Brexit NHS Funding Promise broken

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, the logical answer is that UK is still part of EU, so nothing changed in that regard. Britain still pays that money to EU.

Of course, evem if it weren't for that, Britain still wont be able to transfer that money to NHS for two reasons:
1) the sum is lower than advertised
2) UK would be forced to spend programes that are now funded by EU

Re 1) -- that is government spin 101, so I have no doubt you are correct

re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced

[Husar]

Re 1) -- that is government spin 101, so I have no doubt you are correct

re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced

re 2) -- As do poor people, and somehow they still don't leave a society that makes them contribute more than they get back.

If there were actually an effect of the EU dragging the UK down, it certainly can't be found in the economic statistics:
http://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/Brexit

The UK’s growth has exceeded the US while tracking it, even since the crisis of 2008. This makes it hard to argue that the EU is dragging the UK down. Alternatively, compare this to the UK’s performance during the “glory days” of the Empire from 1872 to 1914. Back then Britain’s per capita growth was only 0.9% per year, in contrast to its robust 2.1% since joining the EU.

How much of that money they "save" will be left once all the benefits are actually gone?
And about keeping the benefits, and the nasty EU wanting to take the benefits away, even with citizenship and other things people usually agree that with benefits, you also get responsibilities. Why would EU membership be about cherry-picking your benefits? That's just greedy.

[Pannonian]

Re 1) -- that is government spin 101, so I have no doubt you are correct

re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced

The bare numbers don't tell everything. The UK government has a tendency to concentrate funding on London. The EU makes sure the provinces get their share of funding. Hence the southwest voting to leave the EU, then promptly asking the UK government for reassurances that EU funding will be made up for. They're idiots who deserve every bit of pain that they will get from shooting themselves in the foot.

[Brenus]

"re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced" Well. That was a part of the big lie from the Brexiters. UK earned money because access to EU market, the City doesn't need permit to exchange in EU etc... That was saved money. If UK doesn't succeed to have these fees/barriers out, the City will move, so will the foreign investors. For the same amount of person/offices better to work within a 400 millions customers than in a 60 millions one.
I am not a lover of the actual EU, but you might notice in which state were Portugal after the Saint Lazare's dictatorship and Spain after Franco's dictatorship, Greece after the Colonels' dictatorship etc. But, thanks to the money from EU, these countries developed. Then, the EU imposed economical models wich destroyed what the same EU just built, and this is the EU I don't want.

[Kralizec]

Re 1) -- that is government spin 101, so I have no doubt you are correct

re 2) -- I would be surprised if the UK gets more from the EU than it contributes. Moreover, you don't note that they have the option of discontinuing the program referenced

1) He is correct, no doubt about it. The UK's government statistic agency has repeatedly debunked the figure cited, yet the Leave camp continued to use it during the referendum campaign.

2) The point is not that the UK receives more than it gets in return, but that part of the UK's contribution is reimbursed by EU investment.

The UK's net contribution is about half of the figure cited by the Leave camp, IIRC. Furthermore the general expectation is that leaving the EU single market is going to result in economic shrinkage, leading to a net financial loss, making cuts to the NHS far more likely than any extra money.

[Fragony]

The bare numbers don't tell everything. The UK government has a tendency to concentrate funding on London. The EU makes sure the provinces get their share of funding. Hence the southwest voting to leave the EU, then promptly asking the UK government for reassurances that EU funding will be made up for. They're idiots who deserve every bit of pain that they will get from shooting themselves in the foot.

I don't see why, that can just as easily be handled by an independant nation-state.. The only diffrence is where they get it from, and the UK is a net payer in the EU

[Pannonian]

1) He is correct, no doubt about it. The UK's government statistic agency has repeatedly debunked the figure cited, yet the Leave camp continued to use it during the referendum campaign.

2) The point is not that the UK receives more than it gets in return, but that part of the UK's contribution is reimbursed by EU investment.

