Jump to content

Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Guided Missile

By Guided Missile,
in The Lounge

 Share

Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum  

217 members have voted

  1. 1. Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

    • Leave Before - Leave Now
      46
    • Leave Before - Remain Now
      10
    • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now
      2
    • Remain Before - Remain Now
      127
    • Remain Before - Leave Now
      7
    • Remain Before - Not Bothered Now
      1
    • Not Bothered Before - Leave Now
      3
    • Not Bothered Before - Remain Now
      5
    • I've never been bothered - Why am I on this Thread?
      3
    • No second Ref - 2016 was Definitive and Binding
      13

Recommended Posts

Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Yes, anybody who by dint of just voting to leave your beloved broken and sclerotic EU is thick, racist, xenophobic and a backward far right extremist. So say arrogant anti-democrats like you who express such bigoted views against the majority of their fellow citizens who had the audacity to vote to leave the EU.

 

Regarding the Tory Party leadership, you seem to have overlooked the fact that as it is the Party members who will elect the next leader from a short list of two candidates, the fact that a substantial majority of members now favour a clean break WTO option means that Gove will not emerge as leader. If the two candidates do not include a true Brexiteer, then the Tory Party is finished.

 

And if a no deal leader is elected, it will go to a GE and we'll see a Corbyn leadership propped up by the SNP and Lib Dems - which will result in a second referendum.

 

Tory Brexiteers are currently between a rock and a hard place - do they vote for a Brexit leader and highten the risk of no Brexit, or go for a deal Brexit leader and get the Brexit that no-one wants.

 

It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
And if a no deal leader is elected, it will go to a GE and we'll see a Corbyn leadership propped up by the SNP and Lib Dems - which will result in a second referendum.

 

Tory Brexiteers are currently between a rock and a hard place - do they vote for a Brexit leader and highten the risk of no Brexit, or go for a deal Brexit leader and get the Brexit that no-one wants.

 

It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

 

The only way to sort it would be for the Tories to elect a Brexiteer leader, they go to Brussels and get the "true Brexit" deal that May failed to do, then put it to the people to decide once the details of this "true Brexit" are known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
The only way to sort it would be for the Tories to elect a Brexiteer leader, they go to Brussels and get the "true Brexit" deal that May failed to do, then put it to the people to decide once the details of this "true Brexit" are known.

 

But there is no true Brexit deal? What kind of 'deal' are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
Cool, was just wondering.

 

It's a deal or no Brexit now - and putting a 'no deal' advocate in charge will push towards no Brexit.

 

Probably, but it's vital that a Brexiteer is in charge so these Tories can show us all what a good deal is. Then the logical and democratic thing to do would be to put it to the people to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Caught out? Caught out? What are you on about young man.

 

I voted remain, so not sure why i would be annoyed.

 

Yeah, I know.

 

I voted leave because I ate lots of crayons in that morning.

 

Well long live democracy, and thats the very reason the EU is a horrid organisation. How dare the people that pay the taxes have a say in how the country is run.

 

Serves old Cameron and the remain lot right for being so cocky. That was half the problem.

 

This is the exact reason I voted leave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Not sure that proves anything other than you have faaaar too much time on your hands.

 

I voted remain, and find 99% of people that voted that way, sore losers.

 

You'll get your own way thou chum, so don't fret.

 

Ah, so were you lying before, or are you lying now? Took a couple of minutes tbf, about the same amount of time it takes you to fabricate your latest 'ITK' snippets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cabbage_Face

Cabbage_Face

Posted
Posted
Ah, so were you lying before, or are you lying now? Took a couple of minutes tbf, about the same amount of time it takes you to fabricate your latest 'ITK' snippets.

 

Lying about what? Not following at all. I voted Remain. You fabricating some quotes proves nothing.

 

Oh, so it's all down to being jealous about me having ITK snippets. I'll add you to the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint1977

saint1977

Posted
Posted
Yes, anybody who by dint of just voting to leave your beloved broken and sclerotic EU is thick, racist, xenophobic and a backward far right extremist. So say arrogant anti-democrats like you who express such bigoted views against the majority of their fellow citizens who had the audacity to vote to leave the EU.

