You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic
April 26 2024 1.51pm

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 331 of 2586 < 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 >

Topic Locked

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 04 Jul 16 12.27pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
jamiemartin721 Flag 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"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 04 Jul 16 12.41pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 04 Jul 16 12.48pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 04 Jul 16 1.26pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 04 Jul 16 1.35pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Shameful and pathetic.

You lost.

Eh?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
jamiemartin721 Flag 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"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
jamiemartin721 Flag 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"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View susmik's Profile susmik Flag PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 04 Jul 16 1.50pm Send a Private Message to susmik Add susmik as a friend

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.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 04 Jul 16 2.05pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Shameful and pathetic.

You lost.

Facking hell. How old are you?

Makes your first line ironic.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 04 Jul 16 2.22pm Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

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
- leave 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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post

Topic Locked

Page 331 of 2586 < 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic