead of the conservative government | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?"You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!! and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes "Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance. What is your definition of "many"? Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again. Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people? Nonsense just flows from you. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you."growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly? you aint that far away from it yourself son | |||
| |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son"Obviously. You seem to have missed the point. As usual. Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population. Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you? "Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population"Had a few drinks? Struggling with reading and comprehension  | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
Had a few drinks? Struggling with reading and comprehension "only protein shakes until 9pm son, you should try some, looks like you need some meat on that torso of yours | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
Had a few drinks? Struggling with reading and comprehension
only protein shakes until 9pm son, you should try some, looks like you need some meat on that torso of yours"You just lost again didn't you? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
Had a few drinks? Struggling with reading and comprehension
only protein shakes until 9pm son, you should try some, looks like you need some meat on that torso of yours
You just lost again didn't you? "You know only too well who the Loser in life is have a look in a mirror and you will see only too well and you exactly why | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
Had a few drinks? Struggling with reading and comprehension
only protein shakes until 9pm son, you should try some, looks like you need some meat on that torso of yours
You just lost again didn't you?
You know only too well who the Loser in life is
have a look in a mirror and you will see only too well
and you exactly why"No, I don't. Do tell me. Winner | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. How has a UK civil servant got a vested interest in the EU? I'd like that explained, as it sounds like it's a phrase you've heard but don't understand. At least to the point that it makes them write negative reports which would easily be disproved? And the pressure on our NHS won't be eased at all. As we are still spawning like rabbits, still aging and living longer, still be having immigration, wether controlled or not. And we may also be getting a shitload of OAP's back from Spain yet! And please don't parrot the bus lie again. That money has been spent ten times over. We've also got the current EU citizens here, with rights to stay on the cards, so the current demands on services would remain. What we do know about EU nationals in the UK is that they are net positive contributors to the UK economy. Any service failings due to capacity are due to lack of investment - health, transport, education etc. Those were key gripes before the referendum but were complaints due to government lack of planning and funding. The anger was misdirected to immigrants instead of the conservative government " It's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say that they are economically neutral at best or a net drain on the UK. Even arch remainer Vince Cable (now Lib dem leader) said shortly after the EU referendum result that "the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable". | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population"The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes. "Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU. "Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it. -Matt | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt"You'll have to ask Tony Blair that. He was Prime minister at the time. Nigel Farage at the time was calling for transitional controls to be put in place, which Blair and Labour ignored. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. How has a UK civil servant got a vested interest in the EU? I'd like that explained, as it sounds like it's a phrase you've heard but don't understand. At least to the point that it makes them write negative reports which would easily be disproved? And the pressure on our NHS won't be eased at all. As we are still spawning like rabbits, still aging and living longer, still be having immigration, wether controlled or not. And we may also be getting a shitload of OAP's back from Spain yet! And please don't parrot the bus lie again. That money has been spent ten times over. We've also got the current EU citizens here, with rights to stay on the cards, so the current demands on services would remain. What we do know about EU nationals in the UK is that they are net positive contributors to the UK economy. Any service failings due to capacity are due to lack of investment - health, transport, education etc. Those were key gripes before the referendum but were complaints due to government lack of planning and funding. The anger was misdirected to immigrants instead of the conservative government It's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say that they are economically neutral at best or a net drain on the UK. Even arch remainer Vince Cable (now Lib dem leader) said shortly after the EU referendum result that "the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable". " Migration watch is self-certified as an independent body. It's incorporated as a company rather than a charity so it doesn't have to declare the source of its finances. Just saying. Are immigrants a financial benefit or loss? Probably marginal either way. They are still people. Most of them very nice. Do you still think they are a significant source of the country's woes? You don't think that we have any hand in it? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt"Because the experts said there would only be 13,000. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000."That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction. You don't need an expert for that. Still our fault not the EUs. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs."More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch. "The UK government. Us. Just as the Tory government who I did not vote for is screwing up Brexit. It's still us, the UK. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch.
The UK government. Us.
Just as the Tory government who I did not vote for is screwing up Brexit.
It's still us, the UK."On the subject of taking responsibility and not blaming others; do you still think that immigrants are the most significant source of the country's woes? Pressure on the NHS and national infrastructure. You don't think that we as a country, and it's government, have any hand in it? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes "You do know that the vast majority of older people dont have medical insurance because the premiums are sky high or because the companies wont cover them because of pre-existing health conditions dont you? So, as always, youre putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5 | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs."So you think there should be a restriction? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
So you think there should be a restriction?"There should have been. Yes. The UK received a spike in immigration. What we should have done and still could do is argue for capital spending for the EU. Instead we've self-harmed. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
So you think there should be a restriction?