 

Regarding the Tory Party leadership, you seem to have overlooked the fact that as it is the Party members who will elect the next leader from a short list of two candidates, the fact that a substantial majority of members now favour a clean break WTO option means that Gove will not emerge as leader. If the two candidates do not include a true Brexiteer, then the Tory Party is finished.

 

No comment whatsoever on AW’s appalling remarks then. I’ll take silence as assent. Still, it’s fun watching you get owned on here by quite a few of us week in, week out, except when a no deal Brexit is off the table and you vanish like Lord Lucan.

 

Oh, and as for anti democratic, care to comment on both Trump and the US’s ambassador to the UK saying today that any trade deal will involve US companies having access to the NHS? Because that’s what people voted for wasn’t it, not Fat Boris’s fat whoppers about an extra £350m a week for the NHS. You can try to weasel about what he really meant but you know full well that plenty of not so smart people were taken in by that fib.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
No comment whatsoever on AW’s appalling remarks then. I’ll take silence as assent. Still, it’s fun watching you get owned on here by quite a few of us week in, week out, except when a no deal Brexit is off the table and you vanish like Lord Lucan.

 

Oh, and as for anti democratic, care to comment on both Trump and the US’s ambassador to the UK saying today that any trade deal will involve US companies having access to the NHS? Because that’s what people voted for wasn’t it, not Fat Boris’s fat whoppers about an extra £350m a week for the NHS. You can try to weasel about what he really meant but you know full well that plenty of not so smart people were taken in by that fib.

you ok mate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted

I think we should be able to be free to buy medicine, equipment, from anywhere in the world that is able to give us a competitors rate.

 

Buy from the UK of that is cheapest.

Buy from the EU if that is cheapest.

Buy from Asia if that's cheapest.

Buy from the USA if that's cheapest.

 

As long as the NHS stays free at the point of Access and standard of care is the best possible then we spend taxpayers money, as wisely as possible with people across the globe.

 

Is called free trade for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
"Access" or "free" access? - apologies, I've not watched the speeches...

 

Neither, if this article is anything to go by. It would seem the aim is to make other countries pay more for US pharmaceuticals, so US citizens pay less at home, which means overturning a long standing agreement the NHS has held with US drug companies.

 

Donald Trump is ready to use trade talks to force the National Health Service to pay more for its drugs as part of his scheme to "put American patients first”.

Mr Trump has claimed that the high costs faced by US patients are a direct result of other countries’ health services “freeloading” at America’s expense.

Alex Azar, the US Health and Human Services Secretary, has said Washington will use its muscle to push up drug prices abroad, to lower the cost paid by patients in the United States.

"On the foreign side, we need to, through our trade negotiations and agreements, pressure them," Azar said on CNBC.

"And so we pay less, they pay more. It shouldn't be a one-way ratchet. We all have some skin in this game."

He continued: "The reason why they are getting better net prices than we get is their socialised system."

In the UK, prices are dictated in part by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) which has been successful in securing discounts for some of the costliest drugs.

Single-payer government-run health services like the NHS are able to use their negotiating muscle to pay far lower prices than their fragmented insurance-based private American counterparts, to the fury of the US president.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
I think we should be able to be free to buy medicine, equipment, from anywhere in the world that is able to give us a competitors rate.

 

Buy from the UK of that is cheapest.

Buy from the EU if that is cheapest.

Buy from Asia if that's cheapest.

Buy from the USA if that's cheapest.

 

As long as the NHS stays free at the point of Access and standard of care is the best possible then we spend taxpayers money, as wisely as possible with people across the globe.

 

Is called free trade for a reason.

 

Asia it is then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
And if a no deal leader is elected, it will go to a GE and we'll see a Corbyn leadership propped up by the SNP and Lib Dems - which will result in a second referendum.

 

Tory Brexiteers are currently between a rock and a hard place - do they vote for a Brexit leader and highten the risk of no Brexit, or go for a deal Brexit leader and get the Brexit that no-one wants.

 

It'll be interesting, that's for sure.

 

You should be happy with that, JC voters proven right again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
I think we should be able to be free to buy medicine, equipment, from anywhere in the world that is able to give us a competitors rate.

 

Buy from the UK of that is cheapest.

Buy from the EU if that is cheapest.

Buy from Asia if that's cheapest.

Buy from the USA if that's cheapest.

 

As long as the NHS stays free at the point of Access and standard of care is the best possible then we spend taxpayers money, as wisely as possible with people across the globe.