The UK's net contribution is about half of the figure cited by the Leave camp, IIRC. Furthermore the general expectation is that leaving the EU single market is going to result in economic shrinkage, leading to a net financial loss, making cuts to the NHS far more likely than any extra money.

And what investment there is will be concentrated in London, for that is what British governments tend to do. The provinces will be screwed two ways, by the loss of EU investment, and by the redirection of UK investment to London. The softest landing will be felt in London and the Home Counties. The bits outside the old Angle and Saxon kingdoms will be left to rot. Serves them right.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, when the negotiations begin regarding the exit process and its aftermath -- which negotiations will be harsh to the point of combative* on the part of the EU team -- will the UK cave, rescind the vote and/or replace it, and go back to being what the EU wants?

*maybe not to the point of arguing about the shape of the table a la Paris in the 1970s, but I would expect it to be rough and unpleasant as a means of convincing any other shirkers that it is not worth it.

[Pannonian]

So, when the negotiations begin regarding the exit process and its aftermath -- which negotiations will be harsh to the point of combative* on the part of the EU team -- will the UK cave, rescind the vote and/or replace it, and go back to being what the EU wants?

*maybe not to the point of arguing about the shape of the table a la Paris in the 1970s, but I would expect it to be rough and unpleasant as a means of convincing any other shirkers that it is not worth it.

The conditions are already known. For access to the common market, the UK must accept the four freedoms as a package (as a minimum, plus membership fees). Freedom of movement was the main reason for the Leave vote (hence the recent rise in xenophobic, racist and homophobic attacks, with the far right encouraged by the vote), which the Tories have said they won't be compromising on. So the four freedoms won't be accepted by the UK government, which means the UK will lose access to the common market. Which is a bugger for exporters, as 50% of our exports went to the EU. It will mean stuff from the EU will increase in price, thus driving up prices, while wages will have to go down in order for exporters to absorb tariffs whilst remaining competitive. Tax revenue will also go down (quite drastically) as financial services leave the UK for places with access to the common market.

All of that was known before the vote. And Frag will hand wave all of that away with "You'll be fine" and "It's worth it".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The conditions are already known. For access to the common market, the UK must accept the four freedoms as a package (as a minimum, plus membership fees). Freedom of movement was the main reason for the Leave vote (hence the recent rise in xenophobic, racist and homophobic attacks, with the far right encouraged by the vote), which the Tories have said they won't be compromising on. So the four freedoms won't be accepted by the UK government, which means the UK will lose access to the common market. Which is a bugger for exporters, as 50% of our exports went to the EU. It will mean stuff from the EU will increase in price, thus driving up prices, while wages will have to go down in order for exporters to absorb tariffs whilst remaining competitive. Tax revenue will also go down (quite drastically) as financial services leave the UK for places with access to the common market.

All of that was known before the vote. And Frag will hand wave all of that away with "You'll be fine" and "It's worth it".

I blame April Glaspie

[Fragony]

The conditions are already known. For access to the common market, the UK must accept the four freedoms as a package (as a minimum, plus membership fees). Freedom of movement was the main reason for the Leave vote (hence the recent rise in xenophobic, racist and homophobic attacks, with the far right encouraged by the vote), which the Tories have said they won't be compromising on. So the four freedoms won't be accepted by the UK government, which means the UK will lose access to the common market. Which is a bugger for exporters, as 50% of our exports went to the EU. It will mean stuff from the EU will increase in price, thus driving up prices, while wages will have to go down in order for exporters to absorb tariffs whilst remaining competitive. Tax revenue will also go down (quite drastically) as financial services leave the UK for places with access to the common market.

All of that was known before the vote. And Frag will hand wave all of that away with "You'll be fine" and "It's worth it".

Your exports will be cheaper and you think that is a bad thing? Nobody is going to kick you out of that 50% of exports, that's hysterical scaremoning, that common market will still be there. The UK will only be releaved from a very costly overhead and the EU knows it. Eurocrats tend to forget that Europe is a continent and the EU a political construction. These exports do not go to Brussels. They go to Europe. And yes some things will be more expensive.

