Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’m off now to play a game of AoS. In the meantime, can someone answer this sincere question for me? Those of us who are unhappy with the status quo of the EU, and who felt that the only way to get real change was to pack up and leave, what else would you have had us do? This was the first time since the early seventies that we were actually asked for our opinion of the European project. And before that Cameron went to the EU on his hands and knees pleading for a better deal and got scraps in return. Nothing could be changed because it was against the treaties. Treaties that, whilst ratified by parliament, were never put to the regular voters. And once signed they couldn’t be undone. Because the EU only goes forward, never backwards or even sideways. What would you have had us do?

I think the Cameron thing is easily explained. Britain already got a good deal out of the EU and it wanted even more. Giving the UK more and more every time they would come asking for it would end badly for the EU. Plus how hard did Cameron really try?

 Jadenim wrote:
@Future War Cultist. The answer is vote in the European elections. Turnout in those in the UK has always been abysmal; also preferably vote for a candidate who is actually going to bother turning up and trying to change things, rather than laughing boy Farage, who just claims his expenses and sits with his feet up “in protest “.

This. Farage and his ilk are terrible representatives of the UK, because they will stand and make grandstanding speeches about the ills of the EU but not actually do anything to try and fix those ills as if those issues actually got addressed, people wouldn't need to elect them anymore and they'd lose their paycheck.

Parliament to get vote on final deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43951405

I don't understand though. If the time runs out, how will the EU be able to grant renegotiation? Surely it would just mean the UK crashes out? Otherwise the whole process could be dragged on forever. I think this point needs to be clarified before the debate on this in the UK or the whole thing will be poisoned by half truths. I mean, maaaybe the EU would grant an extension on Article 50, but it's hardly a sure thing, is it? And if they do, there's no way to know if parliament will accept any new deal anyway, so what happens then? I just don't see how this can work when there are 27 other countries and more parliaments involved. The debate on this in the UK seems very inward looking. Can anyone shed light on this? Am I missing something?

You’re all kind for not laughing at me. It would be so easy to just put the boot in.

@ Da Boss

I was unnecessarily blunt to you earlier and for that I apologise. I hope there’s no hard feelings.

Hey, it's alright man. I can be a dick sometimes too and I was poking the bear. Thanks for apologising though, there's not enough of that around.

I'm sorry that this situation has disillusioned you so much.

It's not like I've never been wrong before either

Regarding the parliamentary vote; you're right, if they decline it we're left with stay or crash out unless the EU grant us an extension. But this forces May to get a deal that she thinks Parliament will approve, which puts a lot of pressure on her to actually do a good job

And on Davis Davis to actually do his job.

I'm still waiting for DINLT to explain to me how the Norman Conquest was not the British Isles being taken over by a European power, since they stopped making their own decisions about 66 years into that thousand years he was talking about.

Oh, and that William of Orange guy.

Herzlos wrote:
It's not like I've never been wrong before either

Regarding the parliamentary vote; you're right, if they decline it we're left with stay or crash out unless the EU grant us an extension. But this forces May to get a deal that she thinks Parliament will approve, which puts a lot of pressure on her to actually do a good job

Hmmm. I would have hoped she was doing the best job she was capable of already, considering how important this is. I hope this vote is meaningful and results in a better outcome for Britain but I'm sceptical.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:If it wasn't for people like me willing to take a risk, we'd still be living in caves and banging rocks together, whilst discussing the latest migration paths of mammoths.

Human history is full of people taking risks. That's why were talking about sending people to Mars, rather than trembling in our caves.

From your posts in this thread we are talking about completely different types of risk taking. Your type of risk seems to be more along the lines of "randomly jumping of a cliff because somebody else said it might not be a good idea" and nothing else. That risk doesn't lead to improvements but to senseless suffering, besides: banging rocks together gave our predecessors fires, which in turn led to them being able to cook food and better absorb nutrients from their food, which in turn improve their cognitive capabilities, which in turn allowed for innovation and improvement like—after a long line of improvements—sending people to Mars.