 

Is called free trade for a reason.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/

 

Your naivety never ceases to amaze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint si

saint si

Posted
Posted
I think we should be able to be free to buy medicine, equipment, from anywhere in the world that is able to give us a competitors rate.

 

Buy from the UK of that is cheapest.

Buy from the EU if that is cheapest.

Buy from Asia if that's cheapest.

Buy from the USA if that's cheapest.

 

As long as the NHS stays free at the point of Access and standard of care is the best possible then we spend taxpayers money, as wisely as possible with people across the globe.

 

Is called free trade for a reason.

 

So much like we can today then? Other than the bit where we have a significant risk of screwing it all up chasing a massively one sided trade deal with a protectionist superpower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted (edited)
Neither, if this article is anything to go by. It would seem the aim is to make other countries pay more for US pharmaceuticals, so US citizens pay less at home, which means overturning a long standing agreement the NHS has held with US drug companies.

 

Donald Trump is ready to use trade talks to force the National Health Service to pay more for its drugs as part of his scheme to "put American patients first”.

Mr Trump has claimed that the high costs faced by US patients are a direct result of other countries’ health services “freeloading” at America’s expense.

Alex Azar, the US Health and Human Services Secretary, has said Washington will use its muscle to push up drug prices abroad, to lower the cost paid by patients in the United States.

"On the foreign side, we need to, through our trade negotiations and agreements, pressure them," Azar said on CNBC.

"And so we pay less, they pay more. It shouldn't be a one-way ratchet. We all have some skin in this game."

He continued: "The reason why they are getting better net prices than we get is their socialised system."

In the UK, prices are dictated in part by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) which has been successful in securing discounts for some of the costliest drugs.

Single-payer government-run health services like the NHS are able to use their negotiating muscle to pay far lower prices than their fragmented insurance-based private American counterparts, to the fury of the US president.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/

 

The US has almost nothing to teach us about good healthcare for the general population. Following an American model would be an unmitigated disaster. The US think tank the Commonwealth Institute rates it lowest of 11 healthcare systems out of 11. The NHS comes first despite the UK spending the lowest percentage of GDP on health. Apart from anything else US healthcare is very inefficient, has poor outcomes and is incredibly expensive. Sweden and Norway are much better models would could copy some ideas from.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2017/health-care-system-performance-rankings

 

___media_images_interactives_and_data_chart_maps_chartcart_report_2017_mirror_mirror_image_03.jpg?itok=mV6D10ZB

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Neither, if this article is anything to go by. It would seem the aim is to make other countries pay more for US pharmaceuticals, so US citizens pay less at home, which means overturning a long standing agreement the NHS has held with US drug companies.

 

Donald Trump is ready to use trade talks to force the National Health Service to pay more for its drugs as part of his scheme to "put American patients first”.

Mr Trump has claimed that the high costs faced by US patients are a direct result of other countries’ health services “freeloading” at America’s expense.

Alex Azar, the US Health and Human Services Secretary, has said Washington will use its muscle to push up drug prices abroad, to lower the cost paid by patients in the United States.

"On the foreign side, we need to, through our trade negotiations and agreements, pressure them," Azar said on CNBC.

"And so we pay less, they pay more. It shouldn't be a one-way ratchet. We all have some skin in this game."

He continued: "The reason why they are getting better net prices than we get is their socialised system."

In the UK, prices are dictated in part by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) which has been successful in securing discounts for some of the costliest drugs.

Single-payer government-run health services like the NHS are able to use their negotiating muscle to pay far lower prices than their fragmented insurance-based private American counterparts, to the fury of the US president.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/

 

Didn’t see you had posted the link earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted
Yes, that's right. When we do a trade deal with the USA the Government would absolutely agree to pay more for medicine.

 

That's how trade deals work. We agree to absolutely everything they want.

 

(nb capitulating to foreign bodies only happens when Thersa May is in power, hopefully)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tamesaint

Tamesaint

Posted
Posted
Yes, that's right. When we do a trade deal with the USA the Government would absolutely agree to pay more for medicine.

 

That's how trade deals work. We agree to absolutely everything they want.