[Pannonian]

Your exports will be cheaper and you think that is a bad thing? Nobody is going to kick you out of that 50% of exports, that's hysterical scaremoning, that common market will still be there. The UK will only be releaved from a very costly overhead and the EU knows it. Eurocrats tend to forget that Europe is a continent and the EU a political construction. These exports do not go to Brussels. They go to Europe. And yes some things will be more expensive.

You wot? Is this a spectacular case of strawman building, or do you not understand what you read?

[Fragony]

You wot? Is this a spectacular case of strawman building, or do you not understand what you read?

It will cost less to export from the UK what's so hard about it. That's how Southern-European countries used to keep afloat, devaluating their coin to make importing from them more attractive.

I am certainly not the only who is optimistic about the future of your country, maybe overly so

[Montmorency]

Europe is a continent

Europe as continent is a political construction.

[Pannonian]

It will cost less to export from the UK what's so hard about it. That's how Southern-European countries used to keep afloat, devaluating their coin to make importing from them more attractive.

Err, the UK is a net importer. Yet another argument from you that takes no notice of the reality of the people on the ground.

[Fragony]

Err, the UK is a net importer. Yet another argument from you that takes no notice of the reality of the people on the ground.

And they suddenly won't want to trade with you anymore? Terminating existing contracts is a costly afair, it's best for everyone that they stay intact, and a bad thing to have to reorganise a perfectly well organised system. I never said it wouldn't get worse for some people, it also got worse for coal-shoverers when trains got invented and Thatcher broke the back of worker-unions who wanted job-guarenties for coal shovellers. Cheap example and probably not even true I know but you probably get the idea. You are in new territory make the most out of it. I know it won't work out for everyone but there is no need to make it come across as if I have any pleassure in that, not that you say that directly but the contempt is received

As for OT, we have privitised healthcare and it's a bad idea, you got a perfect case-study here in the Netherlands on that. It got better for some, but unaffordable for others, especially people who need help for addictions and mental diseases are screwed.

[Gilrandir]

Terminating existing contracts is a costly afair, it's best for everyone that they stay intact, and a bad thing to have to reorganise a perfectly well organised system.

But one day the conracts will expire and they won't prolong them. It might chronologically coincide with the moment when Brexit is fait accompli.

[Pannonian]

All of that was known before the vote. And Frag will hand wave all of that away with "You'll be fine" and "It's worth it".

And they suddenly won't want to trade with you anymore? Terminating existing contracts is a costly afair, it's best for everyone that they stay intact, and a bad thing to have to reorganise a perfectly well organised system. I never said it wouldn't get worse for some people, it also got worse for coal-shoverers when trains got invented and Thatcher broke the back of worker-unions who wanted job-guarenties for coal shovellers. Cheap example and probably not even true I know but you probably get the idea. You are in new territory make the most out of it. I know it won't work out for everyone but there is no need to make it come across as if I have any pleassure in that, not that you say that directly but the contempt is received

As for OT, we have privitised healthcare and it's a bad idea, you got a perfect case-study here in the Netherlands on that. It got better for some, but unaffordable for others, especially people who need help for addictions and mental diseases are screwed.

On the highlighted bit: your contempt for "coal shoverers (sic)" who were superseded by the invention of trains is noted. Anyone with knowledge of the history of trains knows that coal and railways went hand in hand.

[Fragony]

On the highlighted bit: your contempt for "coal shoverers (sic)" who were superseded by the invention of trains is noted. Anyone with knowledge of the history of trains knows that coal and railways went hand in hand.

When electrical trains became the norm there was no need for coal shovelers anymore, yet the unions wanted to have two aboard anyway. How silly is that. No contempt for coal-shovelers whatsoever coming from me, it was really hard work. So was lighting up streetlights.

[Pannonian]

When electrical trains became the norm there was no need for coal shovelers anymore, yet the unions wanted to have two aboard anyway. How silly is that. No contempt for coal-shovelers whatsoever coming from me, it was really hard work. So was lighting up streetlights.

