The result of the EU referendum:

[jakswan]

Yes, so why are you against it?

It will result in a "Net loss to Britian".

[jakswan]

If he goes to Bulgaria and the op costs £5,000, our country has £5,000 to spend on something else and our overworked doctors and nurses can concentrate on services that can't be outsourced elsewhere. Plus, people in Bulgaria are richer as a result which means they'll buy more stuff off us and others. Also, LA's health problem has been corrected which makes him a more productive member of society.

No under the system the £5,000 would leave the country and £5,000 would be lost in GDP terms from the UK economy. Obviously its a lot more than £5,000 because that rolls around the economy as I explained earlier.

Everyone's a winner.

Incorrect see above.

I already explained upthread why this is an incorrect characterisation of our position.

I quoted you directly.

[L.A.]

Nothing stopping you is there?

Sadly, I'm not a member of the Super-rich who can afford private medicine. I have to rely on the NHS.

Oh dear, lets say your op costs £10,000, that money is lost from the UK economy. So for example the cleaners get some of that money, if its done abroad they won't get that money, so maybe they can't afford to buy a child trainers, which means the staff at the shoe store don't make as much who in turn don't buy a bag of chips on the way home, so the chippie is worse off and so on.

Bulgaria meanwhile is much better off clearly the agenda of the Bremainers is to look out for the welfare of Bulgarians not the British, vote leave.

The object of the NHS is not to give gainful employment to it's workers, it's to provide us all with health-care and the escalating costs are becoming a major burden on our economy. We need to find ways of reducing NHS costs and if a high-quality cost-effective system for treating patients overseas could be found, that can only be a good thing.

[jeremyp]

It will result in a "Net loss to Britian".

Only in the short term.

The long term result will be better performing economies all round.

[jeremyp]

No under the system the £5,000 would leave the country and £5,000 would be lost in GDP terms from the UK economy. Obviously its a lot more than £5,000 because that rolls around the economy as I explained earlier.

Incorrect see above.

As I explained above, economics is not a zero sum game. Yes the £5,000 is lost to our economy but it goes into an economy that needs it more and the benefits of the stronger economy flow back to Britain. It's a short term loss for a long term gain.

[Jack Knave]

I find your position incomprehensible Jack. What are you saying? You would exclude private companies from doing NHS work because they might be . . . foreign owned . . . employ foreigners . . . be dominated by unions . . . what ?

We are talking here of the privatisation of the NHS, which is well on its way. They have no interest in the people or the UK, it is purely for making a profit. Corporations and all that - corporatocracy. That's why I'm opposed to them.

[Jack Knave]

A zero sum game is a game in which one player's gains have to be balanced by other players' losses.

As an example, think of the Six Nations Championship. There is a total of 30 points available which means an average of five points per team. However, England ended up with 10 points this year, which means that the average of the other teams points was reduced to four.

Global economics is not like that. If Romania's GDP goes up, it doesn't mean some other country's GDP has to go down. In fact, when a country gets richer, it generates demand for imports of foreign goods which means that other countries also benefit.

So, if a company making widgets moves production from Britain to (say) Spain transferring 10,000 jobs to Spain, initially, there are 10,000 more unemployed people in Britain and 10,000 more employed people in Spain.

In Britain, the extra unemployed puts downward pressure on wages and the exchange rate making British companies more competitive abroad, improving our economy. Furthermore, some of those 10,000 unemployed people will set up new and perhaps innovative businesses and many of the rest will find jobs elsewhere. Perhaps some of them even move to the Spanish operation.

In Spain, where unemployment is still at around 21%, 10,000 people who were living off the state are now in gainful employment with disposable incomes. This provides a boost to the Spanish economy and people start buying more stuff, including from Britain. Furthermore, widgets are now being made more cheaply, so that anybody who uses them gets a benefit.

If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.

This is not true if it is a monopoly etc. and especially true if it is a major industry. Not all businesses are equal. You are quite naïve in assuming people will be nice and fair to each other.

[L.A.]

We are talking here of the privatisation of the NHS, which is well on its way. They have no interest in the people or the UK, it is purely for making a profit. Corporations and all that - corporatocracy. That's why I'm opposed to them.

I've said this many times before and never got as satisfactory answer:

Why would anyone oppose private companies providing health services?  if:

A/ The quality of care is equal to or better than in-house NHS
B/ The service is more cost effective than in-house NHS
C/ The service is free at the point of delivery.

If those criteria are met and a company can make a profit on the deal - good for them!

[Jack Knave]

It is quite scary that Jakswan doesn't seem to understand this. Particularly as this has been the underpinning principle which has been one of the greatest successes of the EU. Effectively that the EU supported less developed countries to grow and develop, which not only improves their position, but also in time knocks on to overall greater trade, economic growth etc for all. Decades ago the EU did this for countries that at the time were considered almost 3rd world, notable Spain and Portugal which were really very poor. That seems inconceivable now that they were considered kind of like we consider Albania now - economically backward, poor and with no longstanding tradition of democracy.

And of course this is what is happening again for the eastern european countries, again very effectively, improving their economic position, which ultimately improves ours too, while supporting and cementing democracy in countries without a tradition of democratic government.

Well looking at the Middle east and Africa that has been a resounding success......NOT!!!

