This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
| Hoof Hearted 04 Jul 16 12.21pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
''Brexit could result in an extra £900m bill for the NHS as suppliers hike their prices to protect themselves against a weakening pound. The currency turmoil triggered by Britain’s decision to leave the EU could add a further 18 per cent to the efficiency target set out in the Carter review, according to NHS procurement expert Chris Robson. Mr Robson, of the management consultancy Akeso and Company, estimates that at least half of the products used in the NHS originate from outside of the UK, with a high proportion manufactured in Europe, Switzerland, the US and the Far East.'' So let's hope some of the money promised does in fact go into the NHS. ''David Cameron has rejected an appeal to give the NHS more money based on the leave campaign’s pledge to put £350m a week into the service, even though the referendum revealed strong public backing for the move.'' Oops ''Tory leadership contender Michael Gove has offered the NHS £100m a week as part of his manifesto.'' Ah, so that's OK then. Edited by Mapletree (04 Jul 2016 12.16pm) Sounds to me like the NHS need tougher negotiators with their suppliers.
|
|
 Rudi Hedman  Caterham 04 Jul 16 12.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I'm not the one championing the idea of patriotism and how great the UK is. You can't be 'patriotic' in one breath about how the UK must be free of EU influence, and then cutting taxes to attract foreign investment the next. Hardly a victory for the British people... I'm interested in a lot of things, including the fate of the nation, but the hypocrisy of Patriotism and Nationalism, especially in politics, is a subject I'm very interested in. Apparently there's £10 billion at risk if it doesn't result in more foreign business/investment/UK premises. If it does, no need for tax increases specifically with regard to this (Corp tax reduce to 15%) That must be £10 billion of tax so would they need £66 billion net corp profits for it to be cost effective?
COYP |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 12.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Apparently there's £10 billion at risk if it doesn't result in more foreign business/investment/UK premises. If it does, no need for tax increases specifically with regard to this (Corp tax reduce to 15%) That must be £10 billion of tax so would they need £66 billion net corp profits for it to be cost effective? Or its an excuse to lower corporation taxes. Both the New Labour and the Conservatives, have been keen on doing this, despite the increasing profitability of companies. Part of what got us to this, was not taxing corporate profits generated from Freedom of Movement, and then returning that money back to compensate British Citizens for the impact of freedom of movement.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 04 Jul 16 12.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Or its an excuse to lower corporation taxes. Both the New Labour and the Conservatives, have been keen on doing this, despite the increasing profitability of companies. Part of what got us to this, was not taxing corporate profits generated from Freedom of Movement, and then returning that money back to compensate British Citizens for the impact of freedom of movement. Yes, but more imported cheap labour.
COYP |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 04 Jul 16 12.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I really think that any legal challenge that isn't based on demonstrating fraud or electoral tampering, is stupid for any politician to back. By the rules in place, the decision of the people, barring proof of collusion or tampering, was to leave. Even if we're talking about the percentages being so close, that's something that should have been ascertained and defined at the first UK Referendum, that a clear mandate would be required. Politically, I can't see anyone or any party getting out of it without damaging their political viability, without at the very least presenting a second referendum, based on the outcome of a general election (i.e. If the Liberal Democrats stood in the general election with a manifesto that held a referendum on remaining in the EU and won, then fair enough). Anything less than a second referendum, backed by support of a democratic mandate, would be damaging for the already fragile trust and relationship between the public and parliamentary democracy. Completely missing the point. The legal discussion is one about process. This is not a political challenge but a legal one. Mishcon de Reya takes the view the process needs to include a Parliamentary vote according to Parliamentary rules. If so - and that may be unavoidable - life will get interesting.
|
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 04 Jul 16 1.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Completely missing the point. The legal discussion is one about process. This is not a political challenge but a legal one. Mishcon de Reya takes the view the process needs to include a Parliamentary vote according to Parliamentary rules. If so - and that may be unavoidable - life will get interesting. Shameful and pathetic. You lost.
|
|
| Mapletree Croydon 04 Jul 16 1.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Eh?
