Apple Hikes U.K. App Store Prices By At Least 25 Percent Due to Weak Pound

[The-Real-Deal82]

Cameron quit because he naively thought like many of us that we'd never vote to leave the single market. He had no plan or desire to try and sort the mess out. Judging by how May is being massively criticised I think he did a very admirable and wise thing. He didn't want it, and didn't want the flack from people who weren't happy with his direction after they'd voted for the unknown.

Leavers quitting is more puzzling. Fighting to get the vote was only the very beginning and the job is far from done. They quit because like the rest of us they didn't have a clue how any of this is going to pan out.

 

[fat jez]

Leavers quitting is more puzzling. Fighting to get the vote was only the very beginning and the job is far from done. They quit because like the rest of us they didn't have a clue how any of this is going to pan out.

Or perhaps they thought leave would lose but it would fracture the Conservative party, leaving them to step in and pick up the pieces. Witness the look on Boris's face when Cameron stepped down and Boris realised if he wanted to be PM, he'd have to invoke Article 50.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Or perhaps they thought leave would lose but it would fracture the Conservative party, leaving them to step in and pick up the pieces. Witness the look on Boris's face when Cameron stepped down and Boris realised if he wanted to be PM, he'd have to invoke Article 50.

Possibly although it's made the Conservative party more powerful and driven a stake right through the middle of the Labour Party in hindsight. The socialists who fought to leave are now watching their enemy negotiate our future so I fail to see how it's worked out on the surface of things. It doesn't bother me, I'm a conservative voter.

 

[tatonka]

You do know the main leader of the remain camp, David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK quit the very second he lost the referendum right? And your commenting on reaminers hiding?

This video pretty much sums up everything about Brexit and people's feelings:

Yes, David Cameron resigned after he lost the vote, how is that unexpected or weird. He lost. Shouldn't the main leave campainers have stepped up and taken over at that point to implement their idea of the Brexit? They won and went into hiding, that should get you thinking.

Look, I am not trying to delegitimize the vote or the feelings that people drove to cast their vote the way they did. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor with everything it involves, nor that one should stop fighting for a best outcome.

 

[apolloa]

Yes, David Cameron resigned after he lost the vote, how is that unexpected or weird. He lost. Shouldn't the main leave campainers have stepped up and taken over at that point to implement their idea of the Brexit? They won and went into hiding, that should get you thinking.

Look, I am not trying to delegitimize the vote or the feelings that people drove to cast their vote the way they did. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor with everything it involves, nor that one should stop fighting for a best outcome.

Hmm yet it seems more and more very public people reamainers only want a best outcome of not having Brexit at all... hence the hostility as people are refusing point blank to accept the result of a democratic vote. Branson and Blair being perfect examples.
Last time I checked people didn't behave like they are now when the party they don't like was voted into power. I'm not talking about America either, only the UK.

 

[steve62388]

Yes, David Cameron resigned after he lost the vote, how is that unexpected or weird.

 

[tatonka]

Hmm yet it seems more and more very public people reamainers only want a best outcome of not having Brexit at all... hence the hostility as people are refusing point blank to accept the result of a democratic vote. Branson and Blair being perfect examples.
Last time I checked people didn't behave like they are now when the party they don't like was voted into power. I'm not talking about America either, only the UK.

I get that and I agree that there some petty attempts to slow down or stop the process. Others might be legitimate concerns or attempts to get the best outcome of the whole thing possible. As said earlier, there is still a lot to be decided and negotiated.

Well, there is two things different to a normal vote. The decision take here has much more drastic influences than a normal election swinging a bit left or right. This decision will steer the countries future for decades.
And secondly, there is a new quality in the political discussion where people stop listing to experts and debate facts, but it became this whole name calling, alternative facts, felt realities thing. And just to be clear, I am blaming all sides for that, the remain campain /left wing also has their fair share of BS and so does the leave side. One could argue about the scales on either side, but I would opt for stopping it entirely and going back to actually debating respectfully.

yeah .. I don't think anybody really believed that ;-)
and it goes back to the above point of BS on all sides.

 

[arkitect]

So here's a question for all you Leavers:

How do you feel about this?
Theresa May willing to sell off the NHS to US vultures.


Theresa May suggests UK health services could be part of US trade deal
"Theresa May has left the door open for the greater involvement of US corporations in British healthcare as she arrives in America to lay the ground for a future trade deal.

Ms May would only say that she was committed to a health service that is free at the point of delivery, but made no comment on whether the NHS would be off the table in any future talks."

So, like Trident, we all knows what she means when she "remains" silent…

 

[fat jez]

I've yet to see any example of privatised services that now work better than they did before (happy to be proven wrong).

I am VERY against any form of selling off the NHS.

 

[apolloa]

I've yet to see any example of privatised services that now work better than they did before (happy to be proven wrong).

I am VERY against any form of selling off the NHS.

The railways, a perfect example no? Because some are in a complete shambles, and paying vastly more to travel around the Uk on a train then it costs to fly somewhere abroad is just plain wrong and pure greed and profiteering.
[doublepost=1485478695][/doublepost]

So here's a question for all you Leavers:

How do you feel about this?
Theresa May willing to sell off the NHS to US vultures.