There should have been. Yes.
The UK received a spike in immigration. What we should have done and still could do is argue for capital spending for the EU.
Instead we've self-harmed."So do you think there should still be a restriction? If not, why not? | |||
" So do you think there should still be a restriction? If not, why not?" First, we can apply the rules as they stand. It will require some bureaucracy, but the rule is for free movement of workers (and families). It will be the same rules that we should be applying for all immigration anyway. We could enforce employment law to not allow people to work for less than the minimum wage or even increase this so that government subsidy isn't required. After all, this is the true cost of labour otherwise we are subsidising private companies. Other EU states apply the rules to prevent problems arising and they have no border control at all. We are unique in failing to do this. | |||
| |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch. "Yes, well done. That was who was PM and the party in power at the time. Voted in by ourselves. Still nothing to do with the EU. -Matt | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch.
Yes, well done. That was who was PM and the party in power at the time. Voted in by ourselves. Still nothing to do with the EU.
-Matt"Is freedom of movement nothing to do with the EU? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch.
Yes, well done. That was who was PM and the party in power at the time. Voted in by ourselves. Still nothing to do with the EU.
-Matt
Is freedom of movement nothing to do with the EU?"Yes it is. -Matt | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch.
The UK government. Us.
Just as the Tory government who I did not vote for is screwing up Brexit.
It's still us, the UK."Free movement of people is an EU policy, it's not the uk's policy so it has everything to do with the EU. Even if Blair and Labour had put transitional controls in place on immigration from new member states that would only have been a temporary fix with a limited time period. After the transitional controls were removed you'd still be back to square one. | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch.
Yes, well done. That was who was PM and the party in power at the time. Voted in by ourselves. Still nothing to do with the EU.
-Matt
Is freedom of movement nothing to do with the EU?
Yes it is.
-Matt"So you think that if the EU didn't have the freedom of movement policy, we'd have allowed it anyway? | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch.
Yes, well done. That was who was PM and the party in power at the time. Voted in by ourselves. Still nothing to do with the EU.
-Matt
Is freedom of movement nothing to do with the EU?
Yes it is.
-Matt
So you think that if the EU didn't have the freedom of movement policy, we'd have allowed it anyway?"Freedom of movement is only totally "free" for 90 days or less. If over 90 days there are rules for all EU countries: 1. Must have sufficient capital and income not to be a burden on the host state. 2. Have a comprehensive medical insurance policy so your not a burden on the host state. 3. Not be a security risk. There rules came into being in 2004 when eastern European countries joined - UK never enforced the rules though! | |||
" Yeah it's all smoke and mirrors with them. They also claim the NHS will collapse without the EU but in reality only 6% of EU nationals work in the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS along with all of our other public services. Any kind of loss of tax revenue impacts the Govts ability to fund essential services and to date, every single Brexit assessment shows a negative impact on growth in the UK - that means lower tax receipts and less money for schools and hospitals. These are the same civil servants at the Treasury who forecast a recession in the event of a Leave vote. Their economic modelling is wrong, as Brexit backing Labour MP John Mann said on BBC Question Time a couple of weeks ago, when you put the wrong set of figures in to begin with you're going to end up getting the wrong results out the other end. The civil servants at the Treasury have already been proven completely wrong about their impact assessments on the effects of a Leave vote, why should anyone assume they'd be right now? Instead of the recession the civil servants at the Treasury forecast we have seen continued growth since the vote to Leave in June 2016. They also forecast upto 500,000 job losses but instead we've seen an additional 250,000 new jobs added to the UK economy, they forecast investment would dry up but we've seen continued investment and London was named the Tech investment capital of Europe in 2017, productivity also hit a 6 year high at the end of 2017. Conclusion is any Treasury forecasts or impact assessments about Brexit need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, many of these civil servants are Europhiles with vested interests in the EU. Also on your other point about the NHS and other public services, the reduced levels of immigration due to Brexit will reduce the weight of numbers and pressures being put on the NHS and other public services, less patients to see means less pressure on the services being used. Just for clarity then; no information from any civil servant is to believed? Yes or No?
