Would you be willing to sacrifice the NHS for Brexit? I won't shout if you say yes. Some want the NHS to stop being public, there are arguments for both.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
Would you be willing to sacrifice the NHS for Brexit? I won't shout if you say yes. Some want the NHS to stop being public, there are arguments for both.
Can we quit quoting Guido, it demeans you.
Agree with the old dear. It's policy that is the problem for me though.
Still undecided as no party has a policy package I want to vote for.
Pretty dreadful election as far as I'm concerned.
I can understand you thinking that in 2016 with the pack of lies you were told, but do you still believe that?
No I'm not saying you personally are being paid for your belief as I just quoted Parliamentarians (unless you are one). But if the government believes that harming the economy by 6% is worth it for Brexit, then it isn't think about the UK's best interests, even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are just implementing slight majority from a democratic vote.
The NHS has always been in crisis, reference 1951, 3 years after its founding.
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-national-health-service-crisis-1951
A slightly condescending question, but yes I do. Actually more so now than I did then, as I've mentioned previously I was a Liberal Democrat member and had always just accepted the EU as a good thing. The campaign made me educate myself more and the more I understood the issues the more pro Brexit I became.
Last edited:
No party ever tried to actually implement what was argued for in 2016.
Essentially keeping economic links with the EU but being independent apart from that and saving the cost of being an EU member.
What's not to like about that, not a wonder independence side won really?
Tories just been putting on a charade since 2016, continuing with this "get Brexit done" nonsense...
That's the main reason I won't be voting for them.
Better to just say what was promised in 2016 is impossible and couldn't even try as no numbers in parliament
May / Boris deal charade is a disgrace as far as I'm concerned. Rather just remain as is.
Really? Ok, your opinion, I don't think so.
Contrary to popular belief, what the US wants, the US doesn't always get. All the documents say is the US would like future talks to possibly include (nothing more) talks regarding potential involvement with the NHS. Same as for example, Phoenix (huge German corp) does and will do.
BJ/conservative MPs have stated repeatedly that the NHS is not "for sale" but never denied that ongoing discussions could be held with US... same as they can be with other countries suppliers (competition is good) and it's only one part of any future trade deal discussion.
Yes, I know BJ has lied before (he's not the only UK leader or MP to do so) and I don't trust everything he says verbatim. But again, it'd be political suicide to take away the core principle of the NHS... any party who does that would get annihilated at the next GE and a new Govt could change the process (either short term or once existing arrangement came to a natural end).
Anyone who thinks that any Government would concede doubling drug prices to US suppliers, perhaps in exchange for something else - a huge car order from the UK perhaps - is deluded. As annoying as ALL politicians are, they understand the difference between the UK car industry (if there is one) and the NHS.
(Never read the Mail... or hardly any paper actually. Rather listen to politicians, make my own decisions).
Economic forecasts certainly aren't fact, and those who believe Brexit is a good thing won't believe the 6% figure (which would obviously have a massive impact to our society). The issue is about more than pure economics though, so if you reduce it to just that you will miss some parts of the argument.
Anyone that says 'Whack it in the microwave, Gas Mark 4' regarding Brexit can't be trusted full stop.
No, absolutely not, I think the NHS is great value for money and binds our society together in a peculiarly British way, which is a great thing. It is much more important than Brexit.
Hands up those who think a trade deal between the UK and the USA will be agreed within the next ten years regardless of whether Johnson or Corbyn is in charge or when Trump is long gone.
Is it ant less bonkers if the bbc say it
That's fine, and expected even! I try not to simply post regurgitations of stuff already in the media or whatever which people can read with a quick browse of the net. Therefore most of what I post is at least somewhat contentious.
Which parts do you actually agree with?
This is where we differ, I believe the vast majority of UK parliamentarians have their own interests at heart and are prepared to screw over anyone and anything that stands between them and a profit.
Not sure - I think if we do leave the EU we might see a rejoin movement and be back as a member state in a decade
The maths is clearly wrong. Don't think anyone can dispute that. They'd need to buy more land to be able to plant that many anyway.
I live in rural Shropshire and walk daily in forests, here's my opinion:
1. The forests are actually shrinking right now, that is very, very bad. Lots of areas have been chopped down with no replanting.
2. Forests are brilliant, one close to me has been organised as a mountain bike venue, loads of tracks for bikers, they have rallies going through as well. Theirs a stable nearby too so you get horses in the forest. They also hunt wild deer and pheasants and sell at local butcher.
