Is The Price Of Drinks In Pubs Too High?
ChatterBank1 min ago
Brexit - Mp Has Attack Of Sanity - Shock!
67 Answers
Dr Sarah Wollaston has defected from the OUT campaign saying that the claims on the NHS, to wit
Vote Leave's claim that Brexit would free up £350m a week for the NHS "simply isn't true".
[ so what do MPs routinely do in the House of Lies ? sorry this is proper thread, oh and apolz to ABers for starting ANOTHER Brexit thread ]
the ref is here
http://
Vote Leave's claim that Brexit would free up £350m a week for the NHS "simply isn't true".
[ so what do MPs routinely do in the House of Lies ? sorry this is proper thread, oh and apolz to ABers for starting ANOTHER Brexit thread ]
the ref is here
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Peter Pedant. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Luke 15:7 comes to mind:
I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, which need no repentance.
Though I wouldn't go so far as to call the Britex supporters 'sinners'. Misguided, certainly, but not sinners.
I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous persons, which need no repentance.
Though I wouldn't go so far as to call the Britex supporters 'sinners'. Misguided, certainly, but not sinners.
That a politician has the correct view and then says they reject it for a whole slew of ludicrous excuses and incorrect "justifications", and thus gives their reputation another hit, seems a clear attack of insanity to me.
That we are consistently failing to train UK nationals to work in the NHS and prefer to strip talent for other countries is another act of shame, and in no way justifies allowing medical tourism to strip the NHS of resources.
That we are consistently failing to train UK nationals to work in the NHS and prefer to strip talent for other countries is another act of shame, and in no way justifies allowing medical tourism to strip the NHS of resources.
As it was grey and miserable outside I spent a little time answering her claims. You're welcome.
sHe mentions that it is important to consider all aspects. It always was, but most of the aspects were known before the negotiations, so the only remaining piece of the jigsaw was whether Cameron negotiated enough change to make it worthwhile staying. He had his chance but we soon realised he wasn't asked for anything like enough to make a difference; and didn't even get all he asked for. And to put the tin hat on it, it is even believed the agreement isn't even binding. It was worthless, and the case for out remained untouchable.
Then, how was she going to feel if she played a part in freeing our country from outside control ? Inexplicably she claims that regaining our freedom would give her a sense of loss. (Maybe this has parallels with the psychologic effect where the incarcerated have become institutionalised, and fear having to cope with the reality of being and coping in the world; so insist on not leaving their cell when the opportunity arrives ?)
She then claims that there is a consensus of a huge economic shock. Clearly not so as the leave party continually speak against the suggestions pointing out that many of the "experts" who claim such a thing are connected, or even funded by, government; and their predictions have been spectacularly wrong in the past. The withdrawal would not be overnight but over years, things will inevitably change but slowly and will settle down. This is just a 'remain' fear story and unworthy of repeating. But even in the IMO extremely unlikely event of a economic blip, in the medium to long term it would be more than worth it anyway to regain control and be able to trade where the best deals are, not jumping to some EU elite's tune.
Then the NHS specifically, and whether there is a dividend or a penalty. Well clearly a dividend. More money available to allocate to the NHS, if that is where the government decides it should go, and fewer folk coming here for the UK taxpayer to pay for their treatment. But for some reason she decides that there is a penalty.
She says it depends on the background economy but since she got it wrong above regarding the fantasy "economic shock", then she has no good foundation upon which to judge the economic effect on the NHS. She still pushes the idea of a penalty to try to justify her view.
She then uses her own inference that the leave bus claims £350M a week would be put into the NHS simply because the bus states the true given amount and also suggests that money spent on the EU could be put towards the NHS. This is certainly clutching at straws. The claims on the bus are correct, despite the remainers' lies saying it is untrue (lies that are continually repeated by the hard of thinking by audience members in TV debates): it is her interpretation that is flawed. All she does to try to justify it is to say it doesn't take account of temporary arrangements to get some of the money back; but nowhere does it say it does. It states the gross figure. And she thinks this error on her part is justification for abandoning her previous position ? Trivial and unworthy.
Our place in the world is enhanced if we can speak for ourselves. Our security does not depend on being part of a federal block rather than being independent. The suggestion that this would lead to instability in the long run is an appalling fear story. The real suggestion is that one would not feel a need to support the economies of other countries if not part of the EU and this would lead to conflict. Of course having a neighbouring country with economic difficulties is not something helpful to our own economy. So a certain amount of help is appropriate; but there are already international bodies that can help as long as the failing country is willing to accept the need for change. Individual nations shouldn't need to offer that much beyond what is already available. ...
sHe mentions that it is important to consider all aspects. It always was, but most of the aspects were known before the negotiations, so the only remaining piece of the jigsaw was whether Cameron negotiated enough change to make it worthwhile staying. He had his chance but we soon realised he wasn't asked for anything like enough to make a difference; and didn't even get all he asked for. And to put the tin hat on it, it is even believed the agreement isn't even binding. It was worthless, and the case for out remained untouchable.