Theresa May suggests UK health services could be part of US trade deal
"Theresa May has left the door open for the greater involvement of US corporations in British healthcare as she arrives in America to lay the ground for a future trade deal.

Ms May would only say that she was committed to a health service that is free at the point of delivery, but made no comment on whether the NHS would be off the table in any future talks."

So, like Trident, we all knows what she means when she "remains" silent…

Suggests and could be, doubt it will happen as much as I doubt the NHS will ever get fixed. It's just going to get worst. I know EXACTLY what I would do with it, but it's moot as it seems to only exist as a political football these days. It shouldn't be sold, but then again as I said I can only see it getting worst so why not? At least it'll be screwed up in a different way?
And Trident should damn well never be discussed, you don't talk openly in public about your countries active nuclear defence system! Which by the way is American if you didn't know.

 

[fat jez]

The railways, a perfect example no? Because some are in a complete shambles, and paying vastly more to travel around the Uk on a train then it costs to fly somewhere abroad is just plain wrong and pure greed and profiteering.

That's kind of my point. By giving control of a public company to a private one, the private company is expected to perform at least as well as the public one AND return a profit for its shareholders. There are limits to the efficiencies that can be achieved.

 

[sim667]

hence the hostility as people are refusing point blank to accept the result of a democratic vote.

Democracy in the UK never has been based on referendums.
[doublepost=1485513350][/doublepost]

That's kind of my point. By giving control of a public company to a private one, the private company is expected to perform at least as well as the public one AND return a profit for its shareholders. There are limits to the efficiencies that can be achieved.

And we can all look at the rail network to see how well that goes.

 

[fat jez]

And we can all look at the rail network to see how well that goes.

Exactly. Why is why I HATE the idea of a private NHS, even one that does not charge for access.

Strangely, when the East Coast mainline services were back under state control, the company ran efficiently and at a profit, but the current regulations prevent a franchise being state run by the UK (but allow them to be run by a foreign state).

I also believe the privatisation of the UK's assets is why we now struggle to balance the books. The revenue from gas, water, electricity, etc now goes to private companies and not to the treasury.

 

[apolloa]

That's kind of my point. By giving control of a public company to a private one, the private company is expected to perform at least as well as the public one AND return a profit for its shareholders. There are limits to the efficiencies that can be achieved.

I mis read your question. But private hospitals certainly seem to be run better then the NHS is. In the U.K. at least.

Democracy in the UK never has been based on referendums.
[doublepost=1485513350][/doublepost]

And we can all look at the rail network to see how well that goes.

Until a referendum is held as a democratic vote that is.

 

[sim667]

Until a referendum is held as a democratic vote that is.

This was always held as a referendum, not a Democratic vote.

 

[fat jez]

This was always held as a referendum, not a Democratic vote.

and an advisory referendum at that. I think only the one on proportional representation was binding.
[doublepost=1485518024][/doublepost]

I mis read your question. But private hospitals certainly seem to be run better then the NHS is. In the U.K. at least.

They are also a lot more expensive for treatment and are run purely as a commercial business, not as a service. We're talking about a privately run NHS that will not receive more funding than it currently does but will be expected to turn a profit for its owners.

 

[sim667]

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017...rman-businesses-over-brexit-it-didnt-go-well/

Two leading Brexiters went to Berlin this weekend to woo German businesses in the hope of undercutting Angela Merkel’s hostility to Brexit.


But the trip did not go anywhere near as well as they hoped.

Leading it were the Tory MP headbanger Owen Paterson (pictured) and John Longworth, co-chair of Leave Means Leave.

They came to Berlin to try and get German businesses to lobby Merkel to give Britain a better deal during Brexit negotiations.

Instead they were subjected to sniggers, rolling eyes and sarcastic laughs.

Brexit is crying out for its own dedicated sitcom, preferably by Armando Iannucci

 

[apolloa]

and an advisory referendum at that. I think only the one on proportional representation was binding.
[doublepost=1485518024][/doublepost]

They are also a lot more expensive for treatment and are run purely as a commercial business, not as a service. We're talking about a privately run NHS that will not receive more funding than it currently does but will be expected to turn a profit for its owners.

Actually it wasn't an advisory referendum, parliament voted to allow the British public to vote on if we stay in the European Union or not AND that the government of the day would have to implement and obide by the decision. Parliament would need to vote to not allow Brexit. I thought it was advisory too but the way it was setup and other refendum law changes apparently not.
And I have no idea where you got that about the NHS from. Because it makes no sense and sounds daft.
[doublepost=1485554894][/doublepost]

This was always held as a referendum, not a Democratic vote.

It was held by the people of the country as per the ideology and the mandate of democracy, it's what democracy is, the people have the power and the vote. It was a democratic vote held by the country's people.

 

[ForkHandles]

So here's a question for all you Leavers:

How do you feel about this?
Theresa May willing to sell off the NHS to US vultures.


