Is this the end for the NHS as we know it?

As we all know, the NHS is in serious trouble, decades of mis-management, mis-funding and underfunding have left it in a dire place, so what is to become of it? And is Brexit going to make it better, worse or something else?


When it comes to the NHS, everyone has an opinion on it, and quite rightly so, it is seen as a bastion of national identity, a humanitarian service that provides free healthcare without prejudice and is still seen around the world as a shining light of the way healthcare is provided, just ask Barack Obama, who tried desperately to implement similar services in the US.


Some people say that it needs lots of money, some people say it needs better management and some people say that we should start charging etc. etc. You will also hear them cry, 'there are too many immigrants and it cant cope'! this last one is just plain wrong and really doesn't warrant even bothering about, suffice to say that the vast majority of immigrants actually work and pay their taxes just like anyone else and only equate to 9% of the total population anyway so it definitely isn't immigrants that are causing the problem.


And this is the predicament, it isn't just one issue, it is many, decades of short term fixes for what is a long term mess, successive governments wanting to be seen to be doing the right thing quickly and not tackling the root of the problem.


So what will Brexit mean for this?


We all know about the Lies that were told about the so called £350 Million a week for the NHS, so obviously we know that this wont happen. so what extra money will the NHS have? the answer is none, nothing, zilch. In fact if the Hard Brexit goes ahead the way that Mrs May and her bunch of lap dogs want not only will we have less money for the NHS than we currently do, we will also lose 10% of the staff, as these are the Immigrants that are apparently clogging up the system!! Not only this but £60 billion pounds is being syphoned off the treasury to pay for Brexit as announced only this week by our esteemed chancellor. If you are reading this before todays Budget, then this figure and article may have to be amended depending on that.


This leads me to my theory on what will happen to the NHS under this government.


It will be privatised, bit by bit. Mental health, Equipment purchase, Social Care, Ambulance operations, Accident and emergency - some of it by the back door and some of it blatantly, and the government have a perfect ruse in which to do so - Brexit.


One of the reasons that the government is pursuing a hard Brexit is to provide a perfect foil for placing the NHS in to private hands, or major parts of it. With continued cuts and austerity that the chancellor is proposing plus the overall cost and timescale of Brexit negotiation, we simply cant afford the NHS as it is, now that the referendum has gone the way of leaving the EU. In fact we cant afford it at the moment, already this year there is a 2.5 billion pound overspend based on the allowed budget. and that's before we have even triggered article 50. I suspect there will be a small token amount plugging of the gap, just to make it look like something has been done.


And when the country is up in arms about privatising the NHS, then it can be said that, its the fault of Europe for not giving as a great deal and the Lords for not letting us have the ability to turn down a bad deal etc. etc. Blah blah!!


You heard it here first.


Jon Davis

Why I still cant get my head around why people voted for Brexit

On the Morning of June 24th 2016, I awoke as normal to the Sound of Radio 4's today program, as I open my eyes and started to listen, I heard something that I just couldn't believe, the referendum had gone in favour of leaving the EU.


I sat up and just listened, unable to take it in or comprehend what I was listening to, thinking it must have been some kind of bad dream, but no! It was real.


At first it made me feel sick, then just numb and finally very angry, and this got worse as I realised exactly what had happened. as I travelled to work, people were gloating about it? thinking it was funny? I was fuming at this reaction, and this carried on at work, it was a bad day indeed.


Eight Months on and I am still perplexed and still angry, and it is getting worse. So why am still I so angry and upset?


I think I can break this down into several areas.


1. What made me initially very angry, was that people were talking of 'winning', like it was some kind of game, it was such a flippant thing to say about something so serious that I just couldn't believe it. It also made me realise that sadly, many people didn't realise the implications or the importance of it, if they did then this flippancy wouldn't have occurred, and some of this was from people I know!! Which leads me too number 2.


2. I actually felt let down by friends, some family members, colleagues. people I thought were better, more informed than that, people I respected. it was a massive stab in the arm to realise that people who you know can let you and the country down so badly. It may seem like an over reaction but that is how I felt and to a certain degree still do, don't get me wrong, it wont ruin long standing friendships but it was a genuine shock.


3. I was very disappointed in my former Political Party and I still am, I have been a Tory voter all my life, because I genuinely believe in conservatism, but coupled with the decision to hold the referendum in the first place, the hash of the campaign and then the outright disgusting way in which they have bulldozed their way towards triggering article 50, I no longer support the party after 30 years. They have convinced the general public (or a large percentage of the general public) that this is going to be OK, when it clearly isn't. Over optimistically gallivanting around, playing to the tune of what can only be described as a dictatorship, all in the name of self enhancement and power.


