EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[najaB]

Seems it was. However, the figure changes by media outlet of course. The BBC were at £330,000, the Daily Mail unsurprisingly went to £500,000.

Interestingly, the number of babies also varies - twins according to the BBC and quadruplets according to the Evening Standard! :roll:

 

[AlterEgo]

She was travelling via Heathrow, but gave birth (3 months prematurely) to quadruplets. At least two of the babies died.

It's obvious she doesn't have that sort of money, so what should 'we' have done? Let them all die because they are foreign?
Not sure what that has to do with the EU, though.

She was travelling via Heathrow because she was being returned home from the USA, where she was denied entry. Many Nigerian women travel to the USA on a tourist visa in an attempt to give birth there, because it's perceived to be safer, and because the child gets de facto US citizenship.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not arguing for putting Italian workers on the dole, I'm arguing for UK employment. If the Italians produce, say, Ducati motorcycles or Alfa Romeo motor cars and the British want to buy them, it's up to the EU to ensure there's a trade deal that makes their bikes and cars competitive. If they can't, Brits should buy a domestically produced alternative. If there isn't one it's up to government to encourage the production of same via incentives and tax breaks.

Well if you're arguing for UK employment based on that we aim to produce better (or perhaps, cheaper) goods than other countries, and hope that people will as a result choose to buy our goods, then we would be in agreement. That kind of competition is after all one of the ways that leads to overall living standards improving across the World. But I was responding in the context of the discussion that followed this comment:

The biggest boon to the UK economy would be for consumers to buy British made goods.

That, along with the following discussion, seemed to imply you were arguing for people to be encouraged to buy British, purely because goods are British - which seems to imply valuing British jobs more than - say - Italian jobs. That's not the same thing as competition, has ethical issues, and doesn't actually help people in the long term (if anything, it damages competition and is likely to lead to lower standards of living all round). But apologies if that's not what you meant.

Of course someone fleeing famine has greater needs, but that doesn't mean their needs should be prioritised.

I'm a citizen of the UK. I pay lots of tax and National Insurance. I contribute to society, and I am employed. I expect, as a contributor and citizen, that my needs should be prioritised over those of refugees.

So are you saying that if you have a choice between providing a job for a UK citizen who is on the dole and providing food for someone facing famine, who will die within a few days if not given food - and you can only help one of those people, you'll choose to help the person on the dole? That would seem to be what is implied by 'prioritise'. But I'm going to hazard a guess that's not what you'd choose to do.

I didn't actually use the word prioritise, and I'm not sure it's a good word to use when comparing refugees with UK citizens. Clearly the Government has a moral responsibility towards both UK citizens and overseas famine victims, and should be trying to do whatever it reasonably can to help both, so it's not really a question of prioritising either one group.

On the other hand, if faced with two individuals who need help, it seems very reasonable to help the person who's need is greatest first, irrespective of nationality.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Wasn't it the lady who gave birth?

Edit*

Seems it was. However, the figure changes by media outlet of course. The BBC were at £330,000, the Daily Mail unsurprisingly went to £500,000.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=n...firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=X-LkWMqKBqLi8Af9hLzYDQ

The other point to bear in mind is that the 'bill' is based on a standard set of fixed charges that the NHS is required by the Government to charge certain foreigners (depending on their visa status). It does not necessarily bear much relation to what providing the treatment actually costs the NHS.

 

[AlterEgo]

So are you saying that if you have a choice between providing a job for a UK citizen who is on the dole and providing food for someone facing famine, who will die within a few days if not given food - and you can only help one of those people, you'll choose to help the person on the dole? That would seem to be what is implied by 'prioritise'. But I'm going to hazard a guess that's not what you'd choose to do.

If I had in one hand a job for a UK citizen, and in the other hand food for a starving person from another country...and I could only help one?

I'd help the UK citizen on the dole, yes.

We both know things aren't as simple as that, otherwise people would be arguing the morally correct thing for UK Govt to do would be to eviscerate the benefits budget to pay for food for starving people worldwide, which isn't what happens. People do still starve daily, for a whole range of reasons.

 

[me123]

Interestingly, the number of babies also varies - twins according to the BBC and quadruplets according to the Evening Standard! :roll:

It's a really sad case, that was featured in a BBC documentary.

She was travelling to the US for specialist treatment and her entry was denied (the circumstances of this are unclear, as is her proposed funding for said treatment). She went into labour on the return flight. She collapsed and awoke with baby three babies in NICU (the fourth child sadly died). One of the surviving babies latterly died - I don't know how the other two are doing.

That poor woman had no option - those babies needed delivered as an emergency and she had not planned to be here. She will never be able to repay the bills for the NICU. She's been labelled a healthcare tourist, when that simply is not the case. Sadly, I did see a few comments on the DM website advocating that we simply withdraw treatment from her babies.

