| The Comments |
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|
I will write this one more time. It is not necessary to be a member of the EU to be a member of the single market.
http://www.efta.int/about-efta/the-efta-states
Norway had a referendum on EU membership that was rejected by the population and they joined EFTA for single market access. Incidentally their prime minister who called the referendum also resigned.
The UK referendum was about EU membership. Remain or Leave were the questions. Not ‘Do you wish the UK to be a member of the single market?’ It may have been debated in the campaign but it was NOT the issue. EU membership was and incidentally the vote was none binding.
The elephant in the room for the UK is free movement of people otherwise EFTA would be the obvious direction of travel for the British. It’s a red line for this government. If that can in some way be dealt with then perhaps the UK can still salvage something from this disaster.
The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — throughout the 31 EEA States. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as “flanking and horizontal” policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA.
What is the EEA Not?
The EEA Agreement does not cover the following EU policies:
- Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies (although the Agreement contains provisions on various aspects of trade in agricultural and fish products);
- Customs Union;
- Common Trade Policy;
- Common Foreign and Security Policy;
- Justice and Home Affairs (even though the EFTA countries are part of the Schengen area); or
- Monetary Union (EMU).
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 10/10/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
Hey Micky
What do 'sour grapes' taste like?
0
Like
|
mickyfinn
It is not necessary to be a member of the EU to be a member of the single market.
Correct but being a member of the EU you MUST be part of the single market.
The vote was to leave the EU and all that is associated with that. Which includes leaving the single market
Yes the UK will be free to apply to "rejoin" the single market as a Non EU state
The sad bit is the UK electorate will have NO say on whether the UK joins the single market. Many simply did not understand the the full implictaions (good or bad) of an exit from the EU will bring and we still don't know
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
0
Like
|
Many of the forum 'experts' on EU membership, international trade, the UK health system, education etc; etc; appear to reside in Spain on a retired/semi retired basis. They are bitter because of falling exchange rates and confused about their legal and financial status in Spain post Brexit.
Brexit will not suit everyone, members of the public sector are terrified that they won't have their hands held from the commencement of employment until their death, Conversally members of the private sector would like a far fairer crack of the whip than the current system allows, they are used to looking after themselves, particularly in retirement, however the taxation of private pension funds is criminal, I'm certain that this can only change when the UK isn't under the EU jackboot.
_______________________
IF YOU WISH TO QUOTE ANY OF MY POSTS PLEASE DO SO IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND NOT JUST A FEW SELECTED WORDS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT.
THANK YOU.
1
Like
|
I agree a good post Mariedav
‘’Instead, the UK treats them as residents from day 1, allows free medical access without even having the infrastructure to claim the costs back from the home country. Allows them to apply for social housing, claim benefits and so on.’’
Very true, WHY, does anyone know.
_______________________
NO SNIDE COMMENTS PLEASE. STICK TO THE THREAD SUBJECT.
0
Like
|
Micky you can argue until the cows come home, but relinquishing our membership of the EU also means relinquishing our membership of the single market. Yes, once we have given notice we can try and do a deal with the EU on the single EU market, but it is not an option that the British public can have another referendum on it as a separate issue or that government can say we are going give up our EU membership but keep the bits we like. We have had the referendum on membership and voted out and must accept everything that goes with it, even if we were fed bullshit and didn’t really know the consequences of what we were voting for.
_______________________
NO SNIDE COMMENTS PLEASE. STICK TO THE THREAD SUBJECT.
1
Like
|
According to Nuffield Trust
Almost all NHS funding comes from the government’s central budget so we need to look at the public finances as a whole to see the impact of immigration on the NHS. This is an inexact science, and different researchers come to different results.
For example, two studies have been carried out on immigrants living in the UK between 1995 and 2011—one by academics at UCL, and another by the campaign group Migration Watch.
Both studies agree that immigrants from the European Economic Area (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein plus all EU countries) made a more positive contribution than UK natives—and a far more positive contribution than immigrants from outside the EEA. However, over this period the UK as a whole ran a budget deficit, which means that the population as a whole received more in public spending than it paid in tax. In this context the studies disagree on whether EEA migrants contributed enough more to actually be net contributors overall.
Under the UCL figures their net effect was to add £4.4 billion to public coffers, whereas Migration Watch find that the overall impact was a loss of £13.6 billion.
Government papers suggest that this is because NHS trusts find it easier not to record that they are owed money from abroad, thereby getting full payment from the standard system without the extra admin involved in tracking foreign visitors. Although the scheme is currently implemented through the EU for the UK, the EHIC card initiative also applies to non-EU members of the EEA as well. Britain could remain one of these even if it left the EU.