4. Consistently being told by Brexiteers stupid things like 'Get over it, you lost' or 'Everything will get better in the end' or the worst 'its the will of the people' or the even worse 'it was a democratic vote'.

Firstly, no, I will not get over something, that could, and probably will harm my children in the future, especially when we can still make sure that it is done correctly, and we have all lost in this situation, nobody is a winner.

Secondly, Everything will not get better in the end, because there is no end, also all indicators and people in the know, i.e Economists, academics, business leaders etc, point to exactly the opposite!! Only the people in power, and who want to continue in power think anything but that.


Thirdly, It is not the will of ALL the people, it is the will of an increasing small amount of people who voted to leave, 72.2% of the voting public turned out to vote, which means over 27% of people didn't vote, so it isn't their will, furthermore, 46.6% voted against leaving and it certainly isn't their will either. if you then count the further 10% of people who wished they hadn't voted to leave then the saying 'it is the will of the people' is a downright lie!!


Lastly, it was NOT a democratic vote, it was an advisory vote, which by law then needs to be democratically agreed in parliament, which was proved in the recent case, but then the Government and its MP's behaved decidedly undemocratically in the vote in parliament, only the Lords seem to have the backbone to make this a better and more democratic proposition now, which is quite ironic really.


So there you have it, its not an exhaustive list but at least I feel a bit better having written this article.


Jon Davis.

Brexit and Trump

For the most ardent supporters of Brexit, the election of Donald Trump was a mixture of vindication and salvation. The president of the US, no less, thinks it is a great idea for Britain to leave the EU. Even better, he seems to offer an exciting escape route. The UK can leap off the rotting raft of the EU and on to the gleaming battleship HMS Anglosphere.


It is an alluring vision. Unfortunately, it is precisely wrong. The election of Mr Trump has transformed Brexit from a risky decision into a straightforward disaster. For the past 40 years, Britain has had two central pillars to its foreign policy: membership of the EU and a “special relationship” with the US.


The decision to exit the EU leaves Britain much more dependent on the US, just at a time when America has elected an unstable president opposed to most of the central propositions on which UK foreign policy is based. During the brief trip to Washington by Theresa May, the UK prime minister, this unpleasant truth was partly obscured by trivia and trade. Mr Trump’s decision to return the bust of Winston Churchill to the Oval Office was greeted with slavish delight by Brexiteers. More substantively, the Trump administration made it clear that it is minded to do a trade deal with the UK just as soon as Britain’s EU divorce comes through. But no sooner had Mrs May left Washington than Mr Trump caused uproar with his “Muslim ban”, affecting immigrants and refugees from seven countries. After equivocating briefly, the prime minister was forced to distance herself from her new best friend in the White House.


The refugee row underlined the extent to which Mrs May and Mr Trump have clashing visions of the world. Even when it comes to trade, the supposed basis for their new special relationship, the two leaders have very different views. Mrs May says that she wants the UK to be the champion of global free trade. But Mr Trump is the most protectionist US president since the 1930s. This is a stark clash of visions that will be much harder to gloss over — if and when Mr Trump begins slapping tariffs on foreign goods and ignoring the World Trade Organisation. In addition, any trade deal with the Trump administration is likely to be hard to swallow for Britain and would involve controversial concessions on the National Health Service and agriculture. The British and American leaders also have profoundly different attitudes to international organisations.


Mrs May is a firm believer in the importance of Nato and the United Nations. (Britain’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council is one of its few remaining totems of great power status). But Mr Trump has twice called Nato obsolete and is threatening to slash US funding of the UN. The May and Trump administrations are also at odds on the crucial questions of the future of the EU and of Russia. Mr Trump is openly contemptuous of the EU and his aides have speculated that it might break up. This reflects the views of Nigel Farage and the UK Independence party — but not of the current British government. Mrs May knows that her difficult negotiations with the EU will become all-but-impossible if member states believe that the UK is actively working to destroy their organisation in alliance with Mr Trump. Her official position is that Britain wants to work with a strong EU. She probably even means it, given the economic and political dangers that would flow from its break-up.