The classic NHS position: we're medics and we are way above bothering with little things like money and funding - let somebody else just get on with providing all the money we need as thinking about the cash would pollute our pure consciences. That's how the recent case of the Nigerian woman running up a bill of over £400,000 with no means of paying for it - and certainly with no claim to call on the British taxpayer was allowed to get away with it. Our first duty is to our own.

As has been explained to you, the lady in question did not accrue £400k in emergency medical treatment (i.e. delivered in the A&E department). I defy anyone to get anywhere near that total in A&E, which provides immediate care only over a period of no more than four hours (in theory).

You appear to misunderstand the role of an emergency department - it provides immediate life saving medical care for people who have had accidents and people who have medical emergencies. Patients arrive, received immediate treatment, and are dispatched (to wards, operating theatres, home, their own GP, an ophthalmologist...). The care provided in A&E departments is time sensitive and can really save life or limb - I mean this in its most literal sense. It is not the role of the A&E department to act as a border guard. It is wholly inappropriate to request proof of residency in these situations - most people involved in emergencies do not have this to hand (and yes, you'd be expected to provide it as well, otherwise we wouldn't know who is entitled to care), it is time consuming in a situation where time is of the essence, and the bureaucracy involved would undoubtedly add a huge cost that I suspect would outweigh the income generated.

It is entirely appropriate that A&E care is delivered based on need because the care delivered is time sensitive. It is not appropriate to triage patients based on their nationality, and whilst you may think that you are entitled to priority because you were born here, any reasonable person would tell you that the most unwell people need to be treated first.

As for medics not caring about money - I can attest to the exact opposite, budgets are important. I've had to sit through goodness knows how many meetings about managing budgets, and I'm not even close to being involved in these decisions. But that's not in the front line. When someone is desperately unwell, any reasonable doctor will treat that patient. It is not the time or the place to validate a credit card, or call the immigration services to enquire as to your patient's visa status - by the time you've done that, the situation would be a lot worse.

 

[Barn]

It's a really sad case, that was featured in a BBC documentary.

She was travelling to the US for specialist treatment and her entry was denied (the circumstances of this are unclear, as is her proposed funding for said treatment). She went into labour on the return flight. She collapsed and awoke with baby three babies in NICU (the fourth child sadly died). One of the babies latterly died - I don't know how the other two are doing.

That poor woman had no option - those babies needed delivered as an emergency and she had not planned to be here. She will never be able to repay the bills for the NICU. She's been labelled a healthcare tourist, when that simply is not the case. Sadly, I did see a few comments on the DM website advocating that we simply withdraw treatment from her babies.

Even if a person IS a healthcare tourist, we should still provide genuine emergency care to them. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I think most of us deep down would rather be 'cheated' than to make our doctors watch somebody die.

 

[meridian2]

That, along with the following discussion, seemed to imply you were arguing for people to be encouraged to buy British, purely because goods are British - which seems to imply valuing British jobs more than - say - Italian jobs. That's not the same thing as competition, has ethical issues, and doesn't actually help people in the long term (if anything, it damages competition and is likely to lead to lower standards of living all round). But apologies if that's not what you meant.

I do think people should be encouraged to buy British goods post Brexit. This would partly mitigate against the prevailing fashion that continental things are intrinsically better simply by virtue of being made elsewhere. It pays the wages of people we live among, cuts down of transport and encourages pride in production. Britain has a long history of design and engineering excellence, and our universities are held up as the best in the world, educating students from every continent. Yet we're happy to let 1970s industrial relations and shoddy production symbolise British expertise in perpetuity. Britain can and has competed with the best, and should be encouraged to continue doing so.

Under the EU promoting British tagged goods would have been frowned upon, as it threatened the status quo. I think we should return to independently assessed quality standards and those who meet such accreditation should be able to fly the flag. That isn't jingoism or protectionism, it offers businesses something to aim at and consumers an assurance of quality and support for our manufacturers.

 

[NSEFAN]

The classic NHS position: we're medics and we are way above bothering with little things like money and funding - let somebody else just get on with providing all the money we need as thinking about the cash would pollute our pure consciences. That's how the recent case of the Nigerian woman running up a bill of over £400,000 with no means of paying for it - and certainly with no claim to call on the British taxpayer was allowed to get away with it. Our first duty is to our own.

Was that £400k you mention for emergency care or other treatment?

Checking nationality adds administrative overhead. Will the NHS be given more money and a procedure for this, or will it be expected to sort itself out on a trust by trust basis? Should the public expect to carry proof of citizenship with them in the event that emergency treatment staff have to determine their eligibility whilst the patient is unconscious?

 

[WelshBluebird]

the prevailing fashion that continental things are intrinsically better simply by virtue of being made elsewhere.