_-----------------------
A Parliamentary Question from John Mann MP has revealed that the UK paid out £674 million to European countries for their health costs last year – but received only £49 million in return. The huge discrepancy was revealed in a Department for Health response to the Bassetlaw MP. Notable figures include:
UK pays France: £147,685,772 France pays UK: £6,730,292
UK pays Germany: £25,873,954 Germany pays UK: £2,189,664
UK pays Italy: £7,304,484 Italy pays UK £1,510,850
UK pays Poland: £4,336,701 Poland pays UK £1,523,402
UK pays Spain: £223,290,021 Spain pays UK £3,412,338
John Mann MP commented: “Sorting this scandal out in itself would transform the financial situation of the NHS. This is a shambolic state of affairs and we are being played for fools. “ “This is money that should directly be going into the NHS and it would make a huge annual difference to its finances.”
IMHO, The question re statistics being so at odds between migration watch and UCL is one which should be examined further but it appears that a study has been done as to the reform of the UK system necessary to recoup costs and the complexity is extraordinary.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329789/NHS_Implentatation_Plan_Phase_3.PDF
The impact on front line staff to deal with these issues needs to be better understood by us all if we are to make bold generalisations, but having said that one thing is for sure that Cameron's govt appear to have failed to recoup monies on a collosal scale.
Perhaps we should all be demanding an NHS system better designed to deal with the issue of migration but at the same time be allowed to CONTROL the flow of migrants to suit the needs of the UK.
This message was last edited by ads on 10/10/2016.
1
Like
|
Ads, why say it was Cameron's government that failed? I worked as a nurse for a long time before retiring and I can assure you all governments failed to address this properly. If a patient turned up from, say, Saudi Arabia and demanding Hep B vaccination for their kids (a requirement there but not UK) we were told to simply do it and charge the cost of the vaccine. There was no system for charging for the nurse's or doctor's time.
Patients from the EU and the guidelines were to treat them as residents regardless of how long they had been in the country. We made them complete either a registration or temporary resident form which was sent to the Primary Care Trust. To my knowledge, and this was confirmed by a friend working at the PCT, these forms were never processed and no bill was ever sent to the home country. Ever. The receptionists were given verbal abuse (sometimes) when asking for an EHIC and the advice from the PCT was "don't ask for a EHIC". How's that for joined up thinking? The doctors view was that they were doctors and not "tax collectors" so never asked for any documentation whatsoever.
Yet other countries can get the receptionist to deal with the EHIC and, if you haven't got one, I've seen them phone Newcastle to get the authority and the bill then goes to UK. This has been going on for much, much longer than the Cameron government was in. My daughter is also a nurse and worked at a hospital close to Heathrow. Dozens of women would come straight off the plane and attend the hospital to give birth. The hospital would bill them but, as soon as they were discharged, off they'd go back to (mainly) Africa and the bill was never chased up.
This has been an ongoing problem in UK for many years. They even tried to link computer records up between hospitals and GP surgeries (like Spain has done) but, after spending £12 billion on it, they scrapped it. And that was Blair's government, not Cameron's.
What has also not been mentioned is that some 84% of the EU immigrants come to UK to take up work and are usually younger and fitter than those from SE Asia (loads of whom are elderly relatives coming to join their families) or Africa (lots of whom who are health tourists). It stands to reason the EU people will put more in than they get out compared to others. Non-EU immigration is already "controlled" but doesn't seem to make any difference.
As I said, who you gonna blame when we do leave? At least senior NHS managers and MPs won't be able to hide behind the "the EU won't let us" excuse anymore.
3
Like
|
It’s an absolute scandal and hardly believable. The British tax payer must be the most gullible suckers on this planet. It would seem the Politian’s don’t actually give a toss, but nothing new there. In any other business you would be sacked or the business would go bankrupt. How do they manage to get away with it?. Beyond me.
_______________________
NO SNIDE COMMENTS PLEASE. STICK TO THE THREAD SUBJECT.
1
Like
|
How do they manage to get away with it?. Beyond me
SImple blame the EU send the media and the electorate into a frenzy
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
1
Like
|
Mariedav government statistics for last year was 270,000 from the E U this was airport arrivals only god knows how many came in by other ways the UK government just does not know (.just type in how many EU migrant came to the UK last year.) Free movement means what it is anyone from the EU can come to the UK with not one peny they can stay aslong as they like they will not get deported for being penyless or overstaying .this is what The PM went over to Brussels cap in hand before the Brexit referendum to ask for change ,instead of change he was told no comprises rules are rules free movement means just that .