Not the least of these dangers would be an increased threat from a resurgent Russia. The British government worked closely with the Obama administration to impose economic sanctions on the country after its annexation of Crimea. But Mr Trump is already flirting with lifting sanctions. The reality is that the UK is now faced with a US president who is fundamentally at odds with the British view of the world. For all the forced smiles in the Oval Office last week, the May government certainly knows this. For political reasons, Boris Johnson, the British foreign minister, is having to talk up the prospects of a trade deal with Mr Trump. Yet only a few months ago, Mr Johnson was saying that Mr Trump was “clearly out of his mind” and betrayed a “stupefying ignorance” of the world. Were it not for Brexit — a cause that Mr Johnson enthusiastically championed — the UK government would be able to take an appropriately wary approach to Mr Trump. If Britain had voted to stay inside the EU, the obvious response to the arrival of a pro-Russia protectionist in the Oval Office would be to draw closer to its European allies. Britain could defend free-trade far more effectively with the EU’s bulk behind it — and could also start to explore the possibilities for more EU defence co-operation. As it is, Britain has been thrown into the arms of an American president that the UK’s foreign secretary has called a madman. In the declining years of the British empire, some of its politicians flattered themselves that they could be “Greeks to their Romans” — providing wise and experienced counsel to the new American imperium. But the Emperor Nero has now taken power in Washington — and the British are having to smile and clap as he sets fires and reaches for his fiddle.


Many thanks to Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times for the use of his excellent article.

5 Brexit Lies.

There was no doubt about it, the campaign leading up to the Brexit referendum was one of the worst, most damaging and deceitful in British history, but why?...........Why did the leave campaign see fit to tell over 60 downright lies to voters? The reason why is simple....Power. But I will deal with this in a later post.


Here are the 5 top lies with explanations of the truth (with the Facts).




Turkey will join EU in 2020


Michael Gove said that Turkey is about to join Europe. What he didn't say is that it would first need to prove it is a modern European democracy. That means ticking 35 boxes on everything from human rights to the economy. Even then, we or any of the other 27 members could just say no.
Turkey applied to join nearly 30 years ago, in 1987. Since, then it has ticked just one of the 35 boxes. At this rate, it will join the EU in 986 years.  In the year 3002.


We always get outvoted in Brussels


Boris Johnson said, we always get bossed around by Brussels because we keep getting outvoted. Since 1999, we’ve been on the losing side 56 times in the EU’s Council. What Boris didn't say is how many times we’ve been on the winning side, 2,466 times,  2,466 to 56 is a good score in any sport.


EU needs us more than we need it


Boris Johnson said we’ll get a good trade deal with the European Union because Germany wants to sell us BMWs. What he didn't say is that our exports to the EU are 13% of our economy, while their exports to us are only 3% of their economy. So, we’d be the big losers from a trade war. We need them more than they need us.
Boris also didn't say that many foreign firms, like Nissan, set up shop in Britain because we are a gateway to sell stuff to the whole EU.


We send £350m a week to Brussels.


Boris Johnson said we send £350 million a week to Brussels. But it isn’t true. Margaret Thatcher, famously brandishing her handbag, secured a discount on our payment to the European Union. Funny that Boris, a fans of Maggie’s, had forgotten that.
When you take account of Maggie’s discount and money that comes back to Britain from the EU, our membership costs 30 pence per person per day. That’s half the price of a Mars bar. And we get way more than 30 pence a day back in benefits.


Leaving EU would save the NHS


Boris Johnson and Michael Gove said quitting Europe would save the NHS because we’d get fewer migrants and stop sending money to Brussels. What they didn't say is that, we’d lose full access to Europe’s market. That’s responsible for half our trade.
Boris and Gove also didn't tell you that EU migrants support the NHS. They pay more in taxes than they use public services – partly because they are younger than Brits. What’s more, one in 10 doctors is an EU migrant.


Sad isn't it........ but what is even sadder is that some people genuinely believed it and still do, or are so embarrassed by the way they voted that they wont come clean. but the worst thing is that Brexiteers say this 'The remain camp also told lies', this is even worse than believing the untruths, because they don't care about the lies, they are happy for our country to be worse off. And who will be the worst off of all, a huge chunk of the public who voted leave.....a sad irony!


Jon Davis


Credit - Thanks to INfacts for the figures.
 

The 'I' Word

Immigration and Brexit.............


There is no getting away from it, the single biggest driver of the Referendum vote was and still is Immigration. For rational thinking people, this is still a mystery, as it is actually a relatively small percentage of the overall issue, but driven by a hate filled gutter press and downright lies banded about by power hungry and racist factions, it was the straw that broke the camels back.


But why? Lets examine this and what it really means.


Ending the free movement of people from EU countries after Brexit will almost certainly not result in lower overall migration.


No details on a new immigration system for EU nationals has been released, but the House of Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee says net migration to the UK from outside the EU remains significantly higher than within it, despite non-EU migration already being covered by restrictions.
The wide-ranging assessment says: “Restoration of national control over EU migration is unlikely to deliver a reduction in overall net migration.”