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 1.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Completely missing the point. The legal discussion is one about process. This is not a political challenge but a legal one. Mishcon de Reya takes the view the process needs to include a Parliamentary vote according to Parliamentary rules. If so - and that may be unavoidable - life will get interesting. Of course it does, but the function of parliament, if it failed to pass a referendum, would be untenable as a democracy. They'd in effect be establishing the existence of a 'tyranny of political elites'. Something of that magnitude would be remarkably irresponsible, as it would mean the end to the ideology of democratic process - effectively akin to a coup.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 1.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Sounds to me like the NHS need tougher negotiators with their suppliers. I think the otherside hold most of the cards, as British Government effectively has little choice but to buy many medications from specific producers, at contractually agreed prices. Kind of thing that happens when private companies hold the vital patents and designs, rather than state bodies. Of course, whether the state could have funded all that research, is another matter.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 04 Jul 16 1.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Let's try again shall we. 16 and 17 year olds are bitter at being disenfranchised. On such an important issue for the longer term they wanted a say. As that was given to 16 and 17 year olds in the Scottish referendum there is precedent. Did you really think that I believed they had a legal right to vote but were prevented? I think it is you that needs to keep up. It seems that you do the way you keep on harping on about it...
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 04 Jul 16 2.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Facking hell. How old are you? Makes your first line ironic.
|
|
| silvertop Portishead 04 Jul 16 2.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Of course it does, but the function of parliament, if it failed to pass a referendum, would be untenable as a democracy. They'd in effect be establishing the existence of a 'tyranny of political elites'. Something of that magnitude would be remarkably irresponsible, as it would mean the end to the ideology of democratic process - effectively akin to a coup. Agreed. If the ballot papers said: Do you want the following propositions to be put to Parliamentary vote: - remain in the EU Then the challenge may have merit. It did not. The rules were established in advance, were not subject to parliamentary challenge and that is where the supremacy of parliament ends. Vote stands.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 3.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Yes, but more imported cheap labour. I think it depends on how you spend the revenue generated from cheap labour and the profits. For example, if it was used to create a more leisured lifestyle for the average British citizen, then it could be looked at favourabily. I'd be happy to stick with freedom of movement, if for example, it were redistributed and shared among the working poor and unemployed - Or x number of bank holidays, or a four day week etc. The issue was we, the public, got f**k all. We got collared on pensions, public spending cuts, corporation tax cuts, wage freezes, increased utility bills etc... The ideal of freedom of movement, would be that I wouldn't have to work, or only have to work a few days a week - I could live with that!
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 04 Jul 16 4.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Well I think it should concern you. Your generation has created a rift with the youngest generation of ]voters. Then it says 'well it's their own fault anyway for not voting' when in fact that was untrue. Then it perpetuates the myth. If I were a nipper again that may rather annoy me and drive me away from mainstream politics. And that is not a good place to be, the alternatives tend to involve pain. I am guessing you don't know how strong the feeling runs amongst the 17 to 24 age group which is a group that knows it will end up carrying the can. I await the mass protests. Far from "Carrying the can" the youngsters will actually benefit long after I have gone. Edited by Willo (04 Jul 2016 4.34pm)
|
|
| Mapletree Croydon 04 Jul 16 4.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
I await the mass protests. Far from "Carrying the can" the youngsters will actually benefit long after I have gone. Edited by Willo (04 Jul 2016 4.32pm) Protests in London and York and over four million signed a petition. But it's a good job you know better than they what is right for the young people of our country. By the way, there really is no need to shout Edited by Mapletree (04 Jul 2016 4.36pm)
|
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 4.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
16-17 years olds should be able to vote - 'Old enough to f**k, old enough to vote'. But it would be a bit weird to make an issue of this now, rather than say before the general election, or the one before that. Where were these 'legal challenges' then. Basically, its a political gambit based on exploitation of issues to achieve an undemocratic result. Really, the only way a second referendum should be proposed is via a general election, or evidence of fraud or tampering significant to influence the result (such as postal ballot frauds, dead people voting, ballot box stuffing etc).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Jul 16 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
Far from "Carrying the can" the youngsters will actually benefit long after I have gone. Edited by Willo (04 Jul 2016 4.34pm) Rarely the case. Benefits in society for young people are generally accidental consequences, usually generated by the efforts of a previous younger generation, that have become the new establishment. The 60s, for example, generated a lot of social change. very little of it came from the older generation of the 60s.... The young are the life blood of social change and social justice. Its actually only good for a country when they are 'outraged'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 04 Jul 16 4.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Protests in London and York and over four million signed a petition. But it's a good job you know better than they what is right for the young people of our country. By the way, there really is no need to shout Edited by Mapletree (04 Jul 2016 4.36pm) They can protest as much as they like, it won't make a scintilla of difference. And yes I never formed my opinions on membership of the EU on a whim. Finally I wasn't shouting. Don't know why everything went to BOLD - tried to correct it but to no avail.
|
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 04 Jul 16 4.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
A lot of young people don't really care either way and didn't vote. A lot of young people voted leave. One side of the debate shouldn't characterise a whole group as thinking one way....just as not all older people voted leave. Yes, very true. Was just going to post something similar but you beat me to it !
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.