EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Puffing Devil]

I disagree, yes the NHS is a national treasure but it is bloated and suffers from over management and over charged for life saving drugs by the drugs companies which is why it's cheaper to go aboard for treatment.

I've nothing against the frontline staff but the NHS needs to be reformed to make it more effective in the 21st century so until that happens I don't think it ought to get even more money.

But we were promised £350m a week for the NHS. It was even on the side of a bus. Surely that should be delivered first?

 

[furnessvale]

But we were promised £350m a week for the NHS. It was even on the side of a bus. Surely that should be delivered first?

Perhaps it will...................when we stop sending it to the EU.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Perhaps it will...................when we stop sending it to the EU.

Perhaps? It was promised. People voted for this. Perhaps is not good enough

 

[Groningen]

Stephen Barclay wants to talk in Brussel about the rights of UK citizens outside the UK in case of a No Deal.

 

[EM2]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...and-eu-works-brexit-ivan-rogers-a8806931.html

The government does not understand how the EU works and so embarks on negotiating strategies that are doomed to fail, Britain’s former ambassador to Brussels has said.

Ivan Rogers, who was Britain’s face in the EU capital from 2013 until 2017, said the government always thought it could circumvent the European Commission and deal directly with member state leaders.

But the former permanent representative said the bloc “never works like that” and that the approach – pursued by Theresa May and David Cameron alike – always ended in embarrassment.

“Capitals obviously matter, but I think having lived through this with a number of prime ministers, a number of different negotiations ... that reflex in the British system always to think that we can deal direct with the organ grinders and not the monkeys: it never works like that. It didn’t work like that in the Cameron renegotiation either,” he told an event at the Institute for Government think tank.

“That stuff is not done in the way British politics works, leader to leader. It’s done via the bureaucrats, and the Sherpas, and the people at the top of the institutions.

“The Brits constantly either misunderstand that or just don’t realise that circumventing that and thinking ‘Oh, we can go direct to Berlin or Paris or any other capital and square that off – and that will be different from the orthodoxy we’re getting out of Brussels’ – never works.”

The government has been frustrated throughout Brexit talks at the lack of direct negotiations between the prime minister and other EU27 presidents and prime ministers.

Despite lurid predictions in some corners of the British press that Angela Merkel would ride to Britain’s rescue and cut a special deal, the bloc has insisted on keeping negotiations between Michel Barnier and his constantly resigning UK counterparts.

The prime minister has generally only been given limited time to speak on Brexit at European Council summits, with a two-way back and forth generally off the table. When they have happened – as at the summit in December – they have not always gone well.

The EU has put the unity of the 27 EU member states at the centre of its negotiating strategy during Brexit. Officials close to talks say the UK has tried to split off member states, but with little luck.

Before he was appointed Brexit secretary, David Davis laid out his strategy in a series of tweets, one of which read: “The first calling point of the UK’s negotiator immediately after Brexit will not be Brussels, it will be Berlin, to strike a deal.”

The former UK diplomat Mr Rogers told the same event on Monday that he did not think a customs union would be an option for the UK outside the EU.

“I don’t think it will be sustainable long-term to be in a customs union and not have a greater degree of autonomy over our trade policy,” he said.

“We would get consultation rights, sure, we might get superior consultation rights – but they would only be consultation rights – and ultimately the negotiating mandate would reflect the interests of the 27, no doubt articulated carefully to take account of British interests.”

He also described the prospect of an extension of Article 50 as “quite problematic” because of the issue of the UK having to take part in European Parliament elections.

Mr Rogers stepped down in early 2017, reportedly after a row with Theresa May’s advisers. He had reportedly told ministers privately that Brexit could take a decade to resolve, angering them.

 

[Senex]

They should vote honestly. If they think it's brilliant, then vote for it. If they think it's rubbish but still vote for it, they should resign. If they vote for it because it's what they think we want, then they should ask us.

I agree 100% with your reply to anme's response to my comment!

 

[Aictos]

But we were promised £350m a week for the NHS. It was even on the side of a bus. Surely that should be delivered first?

Only when the NHS is reformed which is needed now, I'm sure the £350m a week can be used for other purposes and not just the NHS despite the NHS being used as a political tool in Brexit.

 

[anme]

Perhaps it will...................when we stop sending it to the EU.

We are the EU.

 

[Doppelganger]

We *are* the EU.

And this is exactly why it went so wrong. The EU was seen as the other.

If more people understood the British influence and saw how they directed EU policy they might better see how the EU as an organisation worked for all its members' interests.

The media sadly helped to vilify the EU and that is the view of most Brits.

 

[Howardh]

We *are* the EU.

And I bet those hating the EU never bothered to vote for their MEP so they didn't have a say.

 

[VauxhallandI]

And in this age of discord I now have BNP scum knocking at my door pretending they'd know how to run a bath

 

[Geezertronic]

You have to wonder why MPs overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50 back in 2017...

 

[Senex]

You have to wonder why MPs overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50 back in 2017...

Because their party leaders told them they had to respect the wishes of the electorate as expressed in that advisory referendum ... and they like sheep, and without a thought in their heads, then just trooped through the lobbies like the lobby-fodder they are.

 

[anme]

You have to wonder why MPs overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50 back in 2017...

If I was a brexiter (which I'm not), I would be very very angry about the way article 50 was rushed through without any thought about what would come next. Mogg, Johnson and friends bear a lot of responsibility. I assume some of them want brexit to fail.

 

[Groningen]

Let Theresa May finish the job, than thrown out and get replaced with Boris or Jacob!