Something you should have done before you started flapping your lips.
This message was last edited by windtalker on 10/10/2016.
0
Like
|
I don't know whether you are deliberately obnoxious or just can't take in figures. Net ,that is the amount after those coming and those leaving, is taken into account. Yes, there was 270,000 coming from the EU but almost 290,000 from outside the EU which is more. Because over 181,000 left the UK then that is where the net figure comes from. Don't try to be clever by trying to say 270,000 of the net figure was from the EU because it wasn't, it was from the gross figure.
So bump your gums all you like because you are wrong (yet again).
3
Like
|
Markedav as you said ** EDITED **from the EU no matter how you cook the books ,all of them can claim the DSS/NHS the minute they arrive in the UK under the EU rules without paying anything in to the system.
This message was last edited by eos_moderators on 10/11/2016 11:38:00 AM.
1
Like
|
Deleted because windtalker is simply obnoxious and I don't want to overstep the bounds of the forum.
Grrrrrrr.....
This message was last edited by mariedav on 10/10/2016.
2
Like
|
Windtalker
You have run 2 very successfull businesses for the past 30 years.
Lets start with that? You seem to be suggesting theres a problem, yet you have managed this all the while with the UK being in. Where is the problem with that? I have no idea what kind of businesses they are, but I would suggest the economic conditions brought around by membership have allowed many parts of the UK to benefit, potentially these parts include yourself, and / or your customers. I totally acknowledge I am taking a leap in the dark here, but your success has come whilst IN, not OUT.
Any discussion to the contrary seems a little premature, given that we havent actually left yet. Dont you think?
This message was last edited by rob_j1 on 10/10/2016.
1
Like
|
At present a UK company cannot afford to buy goods from any EU country that deal's in euro's simply because the goods that they produce are to expensive ,it is cheaper for the UK to import goods from none EU countries and pay the import duty what happened to the common market.
0
Like
|
Mariedav
Thanks for your insight.
You ask why I highlighted Cameron's govt.... This was because he oversaw a marked statistical increase during his years as PM, most notably after 2014. Interesting to note the restrictions on the type of work for EU2 countries ( Bulgaria and Romania) were lifted in 2014. But also this website on migration
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/august2016
noted there was a statistically significant increase of people during the Cameron years ( 2010 - 2016 ) coming to UK looking for work from the EU, " reflecting weaker labour market conditions in southern EU15 states", which includes Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece.
In general terms it appears that net EU migration rose from 77000 in 2010, to 174000 in 2014, and reached 184,000 in 2015.
The fact that this failure to adequately recoup back essential and significant funds from EU states with regard to the NHS during these years of increasing EU migration, in full knowledge of the failures within the system, appears IMHO a gross negligence, especially when additional tensions were mounting in several regions with regard to housing, schooling, etc. But then to exacerbate the tensions by abandoning a fund established to assist areas particularly affected by all of the above, appears incredulous.
It's for this reason and the fact that this negligence ( and the immense scale of this failure as pressures grew from increases in EU migration) has come to light since the EU referendum campaign, with little acknowledgement of culpability on Cameron's govt part, (plus the fact that the remain campaigners failed to bring the scale of this detail to the attention of the public during the campaign), that I focused on these particular years, although of course I recognise your observation with regard to failures from previous years.
It's imperative now that an adequate system swiftly addresses the need to recoup these funds from the EU states for the NHS, and essential that those such as yourself Mariedav, continue to whistleblow on these stark realities, no matter from which political persuasion you come.
Thanks again for your insight.
2
Like
|
When you are admitted to a French hospital you have to provide evidence of insurance usually through the state Carte Vital. That proves you have state insurance. In addition you also have to provide evidence of your mutuelle insurance which is a top up scheme, since the state only cover 70% of the medical costs. In the absence of any of these or the EHIC card you are required to provide a guarantor from a French resident who has to sign a written agreement they will cover the costs.
If the admission is not life threatening or an emergency and none of the above is produced no medical treatment will be provided. Also you will not be discharged from the hospital until a payment process has been completed.
The NHS has been a soft touch for generations but I don’t believe EU migrants come to the UK solely for medical treatment. If they then pay NI contributions does that not then support the system? Medical costs in France are way above those of the UK and usually that means you get what you pay for.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
1
Like
|
since when was the UK's benefit and NHS system an EU isseu all of the probelms are of the UK's own making.
After Brexit people will still come to the UK for treatment, benefits (and hopefully jobs if there are any)
The problem is the UK's not the EU's or freedom of movement
_______________________
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”
1
Like
|