The committee concluded that cutting EU immigration is unlikely to provide a “quick fix” for low wages. The report makes the case for a “two-way agreement” with the EU on migration, which would involve offering preferential treatment to EU nationals in return for reciprocal approach to UK nationals in the EU.


Before the referendum, leading figures in the Leave campaign argued for an Australian-style points-based immigration system, though nothing of that nature has been formally proposed or suggested by the Government. The peers’ report warns that any immigration system “hedged” with exemptions for particular economic sectors or schemes could produce the “worst of all worlds, failing to deliver a meaningful reduction in immigration while also proving more onerous and costly for employers, prospective applicants, and those charged with enforcement”.


Crucial sectors of the economy depend on EU migrant labour, so it is essential that any changes don't endanger the vibrancy of the UK economy


The committee was “struck by the weaknesses and gaps in the UK’s migration statistics”.


So what does all this mean - This passage from The Guardian sums it up :


It is one of the most basic of political lessons to interpret events so that they support your argument. Theresa May has taken this workaday truth and developed it into an overarching narrative for her Brexit strategy. She is well on her way to pulling off an act of national self-harm, and in the total absence of a counter-strategy she is running away with the ball.


Jon Davis


Credits - The Independent and The Guardian

Is Brexit Racist?

The bottom line is that Brexit represents an anti-immigrant movement. It is based on racism, so regardless of how people intended their vote, it will still be a decision that is an attack on immigration.


A crucial concern is that the terms of whatever agreement is reached will set a precedent for anti-immigrant policies that will heighten aggression against ethnic communities.


This concern isn’t unfounded. The National Police Chief’s Council recorded a 58% spike in hate crimes in the week following the referendum. Over the course of the month, this averaged as a 41% increase, compared with the same time the previous year.


The subtext is not only a dissatisfaction with the result of the EU referendum, but the process of the vote itself. It voices a concern heard many times since the vote that a referendum is far too simple a process for a decision of such momentous consequences. It also draws on the gaping hole between people's voting intentions and the policy that is implemented.


This is particularly troubling when the competitive nature of multilateral bargaining allows the government to keep its cards close to its chest on critical issues such as freedom of movement and trade agreements. This is not a democratic process at all.


There does need to be scrutiny and transparency, and an opening up of this question, and attempting to rush it all through by royal prerogative was seriously worrying. There needs to be transparency in everything that is being negotiated and discussed in the public realm.


Attempting to use Royal prerogative was a sinister symbol of the government deciding whatever it likes, without consulting Parliament or voters. especially during the future Brexit negotiations.


Jon Davis


Credits - New Statesman, The Economist, The National Police Chief’s Council.

Brexit and our Holidays (Vacations)

Our most intense engagement with Europe is when we holiday there.


In the short term, the slide in sterling to its lowest level for years means the price of everything from a cup of coffee in a café in Paris to a night in a luxury hotel in the Maldives will rise.
The level of the increase depends on what level the pound settles at: before the referendum, the Treasury predicted sterling would lose 12-15 per cent of its value on a Leave vote.
Longer term, the two key rates are against the euro and the dollar.
The Euro/Pound rate is crucial because we take the majority of our foreign holidays in the single-currency area; the Spanish Costas, the French countryside, the cities of Italy and the islands of Greece.


Further afield, prices in destinations including the US, Dubai and China will rise in proportion with the strength of the dollar relative to sterling; many currencies are locked to the US Dollar.
Even if you never venture beyond Europe, the Dollar/Pound rate is also significant. Oil is priced in dollars, as are aircraft. So a 12 per cent fall in sterling will push up the price of petrol, diesel and aviation fuel, as well as the cost of aircraft for airlines such as British Airways and Easy Jet.


The Package Travel Regulations allow tour operators to impose surcharges when the cost of a package holiday goes up after you booked because of currency fluctuations or rising fuel costs.
The company must absorb the first 2 per cent of any increase, and if the surcharge goes above 10 per cent then you have the right to cancel.


If you have already paid for your holiday in full, it is unlikely that you will need to pay a surcharge.
The company will probably have hedged its currency requirements for paying airlines and hoteliers. Some firms will also have hedged, at least partially, costs for 2017 holidays.


Anyone who has put together their own trip, and has yet to pay for accommodation or a rental car, will find that the cost in sterling terms has risen.


“Open skies” represents one of the most tangible benefits of European Union membership. Since 1994, any EU airline has been free to fly between any two points in Europe.