[Jack Knave]

If you add up the net loss to Britain and the net gain to Spain, you will find that the combination of the two countries is better off than it was before.

Greece must be ecstatic with joy in making Germany and the bankers rich!!!                   

[Jack Knave]

Yes, so why are you against it?

This is deluded and laughable. I can't believe you actually think this!!! 

[Jack Knave]

I've said this many times before and never got as satisfactory answer:

Why would anyone oppose private companies providing health services?  if:

A/ The quality of care is equal to or better than in-house NHS
B/ The service is more cost effective than in-house NHS
C/ The service is free at the point of delivery.

If those criteria are met and a company can make a profit on the deal - good for them!

Because they are big IFs and they are never true in the long run.

[jeremyp]

We are talking here of the privatisation of the NHS, which is well on its way. They have no interest in the people or the UK, it is purely for making a profit. Corporations and all that - corporatocracy. That's why I'm opposed to them.

You do realise that this is the fault of Britain's government. It has nothing to do with the EU.

[jeremyp]

This is not true if it is a monopoly etc

How does it being a monopoly change the argument? Not saying it doesn't change the argument but all we ave from you on it is flat assertions.

and especially true if it is a major industry.

Yes, of course it is true for major industries, glad you agree.

[jeremyp]

Well looking at the Middle east and Africa that has been a resounding success......NOT!!!

Where is the equivalent of the EU in the Middle East or Africa?

[jeremyp]

Greece must be ecstatic with joy in making Germany and the bankers rich!!!                   

What's that got to do with the point? Greece is where it is because of the EU but because its leaders lied to join the Euro.  And us applying jealous protectionism to jobs that can be better done in Greece isn't going to help them get out of the mess.

[jeremyp]

This is deluded and laughable. I can't believe you actually think this!!! 

Jakswan effectively stated that the EU ideology is to raise the wealth of all the member states through free trade. Why is it deluded and laughable to ask him why he is against everybody being a bit richer?

[Ricky Spanish]

It's a bit of a long read, but I have to say I agree with just about all he points out.



https://theweeflea.com/2016/04/26/european-referendum-the-tipping-point/

[Ricky Spanish]

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKKCN0XQ1MM

More than 100 executives from Britain's financial services industry, including hedge fund managers Crispin Odey and Paul Marshall, have signed a letter backing Britain's withdrawal from the European Union, the main Brexit campaign group said on Friday.

In a letter released by the Vote Leave group ahead of a June 23 referendum, the City bosses said getting out of the EU would help strengthen London's position as the only financial capital to rival New York.

[L.A.]

Because they are big IFs and they are never true in the long run.

Obviously, if those criteria are not met then there is no case, but I fail to see what the long-term problem would be?

Anyone who has had any dealings with the NHS knows that the service does some things very well. but there are vast amounts of waste and inefficiency, and 'monolithic blocks' like the NHS are not good environments for innovation - and there is a revolution going on in medicine right now!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Lapsed,

Anyone who has had any dealings with the NHS knows that the service does some things very well. but there are vast amounts of waste and inefficiency, and 'monolithic blocks' like the NHS are not good environments for innovation - and there is a revolution going on in medicine right now!

A quick question, what would you suggest to combat the waste and inefficiency?

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've said this many times before and never got as satisfactory answer:

Why would anyone oppose private companies providing health services?  if:

A/ The quality of care is equal to or better than in-house NHS
B/ The service is more cost effective than in-house NHS
C/ The service is free at the point of delivery.

If those criteria are met and a company can make a profit on the deal - good for them!

Lot of ifs.

[jeremyp]

It's a bit of a long read, but I have to say I agree with just about all he points out.



https://theweeflea.com/2016/04/26/european-referendum-the-tipping-point/

It doesn't stack up at all.

The peace part is irrelevant. If we leave the EU, there will not be a war because Germany and France are still in it.

The leavers' prosperity point is nonsense. His argument seems to be "leavers ridicule the Treasury figures". So what? They are the best figures we have.

He then tries to minimise the importance of EU trade using sleight of hand and forgets about the possibility of trade tariffs being imposed.

His borders point is a flat lie.

There is no way that Britain can control its own borders if it is within the EU.

We can and do control our borders, with the exception of those between us and the Republic of Ireland. Have you come in to the UK from anywhere abroad except Ireland? You can't get in without a passport.

That's the point at which I stopped reading. The article was set up as a dispassionate exercise in weighing the d
pros and cons of leaving the EU but it is clear he started out as a Brexiter and he was just boosting his own side's rhetoric. It's fundamentally dishonest.

[jeremyp]

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKKCN0XQ1MM

More than 100 executives from Britain's financial services industry, including hedge fund managers Crispin Odey and Paul Marshall, have signed a letter backing Britain's withdrawal from the European Union, the main Brexit campaign group said on Friday.

You know hedge funds make money by betting that shares will go down in value?

[L.A.]

Dear Lapsed,

A quick question, what would you suggest to combat the waste and inefficiency?

Gonnagle.

Good question Gonnagle, I'm sure better men than me have tried and failed to provide a good answer. It's one of those 'you wouldn't start from here' kinds of question.

The NHS is too big and bureaucratic. Many people who are doing the work know the answers, but no one listens to them. Personally, I think the whole thing needs breaking down into smaller units, and I wouldn't exclude private companies.