 

[edwin_m]

And I bet those hating the EU never bothered to vote for their MEP so they didn't have a say.

Quite a few of them must have voted, otherwise how would Farage and co have got elected? I think the issue is more that people in the UK (and probably elsewhere too) see the European parliament as irrelevant because decisions are made by the commissioners, so its elections are used to kick the EU or the national government. One area for possible reform ... if the EU agenda wasn't so dominated by issues such as Brexit.

Let Theresa May finish the job, than thrown out and get replaced with Boris or Jacob!

That's a big worry because if an agreement is agreed it's quite possible a different leadership would want to tear it up and renegotiate the long-term arrangement during the transition period.

 

[anme]

That's a big worry because if an agreement is agreed it's quite possible a different leadership would want to tear it up and renegotiate the long-term arrangement during the transition period.

The proposed withdrawal agreement does not cover the future relationship (aside from a few specific points such as the backstop). It will still allow almost anything from an enhanced Norway-like arrangement to complete isolation, within the constraint that there can be no hard border in Ireland.

So there is still a lot to fight for... and this will continue for many years. Get ready!

 

[Howardh]

The proposed withdrawal agreement does not cover the future relationship (aside from a few specific points such as the backstop). It will still allow almost anything from an enhanced Norway-like arrangement to complete isolation, within the constraint that there can be no hard border in Ireland.

So there is still a lot to fight for... and this will continue for many years. Get ready!

That's what I'm hoping for; hopefully we can somehow keep our freedom of movement in the following negotiations. It's one way of keeping the Irish/UK border open, + being in the customs union for goods. What would muddy the waters is agreeing on something now, eg the Withdrawl Treaty, then a new PM coming in, tearing it up etc. Or we accept it, then negotiate our future relationship, then again a new PM tears it up. The EU must be very wary, and enshrine every word in law and that it can only be overturned by public vote (referendum); otherwise both the EU and UK end up with an unsecure relationship/future for many more years.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Only when the NHS is reformed which is needed now, I'm sure the £350m a week can be used for other purposes and not just the NHS despite the NHS being used as a political tool in Brexit.

The slogan wasn't £350m for a reformed NHS, when we've done the reforms.

 

[anme]

Not if you want life saving treatment, which is expensive and certainly not free such as drugs to battle cancer etc...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/786753/nhs-cancer-patients-life-saving-drugs-cost-rules

https://www.expressandstar.com/news...her-denied-potentially-life-saving-treatment/

https://www.theguardian.com/science...ty-prices-nhs-vital-medication-pharma-profits

https://www.northtynesideccg.nhs.uk/nhs-to-save-millions-following-legal-battle-with-drug-companies/

Mostly due to the fault of the drug companies who overcharge the NHS which is why for some treatments it is cheaper to go aboard to get them.

Hence my view it IS cheaper to go aboard for some treatments.

This is a very strange post. I looked at the links (the last one doesn't work for me) and not a single one says that any treatment is cheaper abroad than in the UK. Some articles mention treatments that are available abroad but not in the UK, but that's not a case of something being cheaper, it's a case of what the NHS will fund. Remember that whatever the brexiters have told you, you can't generally get free treatment for ongoing conditions anywhere in Europe (only emergency care while travelling), so it's unlikely you could get these treatments more cheaply abroad.

Why do you say that drugs companies overcharge the NHS? Do you mean specifically the NHS compared to other buyers, or do you mean they overchange in general? The NHS is probably the single largest customer for the pharmaceutical industry anywhere in the world. They probably get the best prices.

 

[Groningen]

As you will no be part of the EU your extension on the Internet will likely change from EU to UK.

 

[Struner]

As you will no be part of the EU your extension on the Internet will likely change from EU to UK.

As in leave.eu

 

[bramling]

The slogan wasn't £350m for a reformed NHS, when we've done the reforms.

I didn't interpret it as £350m a week for the NHS full-stop.

My interpretation was that the NHS was simply one option where the money could go. Personally I'd be very happy for some of it to fund tax cuts, but that's one thing we can probably say with certainty won't happen!

 

[muddythefish]

Most people saw the Big Red Bus slogan and took it that way.

And I think most people would rather the money was spent on vital public services such as the NHS and police, than giving it away in tax cuts.

Thatcher gave away North Sea oil money in tax cuts instead of investing in vital infrastructure. We should not make the same mistake again

 

[HH]

There is no £350m.

 

[bramling]

There is no £350m.

£350m or otherwise, there's a substantial figure. The publicity over the divorce bill (how many billions again?) has served to emphasise this, lest anyone had forgotten.

 

[nlogax]

£350m or otherwise, there's a substantial figure.

It's all gone. I do wonder if anyone will actually acknowledge that. Probably not.

 

[HH]

The publicity over the divorce bill (how many billions again?) has served to emphasise this, lest anyone had forgotten.

The divorce bill is paying for things like Farage's pension.

 

[edwin_m]

The £350m never existed in the first place because it didn't take account of either Maggie's rebate or the amount the EU spends (spent) in the UK, most of which the government has "promised" to continue. Whatever is left is going to be much less than the loss in tax receipts because of Brexit-related damage to the economy.

 

[bramling]

The £350m never existed in the first place because it didn't take account of either Maggie's rebate or the amount the EU spends (spent) in the UK, most of which the government has "promised" to continue. Whatever is left is going to be much less than the loss in tax receipts because of Brexit-related damage to the economy.

The problem with the EU’s U.K. spending was it came with strings attached. Rather perverse to send money abroad and them decide how much is returned and what it gets spent on.