I don't remember firemen in Thatcher's day. I remember guards, but I don't remember firemen. You're probably mixing up coal mines (which Thatcher closed) and coal powered trains.

[Fragony]

I don't remember firemen in Thatcher's day. I remember guards, but I don't remember firemen. You're probably mixing up coal mines (which Thatcher closed) and coal powered trains.

No, as I already said I don't know if it's actually true, must have been way before Thatcher that such demands were made if it is. Point is, something is always bad for someone, I just took out a rediculous example

As a whole, Thatcher kinda saved the UK, and absolutily not by pleasing everyone, for some it was disastrous, I will not say that it wasn't at the expense of others that would be daft. The biggest concern, the fall of major banks is not justified just yet. After a short burst of panick the market hold up better than even the biggest optimists expected.

[Pannonian]

No, as I already said I don't know if it's actually true, must have been way before Thatcher that such demands were made if it is. Point is, something is always bad for someone, I just took out a rediculous example

As a whole, Thatcher kinda saved the UK, and absolutily not by pleasing everyone, for some it was disastrous, I will not say that it wasn't at the expense of others that would be daft. The biggest concern, the fall of major banks is not justified just yet. After a short burst of panick the market hold up better than even the biggest optimists expected.

And my repeated point is that, whatever the good and bad points are, your assurances that it's all worth it hold no water, as you don't have to face them yourself. You've made repeated assurances, including here, that things will be better, even while a cursory examination of what you say shows that you don't know what you're talking about, and that your assurances don't take into account the reality on the ground, especially for less well off people. Hence my comparisons of you with the neolibs of the 1990s, who made the same assurances about Yeltsin's Russia, until the Russian people gave up on the neolibs' fantasies.

[Fragony]

And my repeated point is that, whatever the good and bad points are, your assurances that it's all worth it hold no water, as you don't have to face them yourself. You've made repeated assurances, including here, that things will be better, even while a cursory examination of what you say shows that you don't know what you're talking about, and that your assurances don't take into account the reality on the ground, especially for less well off people. Hence my comparisons of you with the neolibs of the 1990s, who made the same assurances about Yeltsin's Russia, until the Russian people gave up on the neolibs' fantasies.

You don't know it either, we will just have to wait and see who's right no? If it goes wrong I am in trouble as well.

I am really not out to wave away your concerns but I expect a positive outcome. Naturally I can have it completily wrong.

[Brenus]

"After a short burst of panick the market hold up better than even the biggest optimists expected." The market hold because the fall of the Pounds (currency in which they pay their bills in UK) make their profit higher as they trade in USD or Euro. So, their costs mechanically fall of 10 % but they can still deal within EU. And the bigger optimists NEVER expected a fall, but a surge of trade from Australia, Botswana, India and others countries, surge which at that moment still failed to show-up.
The reality is prices for consumers are going up, salaries not, jobs are still heavily based on temps, zero-hours contracts and self-employment. I am temp now for around 4 years. My wife is finally almost at the level she was 10 years ago.
As Thatcher, savour of the UK, you should go and ask the regions completely devastated by her policy, turning England in a services shop. Cameron did finish her work, in blocking the EU decision to protect iron market against China, therefore no more national industries/factories are now working in UK. As not every one can be hair-dressers (example of service, nothing against hair-dressers), and themselves cutting the hairs of workers in factories, they will loose their income, as workers in all others services... Note that the barbers/hair dresser at the corner is a Turkish, anyway.
The brexiters (on the right wing) were nostalgic of the trade of an Empire, forgetting that the subjects of the Empire were not free to trade with England.
And the next nuclear plant will be built by EDF (France) and China, great democracy under the sun.

[Fragony]

Both the surge and the fall aren't there, OK the biggest optimists were too optimistic but there aren't many of them. Anyone realistic should expect it to hurt, but a jab of a knife is very unlikely to kill you, hurts though of course. There is no precedent to base anything on, for boredom's sake, we can still see the broken window-theory in effect, that's not someone told me it is what I think with my very limited understanding of the actual situation and all the perfectly justified redicule that comes with it, maybe I have too much trust in my judgement but it worked so far for me.