Theresa May suggests UK health services could be part of US trade deal
"Theresa May has left the door open for the greater involvement of US corporations in British healthcare as she arrives in America to lay the ground for a future trade deal.

Ms May would only say that she was committed to a health service that is free at the point of delivery, but made no comment on whether the NHS would be off the table in any future talks."

So, like Trident, we all knows what she means when she "remains" silent…

The fundemental problem with opening up the NHS to the US is that they would require NICE to be abolished. This quango's job is to regulate prices from profiteering pharma companies. If the treatment costs too much it won't be approved for NHS use.

Abandon NICE and you lose any form of controls of NHS costs. Given that the Tories have starved the NHS of funds for the last 7 years, this will not make things better.

 

[fat jez]

Actually it wasn't an advisory referendum, parliament voted to allow the British public to vote on if we stay in the European Union or not AND that the government of the day would have to implement and obide by the decision. Parliament would need to vote to not allow Brexit. I thought it was advisory too but the way it was setup and other refendum law changes apparently not.
And I have no idea where you got that about the NHS from. Because it makes no sense and sounds daft.

Unless the act for the referendum explicitly states it is binding, it is an advisory referendum. https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

As for the NHS, May has stated that it will remain free to all. That means it will continue to be government funded. Since there's not going to be any more money available, that means that whoever takes over a private contract will only get as much money as currently is available and will therefore need to make a profit from that. Not sure which part of that you don't understand?

 

[arkitect]

The fundemental problem with opening up the NHS to the US is that they would require NICE to be abolished. This quango's job is to regulate prices from profiteering pharma companies. If the treatment costs too much it won't be approved for NHS use.

Abandon NICE and you lose any form of controls of NHS costs. Given that the Tories have starved the NHS of funds for the last 7 years, this will not make things better.

Exactly right.

It is a very scary scenario… the NHS being turned into the morass that is the United States' nightmarishly dysfunctional "Health Care system".

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

But private hospitals certainly seem to be run better then the NHS is. In the U.K. at least.

Only superficially. Private hospitals only want to do straight-forward operations with low risk of complications. They don't have the facilities or equipment or medical paraphernalia to cope with serious complications. That's why they are located next to NHS hospitals, and the surgeons who operate there usually need 'admitting rights' to the NHS hospital nearby in order to work there. It's because when things go wrong, the patient is transferred to the NHS hospital where the NHS (and the tax-payer) pick up the tab.
[doublepost=1485968291][/doublepost]As for the Remain v Leave debates in this thread, I wish to add this.

This thread shows some well-thought out and researched answers from the Leave camp. They have linked to a series of videos with politicians who warned that a vote to leave mean leaving the Single Market. But there are other videos of other Leave campaigners who campaigned for a 'soft Brexit'. But that wasn't what swayed or resonated with the electorate.

The 'swing' factors for many voters were these:
1) the slogan about giving £350 million to the NHS,
2) the slogan of 'let's take back control' and
3) immigration.

The first of these was a lie, admitted by Farage the day after the vote.

The second is a meaningless slogan without a useful definition, quickly abandoned after the vote. Meanwhile we are now faced with the consequences of a leave vote. PM May has to bend over backwards to ameliorate Trump no matter what he does because the sad reality is we desperately need a trade deal with the US, if we are to leave the EU. Our newfound weakness is there for all to see, and will be repeatedly obvious the more Trump carries on, and PM May does not challenge him. Ultimately, desperation is not a strong negotiation tactic, and is hardly 'taking back control' of anything. And if we leave there will be many more negotiations to come.

The third of these wasn't ever anything to do with migration from the EU in most people's minds. The sentiment was concerned about immigration as a whole. Migrants from the EU area were not a genuine concern for anybody who was informed about the true numbers involved, including those that used our welfare system.

There was also a very real element of protest voting from those who did not expect their personal vote to make any difference, because in our political system with so many 'safe' seats, it seldom does.


It follows from this that the leave vote was on false pretences. A majority falsely obtained lacks legitimacy. It's not the will of the people, it's the 'will' of the deceived.


I think there should be a free vote in parliament, and if necessary a second referendum. After all, if Leave had won, they would have sought another referendum in a few years.

 

[steve62388]

The 'swing' factors for many voters were these:

1) the slogan about giving £350 million to the NHS

The first of these was a lie, admitted by Farage the day after the vote.

What, you mean like this one?

2) the slogan of 'let's take back control'

The second is a meaningless slogan without a useful definition, quickly abandoned after the vote.

What, you mean like this one?

I think there should be a free vote in parliament, and if necessary a second referendum.

A free vote would not achieve your goal of overturning the referendum. Possibly up to 60 Labour MPs will rebel, the rest are reconciled to supporting the democratic result. It's still well short of a majority.

Nor does a second referendum have majority support and it's the death throws of those wishing to overturn the democratic result. Negotiating an exit from the EU with a pending second referendum would undoubtedly see the UK handed the worst possible deal. The EU doesn't want us to leave and a lousy deal would influence a second vote in their favour. It's being disingenuous by omission for nobodies like Tim Farron to avoid this fact.