So keep banging rocks together and look what happens instead of just randomly running into your doom because curiosity and risk are not the same.

 Da Boss wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
It's not like I've never been wrong before either

Regarding the parliamentary vote; you're right, if they decline it we're left with stay or crash out unless the EU grant us an extension. But this forces May to get a deal that she thinks Parliament will approve, which puts a lot of pressure on her to actually do a good job

Hmmm. I would have hoped she was doing the best job she was capable of already, considering how important this is. I hope this vote is meaningful and results in a better outcome for Britain but I'm sceptical.

I suspect you're right, I'm just hoping she is capable of a decent job otherwise we're completely screwed.

 Da Boss wrote:
I don't understand though. If the time runs out, how will the EU be able to grant renegotiation? Surely it would just mean the UK crashes out? Otherwise the whole process could be dragged on forever. I think this point needs to be clarified before the debate on this in the UK or the whole thing will be poisoned by half truths. I mean, maaaybe the EU would grant an extension on Article 50, but it's hardly a sure thing, is it? And if they do, there's no way to know if parliament will accept any new deal anyway, so what happens then? I just don't see how this can work when there are 27 other countries and more parliaments involved. The debate on this in the UK seems very inward looking. Can anyone shed light on this? Am I missing something?

The exit process isn't defined in Article 50, and we are all making it up as we go along.

The EU will easily be able to grant an extension if necessary -- it already has effectively done so by the "transition period". The EU doesn't want the UK to leave, and wants to keep the UK as closely involved as possible.

As for the EU getting 27 countries to agree, somehow that always gets done in the end.

Ah yes.

Hard Right Tories decrying the Lords' ruling as 'an effort to subvert the will of the people'.....

No. It's a ruling to enforce the basis of our democracy - that it's for Parliament, not a handful of hard right nutters, to best decide our course going forward.

The Brexit vote was NOT a carte blanche for frothing maniacs to do whatever they wanted. Indeed, it was a poor defined motion, based on outright lies.

Radio 4 had a Lord on this morning and was asking what his mandate was for the Lords voting against the bill.

What he should have said but didn't, is that this is how the UK parliament works. It's the constitution.

If you don't like it, by all means campaign to change it, but this is the system as it currently stands, so the actions of the Lords are completely legitimate.

All this "The Will of the People" stuff is populism. Over 48% of the people don't have that particular will.

 Da Boss wrote:
Hey, it's alright man. I can be a dick sometimes too and I was poking the bear. Thanks for apologising though, there's not enough of that around.

I'm sorry that this situation has disillusioned you so much.

It’s OK mate.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Radio 4 had a Lord on this morning and was asking what his mandate was for the Lords voting against the bill.

What he should have said but didn't, is that this is how the UK parliament works. It's the constitution.

If you don't like it, by all means campaign to change it, but this is the system as it currently stands, so the actions of the Lords are completely legitimate.

All this "The Will of the People" stuff is populism. Over 48% of the people don't have that particular will.

I can understand why the Lords would be particularly sensitive about being accused of being 'undemocratic'.

Convention is very important in UK politics, we'll end up with a written constitution like the hoi polloi counties if our betters start throwing their weight around just because they can!

See, this is what irks me about Brexiteers.

None of them explained what it was they wanted during the vote. Indeed, if you go digging, there's even video clips of Herr Farage saying 'nobody is talking about the customs union'.

And since the outcome became known, there's been a hardcore group within the Tory party determined to press solely their own agenda, backed by Das Heil and Express. Crash out! Crush the Saboteurs! ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE! and so on and so forth.

Giving Parliament a vote, and thus taking it out of the sole hand of swivel eyed nutters, is not defying 'the will of the people'. It's just plain old democracy in action.

