On 18 Jan 2016 at 9:58am Mark wrote:
I note that a contract to provide North Kent's community-based NHS services has been won by Virgin. I seem to remember David Cameron making empassioned speeches at the time of the election about his disabled son and how the NHS was safe with him. A lie perhaps? And a particularly ignoble one, at that. But anyway, let's all watch this space and see how what sort of job a rail operator does running healthcare - operation cancelled due to direct sunlight.
On 18 Jan 2016 at 10:13am Mr Ryder wrote:
You haven't seen anything yet just wait till all the traitors vote to keep us in the EU and TTIP is fully unleashed on the NHS.
What's left of our democracy is threatened further. The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP), negotiated by the EU in secret with corporate interests, threatens a race to the-bottom in environmental and other standards. Even more ominously, it would give large corporations the ability to sue elected governments to try to stop them introducing policies that supposedly hit their profit margins, whatever their democratic mandate. It would clear the way to not only expand the privatisation of our NHS, but make it irreversible too. Royal Mail may have been privatised by the Tories, but it was the EU that began the process by enforcing the liberalisation of the natural monopoly of postal services. Want to nationalise the railways? That means you have to not only overcome European commission rail directive 91/440/EEC, but potentially the proposed Fourth Railway Package too.
The true socialist position is anti-EU, Benn and Foot were right
On 18 Jan 2016 at 10:49am Paul Newman wrote:
..and there you have it . UKIP has now entirely morphed from true believers in Thatcher ( hence The Bruges Group) into National Socialism. Opposed to Free Trade and Foreigners in equal measure
Oswald Mosley would be pleased , he was himself from a Labour background of course .In fact, (and I am quoting the bastion of capitalism The New Statesman ) ….
“. It’s plain that the UK badly needs negotiations on the EU-US trade and investment deal (TTIP) to succeed. It would be a global economic game-changer and could set the standards for worldwide trade and investment for a generation in the absence of any serious moves on multilateral trade. And it is different to other trade deals. It’s the biggest ever bilateral trade negotiation and the first between economic equals. The EU and US are evenly matched in economic wealth and power, and together we account for half the world’s economic output”
(Safeguards for the NHS are being put in place and a clear undertaking has been given)
Ryder are you going to switch back from making conspiracy allegations about shady international capitalism to whipping up racist paranoia now or will that saved for Kristallnacht ?
Free Trade has transformed the world – it is dragging even Africa out of poverty China India and South America are surging ahead , Malaria has gone the way of small pox life expectancy is increasing year on year. Yes there are problems but the people who to withdraw into their hobbit hole and sit around fearfully stirring up hate are the enemies of the future.
More to the point they will cost us all money and jobs , they have no plan B and most of them can hardly spell EEA or bilateral treaty let alone tell you what the implications their “ Hope we can patch something together “ plan is
On 18 Jan 2016 at 10:50am Mark wrote:
Of course, that's the entire purpose of international free trade agreements. Hegemony by Multinational Corporations.
On 18 Jan 2016 at 10:57am Mr Ryder wrote:
Paul you are a deluded little prat.
Don't you dare call me racist when I have said nothing of the sort. You're an uneducated, ill-informed fool who doesn't know how to debate properly.
the EU is a corporatist racket that is directly threatening the democracy and integrity of our NHS.
On 18 Jan 2016 at 11:09am trooper wrote:
I hear that south East Coast Ambulance have lost their NHS contract and are to go into a private health company . Is this correct anybody else hear anything ??
On 18 Jan 2016 at 11:27am Paul Newman wrote:
I shall let others judge which of us knows how to debate Ryder .
I`m sorry did I miss your plan to replace the Free Trade we enjoy in the EU and the jobs that dependent it in this Town and around the UK ?
I think I must have done and that would be because you don`t have one.
On 18 Jan 2016 at 11:54am Mr Ryder wrote:
Do you mean like with the same free trade other countries enjoy that don't subjugate themselves within a political union? I'm tired of wasting my time with you, this is about the NHS not EU trade and actually there are more important things at stake (NHS, democracy) than money. You are like Thatcher who knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing, but anyway here's some facts for you and your stupid scaremongering:
-Major economies eg. Japan (one of the world’s largest) are not in a trading bloc or political union and negotiate their own free trade deals successfully.
-The EU is not the place where most economic growth is occurring. The EU’s share of world GDP is forecast to decline to 22% in 2025, down from 37% in 1973.
– If Britain withdrew from the EU it would preserve the benefits of trade with the EU by imposing a UK/EU Free Trade Agreement.
– The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2014 there was a trade deficit of over £50bn, with a current account deficit of nearly £100 billion. It is plain lying to suggest that the EU would seek to disrupt a trade which is so beneficial to itself.
– Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU.
– World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide. These alone would guarantee the trade upon which jobs rely.
-Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU, yet they export far more per capita to the EU than the UK does; this suggests that EU membership is not a prerequisite for a healthy trading relationship.
-Furthermore, Britain’s best trading relationships are generally not within the EU, but outside, i.e. with countries such as the USA and Switzerland.
-The largest investor in the UK is not even an EU country, but the US.
On 18 Jan 2016 at 12:19pm Lion Lady wrote:
how very boring
On 18 Jan 2016 at 12:21pm Paul Newman wrote:
Do you mean like with the same free trade other countries enjoy that don't subjugate themselves within a political union?
No they do not have the same Free trade deal if they did then the USA which clearly has the best opportunity would not need a Free Trade deal would it . Do you need an explanation of this ?
Norway is in the EEA Switzerland has bilateral Treaties that mimic the EU`s deal ( both of which tie them into Freedom of movement and much more )
Now as your main thing is stopping all those beastly foreigners from dropping in (the ones that have saved the UK economy from dropping out of the sky) you presumably don`t know this or you presumably wouldn’t mention them ?
Not exactly out of my depth here am I
I appeal to anyone who happens to read this not under any circumstances to allow this sort of person to have any say whatsoever in your jobs mortgages and your children`s future. We may have political differences, we may disagree on almost everything but please do not imperil so many people`s financial security.
Think of where Scotland would be now if they had gone with their Nationalist spasm. With oil the price it is we would be dropping red cross parcels. That called the unknown its a big scary place to be avoided.
On 18 Jan 2016 at 2:02pm Zebedee wrote:
Recently my stance has changed from pro-European to anti-European. I now consider the EU to be far too pro-big business and not sufficiently citizen-friendly (the supported free movement of people is a terrible idea if you want to maintain cohesive societies). And Paul's ramblings do little to change my mind. Paul, If you want to persuade people of your point of view try writing it clearly. The way you write is the nearest to dribbling I have experienced.
TTIP worries me hugely. Consider fracking. The UK government has sold licences to foreign owned companies to frack most of the UK. Recent experience in the US has shown that concentrated fracking causes earthquakes... that don't stop when the fracking stops. Bearing in mind that the UK's geology, unlike that of the states, is riven with small faults and that the UK's one and only frack so far caused an earthquake, it seems most likely that once fracking gets going here in earnest it'll have to be stopped pretty quickly. If I understand an item in the The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership agreement correctly this will mean that the foreign-owned fracking companies will be able to sue the UK government for lost earnings. That does not seem good.
Thank heavens for low oil prices. Currently fracking in the UK is not commercially viable, and with the newly befriended Iran set to increase its oil output, it doesn't look like it will be for quite some time!
On 18 Jan 2016 at 3:11pm Paul Newman wrote:
Zebbers - The point of protection of investors is to stop their money being expropriated without compensation or discriminating against foreign investors by diktat. Such Mugabe-esque activities are not possible in this country so for us nothing much will have changed except that the legal protections afforded to British companies will include foreign companies.
You may dislike Fracking, fine, but there is no connection here.
On the desirability or otherwise of immigration I share your concerns to some extent but those problems (such as they are) come overwhelmingly from non EU inward migration. Lewes is full of Germans French as well as Poles and others who integrate well and add to the community, the economy and the exchequer. Many of us will have friends in this group and I see no problem whatsoever.
Assimilation of migrants from outside the EU has been much harder and I am pleased that the period in which this has been denied is over. I have come to a much more positive view (in part because I don`t wish to be art of the swelling torrent of irrational fear and hate) but certainly it is a different challenge.
That has nothing do with the EU
I`m sorry you don`t like my prose style, I`m sorry if you don`t like me
There it is
On 18 Jan 2016 at 4:58pm Jim wrote:
You've been soundly beaten and outclassed Paul now go crawl back into your hole for another day.
On 18 Jan 2016 at 5:28pm Grunge wrote:
At least Ian Freeston's posts are shorter. Yawn.
On 18 Jan 2016 at 5:50pm Tunnel Bridge wrote:
Is this thread somehow related to the graffiti ?
On 18 Jan 2016 at 5:52pm Mark wrote:
Really really hard to discern what point your trying to make in all of your contributions Paul but re: fracking... Some are against it and some accept the idea but shortly after the North American Free Trade Area was agreed to the people of Quebec decided that they wanted to ban it. They're very conscious of the environment in Quebec. The government of the province of Quebec were then told that they were under threat of legal action if they went ahead. American energy firms wouldn't accept the proposed "restriction on trade". TTIP is NAFTA for Europe. It's the political issues that matter.