[Pannonian]

All of that was known before the vote. And Frag will hand wave all of that away with "You'll be fine" and "It's worth it".

Both the surge and the fall aren't there, OK the biggest optimists were too optimistic but there aren't many of them. Anyone realistic should expect it to hurt, but a jab of a knife is very unlikely to kill you, hurts though of course. There is no precedent to base anything on, for boredom's sake, we can still see the broken window-theory in effect, that's not someone told me it is what I think with my very limited understanding of the actual situation and all the perfectly justified redicule that comes with it, maybe I have too much trust in my judgement but it worked so far for me.

Unlike you, Brenus lives in the UK, and faces the consequences of the Brexit that you're so keen on. If you're so keen on the broken window, join us and sit in the broken glass.

[Fragony]

Unlike you, Brenus lives in the UK, and faces the consequences of the Brexit that you're so keen on. If you're so keen on the broken window, join us and sit in the broken glass.

My reasons for aplauding the brexit go beyond your situation I will admit that but that doesn't mean I wish you any harm. Can't shake the feeling that you think I would be enjoying it if your situation gets worse. Some would though and those are the people who want the brexit to fail, not me

[Pannonian]

My reasons for aplauding the brexit go beyond your situation I will admit that but that doesn't mean I wish you any harm. Can't shake the feeling that you think I would be enjoying it if your situation gets worse. Some would though and those are the people who want the brexit to fail, not me

I get the feeling that you care not a jot if our situation gets worse, because this is all an intellectual exercise to you, where you get to watch the results of your stated experiment without the hassle of facing the consequences in person. Just like the neolibs with Russia in the 1990s. Hence your repeated stating of the broken glass theory, where others have to sit in the broken glass, while you get to document the results from a safe distance.

[Fragony]

I get the feeling that you care not a jot if our situation gets worse, because this is all an intellectual exercise to you, where you get to watch the results of your stated experiment without the hassle of facing the consequences in person. Just like the neolibs with Russia in the 1990s. Hence your repeated stating of the broken glass theory, where others have to sit in the broken glass, while you get to document the results from a safe distance.

Broken glass is nothing but a musing, a what if. Why so hostile to people who mean you no harm whatsoever. Do i find it interesting, yes. Why wouldn't I.it has never happened that a country volunteers to be out of the EU. That doesn't make me indifferent.

[Brenus]

"Both the surge and the fall aren't there" The fall IS there. Each time I put petrol in my car, it is there, when I go shopping, when I can't go out anymore because we have to cut our expenses in order to compensate the cost of living.
Even the brexiters feel they were conned now. NHS going down, Justice system in tatters, no more nurses for elderly people, teachers having enough. And this just because the IDEA of Brexit won.
There is no one day with warnings and examples in newspapers how the situation is going from bad to worst. And Brexiters saying finally that it will be harsh but it is worth of it, even they are not f*****ing able to give one sample of what they want to get rid of.
It is now obvious that the "winners" had no idea what to do with their victory, no plans whatsoever...
It is partially because they lied up to the teeth, but as well because the leavers had different reasons to do so.
There are no representatives of the left part that voted to leave the EU in the actual government. So, because Cameron did cooked the books, May is now in no position to blame EU for the deficit, as it is now obvious that EU has nothing to do with it. The cuts did the job.
Cameron and May did agree with EU, in term of policy. Free trade, less workers 'rights, more money for the riches, less taxes for big companies. That why Cameron did get an agreement with Merkel, they agreed with this policy (remember at the same time the Brexiters were arguing how EU was giving too much protection to workers, in France millions were demonstrating against EU destroying what left for workers' right and social welfare).
So, what now for May: Everything UK wants UK will have, and had before. How to explain to the brexiters: This was not EU, this was us, in full agreement with EU.