Under the EU promoting British tagged goods would have been frowned upon

I'd love to see actual evidence of these two claims.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Even if a person IS a healthcare tourist, we should still provide genuine emergency care to them. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I think most of us deep down would rather be 'cheated' than to make our doctors watch somebody die.

Anything to oblige.

You're a bleeding heart liberal.

 

[NSEFAN]

Anything to oblige.

You're a bleeding heart liberal.

Now the important part: does the NHS have to check his elligibility for treatment before seeing to that bleeding heart?

 

[me123]

Even if a person IS a healthcare tourist, we should still provide genuine emergency care to them. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I think most of us deep down would rather be 'cheated' than to make our doctors watch somebody die.

Of course we should, and we will.

If you have a read at Good Medical Practice, refusing life saving medical treatment puts the registration of a doctor at risk.

Even if That Useless Hunt puts in some completely ridiculous requirements in which non-UK citizens are charged for immediate medical care, I can assure you that any good doctor would provide the care regardless.

 

[EM2]

This would partly mitigate against the prevailing fashion that continental things are intrinsically better simply by virtue of being made elsewhere.

There is some evidence for this. The Vauxhall Cavalier SRi 130 was, by many measures, a better car than the BMW E30 318i. Yet the BMW had greater sales by a wide margin.

Under the EU promoting British tagged goods would have been frowned upon, as it threatened the status quo.

Really?
http://www.madeingb.org/marque/the-marque

WHO CAN USE THE MARQUE?

The Made in Britain marque is accredited to businesses that sell goods that have been manufactured or have undergone a final substantial change in the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland before sale.

How to use the marque

Consistent use of the marque is important for consumer recognition, but it’s also important for brands to take ownership of the marque and celebrate their own ‘Britishness’ whilst using it. We have deliberately allowed for flexible use of the marque so it can also be used as a pointer or highlighter.

In addition, it can be used in greyscale, as well as in other colour palettes which allows the logo to integrate more easily with your brand.

When you join Made in Britain, you will receive the Made in Britain Brand & Marque handbook, which has comprehensive guidelines to all the different logo formats.

Where the marque can be used

The marque can be used on any printed material, for example, brochures, catalogues and point of sale merchandising. It can also be used on your website and in a digital environment.

There are several marque formats and they can all be applied to a variety of materials; embossed, branded, stamped, etched or sewn.

That took about ten seconds to find.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is some evidence for this. The Vauxhall Cavalier SRi 130 was, by many measures, a better car than the BMW E30 318i. Yet the BMW had greater sales by a wide margin.

That's nothing to do with the country of manufacture and everything to do with the kudos attached to the BMW brand.

Even if a person IS a healthcare tourist, we should still provide genuine emergency care to them. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I think most of us deep down would rather be 'cheated' than to make our doctors watch somebody die.

It was an awful case and what made it worse was watching Useless Hunt using that poor woman as a political punchbag.

The "bill" bore no relation to the treatment she received and, even if it had, the woman did not ask for the treatment. She was transiting. What is the alternative, letting her and her babies die because they're foreign?

As you say, I'd rather be "cheated" out of emergency medical care for a pregnant woman and for prem babies than not be "cheated" and see them all die. Maybe I am getting soft in my old age.

Of course, if the NHS issues her a "bill" then it shows as an outstanding debt, which can be treated as an asset for accountancy purposes, so Useless Hunt gets to claim that he can spend that £400,000 again. He can't because nobody will ever see that money, of course they won't, it'll eventually have to be written off, but it looks good on a profit and loss account in the meantime. And it becomes a stick to beat the trust with: "no you can't have any funding, there's a £400,000 debt that you've written off, that's your shortfall to find".

 

[najaB]

I do think people should be encouraged to buy British goods post Brexit.

I think people should be encouraged to by British goods pre-Brexit. Post-Brexit we might not have that much choice in the matter.

 

[EM2]

I did say UNLESS you wish to compare FTZs within the EU. I was not inferring that the report itself compared EU FTZs.

I see nothing in that report that suggests that all the FTZs examined are much of a muchness. The report does suggest areas of comparison between them, summarised in the bullet points. It does not suggest that all the tax rates etc are similar, much of which is subject to EU regulation in an EU country.

So if tax rates are subject to EU regulation, why does the UK now have one of the lowest rates of Corporation Tax in the EU?
And with that being the case, what other restrictions are the EU imposing that makes FTZs unattractive to the UK?
If we have five now, why don't we have more?

 

[EM2]

That's nothing to do with the country of manufacture and everything to do with the kudos attached to the BMW brand.

And why does it have that kudos?

 

[Tetchytyke]

And why does it have that kudos?

Snobbery, mostly. MINI and Range Rover- both built in Britain- have a similar kudos.