3. Every Forest should really be designed with tourists in mind. Make it a multi purpose area, not just for walkers, but for industry (forestry), horse riders, mountain bikers, quad bikes etc.
4. Make it very clear which tracks can't be used when forestry comission is occurring. But always have other tracks accessible so you can avoid it.
5. All of the above would require therefore more staff to be employed = more jobs in rural area.
For Farmers:
1. Higher subsidies if they plant trees on their land.
2. Higher value for money if they decide to sell their land to the Forestry Commission.
3. Access to the land they decide to sell.
I really like Owen Jones (listen to his podcast everyday) but I think the election is really affecting him. He's getting more shrill and the tin-foil hat is constantly on.
Care to share any of this education you've apparently gained that showed you how great Brexit was going to be? Because frankly I've been immersed in it for the last 3 years and I've seen absolutely nothing that made me more pro-Brexit. Not one single benefit. So I'd be genuinely interested what you've learned to change your position so radically.
Well then the natural answer would be street protests and revolution! I disagree, I worry about the competence of a lot of them but I think the vast majority are doing what they think is right for the country.
Don't get your point. Maybe explain rather than odd Wiki links?
If it's that Boris Johnson has said things that were untrue or turned out differently in the past... I know that. I said that?
Yeah Owen seem nice but he tends to get very stressed during elections(Same happened in 2017) although I'm guessing he is constantly getting death threats online, especially now with this election.
But anyway his point is still correct(Planting to 2 billion tress over 20 years isn't unrealistic).
It's the government's own forecast though so clearly a large proportion of them believe it or choose not to based on....
I'm sure it is about more than pure economics but then I doubt outside of economics, the premise you had still would be true as Parliamentarians look out for more than just "UK's best interests".
I'd be surprised if the UK and USA agree any trade deal but yes if the UK leaves, which now looks certain, it shouldn't take very long before the rejoin movement starts
Don't see the issue, if you can cut down millions of trees a year you can plant them.
You've already destroyed the word Unicorn for ever. Leave off the ants please.
Would take a massive change in the industry to make it happen, lots of investment. It's not unrealistic if you encourage farmers to plant.
Well you'll know all the issues just disagree with them, and this isn't a Brexit thread, but 3 key issues ranked for me below:
- Sovereignty
- Selective immigration (Probably less, definitely greater control)
- Potential for greater economic ties with growing/emerging economies and countries with which we have historic relationships (USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand)
Yes the issue is with the land, less so with the maths.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...ld-help-restore-world-s-forests-a4116376.html
The average idiot will undoubtedly read the headline banner though and laugh at the thought of 1 bloke planting £2 billion fully grown Oak trees by hand because that's where we are now.
You think the EU will even let the UK "leave"? To get to the point of negotiating an FTA that comes in to force with anyone?
They can be entirely confident the UK parliament won't ever simply walk away. If any political party outside of the Brexit party wanted this, they'd have done a pact with the Brexit party for this GE.
So presumably they'll make any EU/UK FTA offer so unpleasant no UK gov can accept it.
Then the UK has the choice to swallow it or rejoin?
Why risk the UK becoming successfully independent, others might copy?
That doesn't happen over here.
They cut down the trees and push all the debris left over from the felling into massive rows of debris. I assume they do this because it's cheaper and the rows of debris do promote bird/small animal homes.
If they do replant, it tends to be years after the initial cutting down.
The first two must be worth a hell of a lot to you if the potential of point 3 is worth exchanging for actual economic ties with our own continent.
Fails the smell test, but I have no idea. If his Ethiopia example took 23 million people then it would seem to be unrealistic. I was once part of a world record attempt for largest synchronised Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes performance. That was a bit of fun and lots of people turned up, but you wouldn't probably wouldn't get any of that group to do it consistently for 10 years.
Guess we need to change then, I don't see how people can put a negative spin on something like planting more trees, it's something everyone should be for and encourage ambitious targets.
These feckwits are probably thinking someone turns up, digs a massive hole, and then plants a big 20 foot fully grown tree into the ground.
Because it sounds silly and haha Diane Abbott can't do maths or something about unicorns.
Meanwhile Matt Hancock is still going on TV trying to argue if you have 5 apples and add 3 more to it you've got 10.
- Status