Then, how was she going to feel if she played a part in freeing our country from outside control ? Inexplicably she claims that regaining our freedom would give her a sense of loss. (Maybe this has parallels with the psychologic effect where the incarcerated have become institutionalised, and fear having to cope with the reality of being and coping in the world; so insist on not leaving their cell when the opportunity arrives ?)
She then claims that there is a consensus of a huge economic shock. Clearly not so as the leave party continually speak against the suggestions pointing out that many of the "experts" who claim such a thing are connected, or even funded by, government; and their predictions have been spectacularly wrong in the past. The withdrawal would not be overnight but over years, things will inevitably change but slowly and will settle down. This is just a 'remain' fear story and unworthy of repeating. But even in the IMO extremely unlikely event of a economic blip, in the medium to long term it would be more than worth it anyway to regain control and be able to trade where the best deals are, not jumping to some EU elite's tune.
Then the NHS specifically, and whether there is a dividend or a penalty. Well clearly a dividend. More money available to allocate to the NHS, if that is where the government decides it should go, and fewer folk coming here for the UK taxpayer to pay for their treatment. But for some reason she decides that there is a penalty.
She says it depends on the background economy but since she got it wrong above regarding the fantasy "economic shock", then she has no good foundation upon which to judge the economic effect on the NHS. She still pushes the idea of a penalty to try to justify her view.
She then uses her own inference that the leave bus claims £350M a week would be put into the NHS simply because the bus states the true given amount and also suggests that money spent on the EU could be put towards the NHS. This is certainly clutching at straws. The claims on the bus are correct, despite the remainers' lies saying it is untrue (lies that are continually repeated by the hard of thinking by audience members in TV debates): it is her interpretation that is flawed. All she does to try to justify it is to say it doesn't take account of temporary arrangements to get some of the money back; but nowhere does it say it does. It states the gross figure. And she thinks this error on her part is justification for abandoning her previous position ? Trivial and unworthy.
Our place in the world is enhanced if we can speak for ourselves. Our security does not depend on being part of a federal block rather than being independent. The suggestion that this would lead to instability in the long run is an appalling fear story. The real suggestion is that one would not feel a need to support the economies of other countries if not part of the EU and this would lead to conflict. Of course having a neighbouring country with economic difficulties is not something helpful to our own economy. So a certain amount of help is appropriate; but there are already international bodies that can help as long as the failing country is willing to accept the need for change. Individual nations shouldn't need to offer that much beyond what is already available. ...
They are perfectly entitled to change their mind given new evidence. To do so in the face of no new evidence showed a failure to think it through the first time. Something has changed. It may be her priorities that changed, but from her interview it seems not. She seems to have just suddenly decided to believe one side's version rather than the other. I just wonder why.
"that a foreigner is more likely to be treating you in the NHS, rather than ahead of you in the queue"
My daughter took my grandson to the hospital for an eye appointment a few weeks ago. He was the only white British child in the waiting room and it was full. This is not an isolated incident by the way. Most times white British are outnumbered there.
My daughter took my grandson to the hospital for an eye appointment a few weeks ago. He was the only white British child in the waiting room and it was full. This is not an isolated incident by the way. Most times white British are outnumbered there.
// but this [John Nott] goes unreported by the Biased Bull**** Company. //
It is reported in the OPs link
// Meanwhile, in a blow to the Remain campaign, Sir John Nott, Conservative defence minister during the 1982 Falklands War, has suspended his membership of the party because of David Cameron's "tirade of fear" during the EU referendum campaign, according to The Daily Telegraph.
Sir John, who famously stormed out of a live interview with the BBC's Sir Robin Day during the Falklands War, is reported to believe that Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne have "poisoned the debate" with their "frenetic" warnings about the consequences of a Brexit. //
Svejk
[http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3771/5634/original.jpg?w=600&h]
The Conservatives handed over our sovereignty in 1973. This is not a referendum to JOIN.
And sadly, those who fought "the war to end all wars" in 1916 would be called upon to fight again a couple of decades later.
We have now had 70 years of peace amongst the powers in Europe, largely due to us cooperating in the EU.
[http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3771/5634/original.jpg?w=600&h]
The Conservatives handed over our sovereignty in 1973. This is not a referendum to JOIN.
And sadly, those who fought "the war to end all wars" in 1916 would be called upon to fight again a couple of decades later.
We have now had 70 years of peace amongst the powers in Europe, largely due to us cooperating in the EU.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.