 

(nb capitulating to foreign bodies only happens when Thersa May is in power, hopefully)

 

... and of course we will have such a strong negotiating hand. We are bound to end up with a good deal because Americans will want to trade with us just like the Italian prosecco makers and German car manufacturers meant that the EU was a pushover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yes, that's right. When we do a trade deal with the USA the Government would absolutely agree to pay more for medicine.

 

That's how trade deals work. We agree to absolutely everything they want.

 

(nb capitulating to foreign bodies only happens when Thersa May is in power, hopefully)

#AmericaFirst

There is already enough information that has been leaked concerning US demands, including access to the NHS for US health insurance companies, chlorinated chicken, and GM foodstuffs ( currently banned by the EU ). What on Earth have we to counter with in what will undoubtedly be one-sided discussions ? The US side have already positioned themselves as wanting to reverse the current trade gap that exists between us.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
#AmericaFirst

There is already enough information that has been leaked concerning US demands, including access to the NHS for US health insurance companies, chlorinated chicken, and GM foodstuffs ( currently banned by the EU ). What on Earth have we to counter with in what will undoubtedly be one-sided discussions ?

 

Will you be forced to eat chlorinated chicken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted

I've figured out a way to not eat chlorinated chicken if you don't want to.

 

One easy step:

 

1/ don't buy chlorinated chicken.

 

Strange that no one seems to worry about the chlorine used to kill off bugs in UK prepacked salad though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
I've figured out a way to not eat chlorinated chicken if you don't want to.

 

One easy step:

 

1/ don't buy chlorinated chicken.

 

Strange that no one seems to worry about the chlorine used to kill off bugs in UK prepacked salad though.

 

Personally I would avoid it, but if the cheaper end of the market is dominated by US imports then those people for whom price is the predominant factor would not have a choice. And the issue is not with the chlorine itself, it is the "dirty" abbatoir practices that exist in the US that the chlorine is covering up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
The US has almost nothing to teach us about good healthcare for the general population. Following an American model would be an unmitigated disaster. The US think tank the Commonwealth Institute rates it lowest of 11 healthcare systems out of 11. The NHS comes first despite the UK spending the lowest percentage of GDP on health. Apart from anything else US healthcare is very inefficient, has poor outcomes and is incredibly expensive. Sweden and Norway are much better models would could copy some ideas from.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2017/health-care-system-performance-rankings

 

___media_images_interactives_and_data_chart_maps_chartcart_report_2017_mirror_mirror_image_03.jpg?itok=mV6D10ZB

 

Seems a bit odd to me for a survey to conclude that a country which is second worst in terms of outcomes is ranked in top spot overall. Surely 'outcomes' is the measure that people care most about and should be weighted accordingly against all other measures?

 

# dodgy analogy klaxon #

 

It's a bit like a car being ranked #1 for looking good, having lots of features, being a smooth ride, etc, but which breaks down more often than most other makes...

Edited by trousers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted

R.I.P The Change UK, The Independence Party, or whatever they were called. Half the Party have left to become Independents and there seems little point in the other half continuing the Party as a mortally wounded body of non-entities. It's a shame that they will be depriving us of the entertainment value of their continuing incompetence. I look forward to each and every one of them seeking alternative employment come the next election, as they demonstrably have no ability when it comes to politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Seems a bit odd to me for a survey to conclude that a country which is second worst in terms of outcomes is ranked in top spot overall. Surely 'outcomes' is the measure that people care most about and should be weighted accordingly against all other measures?

 

# dodgy analogy klaxon #

 

It's a bit like a car being ranked #1 for looking good, having lots of features, being a smooth ride, etc, but which breaks down more often than most other makes...

 

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what the indicator ‘health care outcomes’ captures. It measures things like infant mortality, life expectancy after age 60 and relative survival rates for breast cancer and colon cancer patients etc.

 

Now many of these things are amendable to health care, so may reflect poorly on the health care system where outcomes are poor. But often they are made worse by factors that have nothing to do with the health care system. It is no coincidence that the UK and US have some of the highest levels of inequality and poverty and both inequality and poverty are strongly associated with outcomes such as life expectancy. To use your analogy, it’s like looking at a car’s breakdown rate without taking account of the quality of the roads, weather conditions, the competence of mechanics etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted (edited)
Seems a bit odd to me for a survey to conclude that a country which is second worst in terms of outcomes is ranked in top spot overall. Surely 'outcomes' is the measure that people care most about and should be weighted accordingly against all other measures?