 

[Barn]

So if tax rates are subject to EU regulation, why does the UK now have one of the lowest rates of Corporation Tax in the EU?
And with that being the case, what other restrictions are the EU imposing that makes FTZs unattractive to the UK?
If we have five now, why don't we have more?

The UK has "free zones" which are pockets of Britain which are outside the customs union, allowing goods to come in and leave again without paying customs duties. They're all within ports and are a little bit like the goods equivalent of airside transit of passengers at airports, where you can sometimes change plane to reach your final destination without clearing immigration control.

That is quite a different concept from Free Economic Zones in some other countries. In those countries, the zones may have completely different domestic laws. For example, there are zones in the UAE in which the normal rules about foreign ownership of businesses are relaxed. They may have very different taxation or regulatory rules from the rest of the country.

The former will continue after Brexit and might be extended to more ports, depending on how we configure our customs. The latter is really just not the British mode of doing things: we tend to believe in fairly centralised control of economic rules and taxation, and our restrictions on foreign ownership of land and business, foreign directorships and shareholders, etc, are virtually non-existent anyway.

 

[meridian2]

That took about ten seconds to find.

"The Made in Britain marque is accredited to businesses that sell goods that have been manufactured or have undergone a final substantial change in the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland before sale".

Would that include a bicycle made entirely of overseas manufactured components, and assembled in the UK? I wouldn't call that Made in Britain.

 

[EM2]

"The Made in Britain marque is accredited to businesses that sell goods that have been manufactured or have undergone a final substantial change in the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland before sale".

Would that include a bicycle made entirely of overseas manufactured components, and assembled in the UK? I wouldn't call that Made in Britain.

Why don't you ask them? If you intend to only buy items that are 100% British assembled from British made components and ingredients, I fear your life will become incredibly sparse...

 

[meridian2]

Why don't you ask them? If you intend to only buy items that are 100% British assembled from British made components and ingredients, I fear your life will become incredibly sparse...

I look at it differently. The more British made components a product has, the more UK people in work. There's no point being fundamentalist about it, on the other hand holding up the white flag and buying a foreign product only makes the importer and retailer happy.

 

[EM2]

I look at it differently. The more British made components a product has, the more UK people in work. There's no point being fundamentalist about it, on the other hand holding up the white flag and buying a foreign product only makes the importer and retailer happy.

In the late 90s/early 00s, I worked in an industry where my company supplied machinery for manufacturing.
Items made in Britain using our machinery (which was itself imported) were, on average, 35% more expensive than items made in and imported from China or Taiwan, and that was after shipping, customs charges etc. were taken into consideration.
If you are a company that needs 5000 widgets a week, are you really going to buy widgets that are 35% more expensive, pushing up the retail price of your product, knowing that by and large, your customer base won't pay that much?

 

[najaB]

I look at it differently. The more British made components a product has, the more UK people in work.

Unless being 100% British pushes the cost up to the point that the product is no longer competitive in the market.

Then you end up with more British people out of work.

 

[NSEFAN]

I look at it differently. The more British made components a product has, the more UK people in work. There's no point being fundamentalist about it, on the other hand holding up the white flag and buying a foreign product only makes the importer and retailer happy.

A certain level of pragmatism is required, especially for the fundamental things needed for society to function. Does Britain produce enough petrol, electricity and food to be self-sufficient? Does it have the capability to produce from scratch every component required for the comms infrastructure? I suspect that the answers to these questions is "no" (though some could be improved more than others), and that trying to enforce self-sufficiency based on historical national boundaries is folly, hence the need to have good trade deals with nations who produce what we need.

 

[meridian2]

A certain level of pragmatism is required, especially for the fundamental things needed for society to function. Does Britain produce enough petrol, electricity and food to be self-sufficient? Does it have the capability to produce from scratch every component required for the comms infrastructure? I suspect that the answers to these questions is "no" (though some could be improved more than others), and that trying to enforce self-sufficiency based on historical national boundaries is folly, hence the need to have good trade deals with nations who produce what we need.

Britain is unlikely to have sufficient long term oil or gas resources, OTOH it can make steel, motor cars, cookers and other white goods, furniture, clothing and many other essentials as competitively as anyone in Europe. It may not be able to compete with China, which has huge natural and human resources and a semi-controlled economy which is prepared to export at or even under cost price. I don't think dependence on under priced goods from one supplier is a good idea for a nation any more than it is for a business.

 

[najaB]

OTOH it can make steel...

Oh yeah, all that low-cost, high grade iron ore and cheap, easily mined coal. Much cheaper than Brazil, Europe, etc.

 

[meridian2]

Oh yeah, all that low-cost, high grade iron ore and cheap, easily mined coal. Much cheaper than Brazil, Europe, etc.

Actually we do make steel, but the company is owned by Indians.

 

[najaB]

Actually we do make steel, but the company is owned by Indians.

With imported ore and coal.