I think it's fairly clear that there were three core Brexiteer motives, all to do with sovereignty. These may not have been clearly articulated or validated in practical terms, but these were the key points:

1. Control immigration.
2. Stop EU legal directives affecting UK law. (Bonfire of the red tape, get back our fish, and stop the ECHR stopping us deporting terrorists.)
3. Gain the ability to make separate trade deals. (So we can get rich.)

2 and 3 cannot be realised without leaving the Customs Union, which turns out to be bad for trade as well as the Northern Ireland agreement. That is the kind of practical legal detail that has emerged during the post-referendum talks.

Yea likewise, the goals were clear, it was just the practicality of achieving them which was/is in doubt.

The Guardian are talking about immigration today.
The decision not to grant extra visas just to fill holes in NHS jobs is a necessary one imo.
We need to escape the vicious circle of cutting training and professional development budgets for homegrown talent, and then claiming we need immigration because the pool of skilled workers doesn't exist in this country.

Doing an expose on Mrs May for being tough on immigration is a strange one though... that's one of the reasons why we elected her!

Well, then don't expect the NHS to be amazing when you underfund it compared to what other European countries spend on their health services (Germany and France spend way more) and also leave it under staffed. You can't wave a magic wand and create more doctors, it will take a decade at least.

 Kroem wrote:
Yea likewise, the goals were clear, it was just the practicality of achieving them which was/is in doubt.

The Guardian are talking about immigration today.
The decision not to grant extra visas just to fill holes in NHS jobs is a necessary one imo.
We need to escape the vicious circle of cutting training and professional development budgets for homegrown talent, and then claiming we need immigration because the pool of skilled workers doesn't exist in this country.

Doing an expose on Mrs May for being tough on immigration is a strange one though... that's one of the reasons why we elected her!

The government is not required by EU membership not to spend money on training and development.

Besides, there are many reasons for having foreign staff, termporary or permanent, not simply for them to be cheaper. They usually aren't cheaper anyway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The government is not required by EU membership not to spend money on training and development.

Sorry I didn't intend to imply the two were linked, I was changing the subject. The EU Erasmus scheme is actually a big advantage when it comes to professional development!

Yea there are other reasons, but in this instance the lack of English doctors is being used as the justification to request visas for overseas doctors which is not ideal.

 Kroem wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The government is not required by EU membership not to spend money on training and development.

Sorry I didn't intend to imply the two were linked, I was changing the subject. The EU Erasmus scheme is actually a big advantage when it comes to professional development!

Yea there are other reasons, but in this instance the lack of English doctors is being used as the justification to request visas for overseas doctors which is not ideal.

But the lack of english doctors and nurses is the reason why we need visas for overseas doctors and nurses.

The UK government has not been effectively funding the training of doctors and nurses and so has not been training enough. Strain on the NHS has also been increasing as the average age of the population increases (old people typically need more care = more usage of the NHS).

If we don't bring in doctors and nurses from elsewhere we will not have the staff for hospitals, clinics and GP's to function. Bringing in more staff from overseas is not only completely justified, it is required as you can't suddenly rubber stamp a load of english doctors and nurses, training takes a long time.

 Kroem wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The government is not required by EU membership not to spend money on training and development.

Sorry I didn't intend to imply the two were linked, I was changing the subject. The EU Erasmus scheme is actually a big advantage when it comes to professional development!

Yea there are other reasons, but in this instance the lack of English doctors is being used as the justification to request visas for overseas doctors which is not ideal.

Coolio, and I completely agree with you about Erasmus and similar EU wide schemes.

If British people don't want to become doctors and nurses, I don't see why it is a problem to have foreign doctors and nurses come and work here. It seems to me that not to do so is a way to let patients down.

That seems to me like treating the symptom not the illness lol!
The problem is not training enough English doctors so lets train more of them, not spend money on recruiting overseas doctors.
Might mean a few more years of longer waiting times but ultimately you will have a much better system at the end of it.