 

# dodgy analogy klaxon #

 

It's a bit like a car being ranked #1 for looking good, having lots of features, being a smooth ride, etc, but which breaks down more often than most other makes...

 

Agree that jars a bit, but it makes sense if you delve a bit more.

 

A better analogy is a garage which has highly rated mechanics with great access to OE parts and will fix any car with any problem for free - but they have limited capacity and they're swamped with customers. They want to be fair to everybody - ie not pick and choose which customers they take, so they operate on a waiting list system. The trouble is that by having to wait weeks or months to get the car fixed in the meantime some problems get worse and the fault becomes terminal. Therefore the average outcome for each car is lower than the main dealer which is expensive, officious and bureaucratic and the people who cant pay dont get their car fixed - but can book you in next day.

 

The NHS is often accused of inefficiency, poor quality etc. Its not, its really not. The problem is that we ask it to do too much on the budget we want to give it. We have only two real choices - spend more or restrict the services offered and spend the money saved on on a smaller number of patients. Somebody I knew died recently. He was 85 and had had three intense periods of treatment for three separate cancers in the past six years. He had almost zero quality of life for those last six years. He would have been better off taking the painkillers offered and going out dancing and cruises. But he insisted he wanted treatment. For what? Probably c£100,000 spent on a man who was over 80 and going to die fairly soon anyway. Meanwhile somewhere a 30 year old with two school age kids was almost certainly on a waiting list whilst her cancer got a little worse.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
I've figured out a way to not eat chlorinated chicken if you don't want to.

 

One easy step:

 

1/ don't buy chlorinated chicken.

 

Strange that no one seems to worry about the chlorine used to kill off bugs in UK prepacked salad though.

 

Missed the point again Nolan. Way to go for consistency. The issue isnt the chlorine, as Badger says the issue is the poor process. When you gut a chicken **** can sometimes get onto the meat. In the EU that chicken is classed as unfit for human consumption. In the US they wash it with some chlorinated water and serve it up to you. The US are insisting not only should the chicken be sold here, but that customers arent even allowed to be told by labelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Baird of the land

Baird of the land

Posted
Posted
Personally I would avoid it, but if the cheaper end of the market is dominated by US imports then those people for whom price is the predominant factor would not have a choice. And the issue is not with the chlorine itself, it is the "dirty" abbatoir practices that exist in the US that the chlorine is covering up.

 

Yeah we set standards across all sorts of categories. I don't see people saying we should abandon all them because people would have option to work out themselves if they should avoid the potentially dangerous ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Missed the point again Nolan. Way to go for consistency. The issue isnt the chlorine, as Badger says the issue is the poor process. When you gut a chicken **** can sometimes get onto the meat. In the EU that chicken is classed as unfit for human consumption. In the US they wash it with some chlorinated water and serve it up to you. The US are insisting not only should the chicken be sold here, but that customers arent even allowed to be told by labelling.

 

And the other point, dealing with the "Don't buy" part, is that those who can't afford proper chicken will end up buying it, so you're just hurting the poor - who are already going to hurting enough post Brexit. It may also result in different standards in the UK as our chicken producers are priced out of the market and will start lobbying the Government to relax controls so they can compete.

 

It's a race to the ****ing bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yeah we set standards across all sorts of categories. I don't see people saying we should abandon all them because people would have option to work out themselves if they should avoid the potentially dangerous ones.

 

Survey evidence shows that there is minimal support among the public for deregulation; there is support for consumer, financial, environmental and employment standards among a large majority of remainers and leavers and indeed in some areas there is support for stricter standards.

 

https://www.ippr.org/files/2018-02/1519061948_leaving-the-eu-not-the-european-model-part1-feb18.pdf

 

Brexiteers have played a blinder by turning Brexit into an end in itself and de-emphasising the type of country they want to emerge once the UK allegedly takes back control.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Super Saint

Weston Super Saint

Posted
Posted

 

The NHS is often accused of inefficiency, poor quality etc. Its not, its really not. The problem is that we ask it to do too much on the budget we want to give it. We have only two real choices - spend more or restrict the services offered and spend the money saved on on a smaller number of patients.

 

Apparently there will be a spare £350m a week pretty soon ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...