On 18 Jan 2016 at 6:29pm Paul Newman wrote:
Mark - If you would tell me what it is you don`t understand I will explain. Looking back it seems clear enough to me
On the question of Quebec I don’t know all the details but what Investor Protection is about is stopping governments sucking in foreign investment ( eg by granting licences for fracking ) then changing their mind and telling the investors they can whistle for their money . Domestic firms under these circumstances would be entitled to compensation and it is commonly part of Free Trade agreements that this protection is codified rather than remaining a question of International Law with all its vagaries .
People who are rabid Nationalists have been trying dress this up as a capitalist plot so as to attract the Corbynite element but I really recommend a large pinch of salt
I hope that is intelligible ?
On 18 Jan 2016 at 9:34pm Mark wrote:
Thanks so much for making it all so intelligible. Patronising creep.
On 19 Jan 2016 at 5:49am Scorpion wrote:
Don't be so hard on Paul, he really can't help it, it's his nature...
Rootless cosmopolitans don't want any resurgence of national identity because they feel threatened by it. That's why they want a border less Europe.
On 19 Jan 2016 at 7:04am Zebedee wrote:
Paul, thank you for taking the time to write clearly. Now it is possible to work out what it is you are saying.
The (unintended?) consequence of the agreement is that it becomes harder for governments to get out of existing contracts when new evidence comes to light. Fracking, whatever you think is a great example. Our government will be more reluctant to impose a moratorium on the practice once the earthquakes start due to fear of being sued by the industry. This reluctance is likely to increase its tolerance of earthquakes, thereby increasing permanent long term geological damage. I hope that's clear. Nothing to do with rabid Nationalism at all. More a concern that the power of our democratic governments is being eroded in favour of trans-national business.
On 19 Jan 2016 at 7:48am Dickie Pickle wrote:
I appreciate your points Mark, though they may not work due to frost. The Virgin Empire has more strings to it's bow than an Irish harp, and I personally think that Community Care may be better run without the leaden hand of mainstream NHS bureaucracy . I really do hope so.
On 19 Jan 2016 at 9:00am Mark wrote:
The actual situation Dickie is that is re: bureaucracy where the NHS faces one it's greatest problems. The idea that there are hordes of bureaucrats is a media myth. There aren't enough bureaucrats. This arises because of generations of politicians announcing "Im going to increase funding but it will be ring-fenced for front line services". This isn't always helpful. Things work very well at the coalface but it takes weeks to get a lightbulb changed. It takes months to get a vacancy filled. Clinical staff working with no administrative support.
On 19 Jan 2016 at 12:31pm Dickie wrote:
Thankyou Mark, I was unaware of that, you are an experienced NHS person I think. Good to hear an opinion, but what is the answer?
On 19 Jan 2016 at 1:29pm Mark wrote:
I am. I would say that with the cost of healthcare rising, aging population etc... Then the only answer is better funding. We can afford to have our large corporations paying no tax. Inheritance tax was eliminated last year. Thresholds have just been raised. It's not the system that's broken. Google "Britain's Health Service: The best in the world" to see what an American survey found about the cost effectiveness of our system.
On 19 Jan 2016 at 3:51pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Where's Mr Ryder gone? I was enjoying his debate with PN.
It rather reminded me of the Hamilton/Al Fayed libel case: whichever one lost, it was still a good result.
On 19 Jan 2016 at 5:02pm Mr Ryder wrote:
I clearly exposed Paul's stupid, unoriginal lies and that was that. The debate has moved in another direction and others are discussing it Twitcher.
But by all means feel free to go to another thread with Paul and chant boring Brexit scare stories at each other.
On 19 Jan 2016 at 5:03pm belladonna wrote:
its not just about paying more for the health service, although I would happily pay another penny in the pound to support it - its also about educating people about health risks and reducing the amount of 'lifestyle' health risks - eg drinking, smoking and diet related obesity / Forty percent of ill-health that the NHS treats is directly related to those lifestyle choices. Some may argue that taxes on booze and cigarettes help pay for that - but what a waste of resources and human life to acceot that as the status quo.
Sometimes the population needs to be 'punished' to change their behaviour - and that generally means hitting pockets. (See speed cameras, plastic bag tax, etc). Addictions like smoking and alcoholism are harder to treat just by making it more expensive to buy, but seems like its the only mechanism we have as a society - public education programmes do not seem to be working against the face of the mighty advertising industry urging us all to consume vast amounts of booze and sugary foods. So maybe we have to stop all alcohol and sugary food advertising as well ???? Alll I'm sure about is that this country is eating, drinking and smoking itself into early graves - and the NHS at some point will have to stop treating some lifestyle diseases.