6% of the UK population was born in the EU. They are, on average, far younger and therefore fitter than the general population.
Do you think that this is the most significant problem?
Yes or No?
fitter my arse
majority of kids today have zero fitness, okay they may go to a gym and work out on a running machine but lets see them try to pull a 200lb stag out of woods onto forest track
fitter than general population, bollocks
Do they have dementia or Alzheimer's? Do they suffer from brittle bones? Do they require hip replacements? Do they have higher cancer rates? Do they need help going to the bathroom, getting out of bed, cooking and eating? Do they suffer from hearing and eyesight loss?
Yes. Do they suffer these problems at even remotely approaching the same rate as old people? No.
So what's causing the greatest pressure on the NHS?
You are aware many of us over 50's have private medical insurance to cover these hip ops and illness should they occur!!
and if I have the genes of my parents I will be looking forward to a further 40+ years
How many youngsters of today ensure they have private medical cover, or do they just relay on NHS
How many youngsters of today pay into a private pension scheme or do they just hope someone will pay for them in old age
get off your high horse the young aint doing as good as you think they are, many are grossly over weight, a ticking time bomb for diabetes
Between 9% and 11% of the population have private medical insurance.
What is your definition of "many"?
Do you have any idea if a higher or lower proportion of the population has private medical insurance now than your generation? Just making it up? Again.
Are you really saying that old people do not require more medical attention than young people?
Nonsense just flows from you.
growing old is part of life, even your so called healthy youngsters will hopefully grow to a ripe old age, why you so upset with the elderly?
you aint that far away from it yourself son
Obviously.
You seem to have missed the point. As usual.
Centaur was claiming that the NHS was under pressure because of EU immigrants. It a very small part of the problem because there is a far smaller proportion of older immigrants. Most of the pressure on the NHS is because of an aging population.
Nobody said that it was their fault. Such a whining victim aren't you?
Glad to see you agree with the fact that the NHS is under pressure because of EU immigrants
sad to see you also believe blame is thrown at the aging population, don't you agree the NHS is causing this aging population
The UK government did not increase investment in line with forecast and actual population growth, including immigration, despite extra tax revenues received from immigrants, who are net contributors to the state. Lack of infrastructure and services in such a situation is thus the responsibility and fault of the government, rather than specific groups, such as immigrants, or elderly people. In any event, longevity has plateaued for older people in the UK - perhaps because of lack of government investment into health and care services, amongst other causes.
Once again as I said in my last post that it's arguable and disputed that EU citizens are a net benefit to the UK. Independent bodies like Migration watch UK say they are at best economically neutral or a net drain. Even Lib dem leader Vince Cable said that the economic benefits to the wider population of mass immigration is debatable. Also you can't forecast and plan for future infrastructure spending when you have no idea what the numbers of new arrivals will be. This became abundantly clear during the Blair years when they forecast around 500,000 new arrivals from Eastern Europe in 2004/5 then in the real event over 4 million of them came. You can't plan properly for infrastructure spending with an open door mass immigration policy which includes free movement of people from the EU.
Ok, so even if you think they are a drain. Which, considering you’ve already said it’s negligible is a bit of a stretch.... why didn’t the UK gov restrict the numbers of immigrants from the new EU members? Pretty much every other EU nation did. We had the power to do so, just never used it.
-Matt
Because the experts said there would only be 13,000.
That still doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a restriction.
You don't need an expert for that.
Still our fault not the EUs.
More precisely Blair and Labours fault as it happened on their watch.
Yes, well done. That was who was PM and the party in power at the time. Voted in by ourselves. Still nothing to do with the EU.
-Matt
Is freedom of movement nothing to do with the EU?
Yes it is.
-Matt
So you think that if the EU didn't have the freedom of movement policy, we'd have allowed it anyway?
Freedom of movement is only totally "free" for 90 days or less. If over 90 days there are rules for all EU countries:
1. Must have sufficient capital and income not to be a burden on the host state.
2. Have a comprehensive medical insurance policy so your not a burden on the host state.
3. Not be a security risk.
There rules came into being in 2004 when eastern European countries joined - UK never enforced the rules though!"Not only that we had the option of, for 7 years, restricting or completely denying freedom of movement from the new Eastern European members in 2004. But we didn't bother to use that clause either. In fact, in 1998 Blair removed exit checks at our borders so we had no idea who was in or out anyway. Again, nothing to do with the EU. Entirely our own government's responsibility. -Matt | |||