The topic of a NI rise to increase NHS funding has been raised recently by Jeremy Hunt, we have to make sure any extra money is invested properly :-)

I don't think it is the government that sets NHS spending on training, I think it is the NHS management themselves. Government just sets overall budget.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Coolio, and I completely agree with you about Erasmus and similar EU wide schemes.

If British people don't want to become doctors and nurses, I don't see why it is a problem to have foreign doctors and nurses come and work here. It seems to me that not to do so is a way to let patients down.

Some are fine, it shouldn't become an immigration loophole to get around quotas though. Anyway you can't keep brain draining doctors from other countries, we need to create a sustainable system to meet our health needs.
(At least until we invent Emergence Medical Holograms )

 Kroem wrote:
That seems to me like treating the symptom not the illness lol!
The problem is not training enough English doctors so lets train more of them, not spend money on recruiting overseas doctors.
Might mean a few more years of longer waiting times but ultimately you will have a much better system at the end of it.

The topic of a NI rise to increase NHS funding has been raised recently by Jeremy Hunt, we have to make sure any extra money is invested properly :-)

I don't think it is the government that sets NHS spending on training, I think it is the NHS management themselves. Government just sets overall budget.

The NHS is not the only body that trains doctors and nurses. Doctors and nurses receive their training through both NHS hospitals and the universities that are linked with them. Universities have also seen their direct funding cut by the government, instead getting funding through tuition fees. But that funding has to go towards putting on courses, funding maintenance to university buildings, funding research etc. Then there is the government removing grants for medicine students, replacing them with loans, when such students intending to become doctors and nurses have to study for more years than your typical uni student.

When the government is not giving you the money to treat the problem, and their actions are making becoming a doctor or nurse less attractive (such as increased student debt burden on doctors and nurses, the bollocks they tried to pull with junior doctor contracts etc.), then you have pretty much no choice but to treat the symptom rather than the underlying cause until you have the means of addressing the core problem.

The core problem being a tory government, in this case.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Coolio, and I completely agree with you about Erasmus and similar EU wide schemes.

If British people don't want to become doctors and nurses, I don't see why it is a problem to have foreign doctors and nurses come and work here. It seems to me that not to do so is a way to let patients down.

Some are fine, it shouldn't become an immigration loophole to get around quotas though. Anyway you can't keep brain draining doctors from other countries, we need to create a sustainable system to meet our health needs.
(At least until we invent Emergence Medical Holograms )

If a quota is keeping out people that the UK needs, be they doctors, nurses, scientists etc. based purely on some arbitrary number of foreigners welcome per year, then said quota is nothing but xenophobic pandering.

The core problem being a tory government, in this case.

Oh behave, the problems with the NHS didn't just appear 8 years ago . The core problem is not enough money and too many ill people!

I can see the argument for university changes also having an impact on doctor numbers, but it is also the easiest thing to cut if you are a short sighted manager looking for savings.

We aren't considering the other option, if you can't meet your targets you either make improvements to your processes or de-scope.
I think the NHS should be given the freedom to de-prioritise or refuse treatment in some cases, such as self inflicted conditions, and decline to offer expensive/ experimental new treatments on the NHS purse.

People might rightly say that is against the founding principles of the NHS, but I would counter with saying that a well run service that provide's 80% of your health needs is better than a crisis hit one that can't provide anything properly.

 Kroem wrote:
People might rightly say that is against the founding principles of the NHS, but I would counter with saying that a well run service that provide's 80% of your health needs is better than a crisis hit one that can't provide anything properly.

But then you have the situation where cancer is a death sentence for any poor person as cancer treatments are incredibly expensive and the NHS cannot afford them if it wants to be able to treat other illnesses.

The quotas do seem pretty arbitrary, and unrelated to actual national needs or the educational output of British born staff. While I wouldn't characterise them as xenophobic, I do question their practical value.