The freedom to fly allowed Easy Jet and Ryanair to flourish, and has forced “legacy” carriers such as BA, Air France and Lufthansa to cut costs and fares. On any European journey you care to name, the typical fare is around half what it was in the early 1990s - and anyone who can be flexible about timing can save even more.


Before the referendum, some in the Remain camp speculated that open skies would be among the first arrangements to be binned.


If the UK negotiates a similar arrangement to Norway, within the European Economic Area (EEA), then little would change; Norwegian, a non-EU budget airline, flies successfully within Europe and from the UK to the US.


If Britain does not reach such an accord, in theory every route between the UK and the EU might need to be renegotiated on a bilateral basis. The bureaucratic logjam would be immense. Similarly, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have easy access to America because of an EU-US treaty on open skies.


But given that London is the world hub of aviation, and a key destination for dozens of airlines, it looks unlikely that routes to and from the UK will be affected.


The freedom for British airlines such as Easy Jet to fly within and between EU countries could be curtailed; nations such as France and Italy have in the past been protectionist of their home airlines.
The chance to clip the wings of the likes of Easy Jet could be welcomed by politicians and airlines in other EU countries - if not by travellers. It is likely that airlines will restructure into separate UK and EU-based corporate entities, adding complexity and cost, and reducing flexibility. Immediately after the result, Carolyn McCall, EasyJet's chief executive, said she had written to the UK government and European Commission urging them "to prioritise the UK remaining part of the single EU aviation market".


The EU stipulates care and compensation in the event of disruption for airline passengers (and, to a limited extent, international train and ferry travellers).


These automatic rights would end for UK airlines when flying from British airports, though EU airlines ‒ including Ryanair ‒ would continue to be governed by them. It is possible that a future British government would create its own rules on passenger rights.


Another tangible benefit for EU consumers has been the squeeze on the excessive roaming charges levied by mobile phone companies.


The maximum surcharges phone firms can add for calls, texts and data while abroad have just been reduced again. By next June they will disappear completely; that will happen despite the vote to leave.


Once Britain leaves, it is difficult to imagine any UK government saying to the mobile-phone firms: “As we’re out of the EU now, feel free to bring back excessive roaming charges.”
In addition, mobile phone companies will start demonstrating a year from now that they can survive on zero roaming fees within Europe, and it may be that competitive pressure is sufficient to keep a lid on price rises.


The immediate impact for those who depend on savings or pensions in sterling is that the cost of living will rise; the exact amount depends on how the local currency strengthens against the pound. Longer term, the automatic right to live and work in EU countries will end, but it is likely that long-term expatriates will be able to stay.


European Health Insurance Cards indicate entitlement to public health care on the same basis as local people in EU countries.


But before joining the EEC (as was), the UK had reciprocal health agreements with many European nations.


We still maintain bilateral deals with 16 countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and the former Yugoslavian republics of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia.


It is likely that a similar range of deals would be concluded with some or all EU members. If they are not, then the need for travel insurance will increase - and premiums could rise.


In terms of Duty free sales, it is likely that the limits that apply elsewhere in the world will be re-imposed. For alcohol, that means one litre of spirits, four litres of wine and 16 litres of beer.
The tobacco limit will be 200 cigarettes. In addition, a limit of “other goods” of £390 will be imposed.
 
A silver lining for airlines and cross-Channel ferry operators is that proper duty free would return; anyone who currently promises “duty free” for a journey within the EU is fibbing.


There will be no more filling up the boot with cheap claret in Calais. In addition, fuel prices and motorway tolls will be more expensive in sterling terms. Current legislation means any car insured in one EU country is automatically insured to the minimum legal level in any other EU country. This will not apply once the UK leaves the EU, but I suspect many insurers will continue to extend comprehensive cover for short European trips either free or at a reasonable cost.


With weaker sterling, the rest of the world will get more pounds for its euros, dollars, yen, etc, making the UK a cheaper destination to visit.


Conversely, going abroad becomes more expensive for the British traveller, who may then choose to holiday in Cornwall rather than the Costa del Sol.


But it’s more complicated than that, especially in terms of British holidaymakers’ behaviour. Demand for overseas travel is price-inelastic.


If people find foreign holidays significantly more expensive, some may opt to stay in the UK. But between the summers of 2008 and 2009, when the cost of going abroad increased by roughly 25 per cent, the number of overseas trips by British holidaymakers reduced by a much smaller percentage.
Looking at foreign visitors coming here: EU rules allow European citizens to come to Britain with only a national identity card.


The UK government could re-impose the rule that all foreign nationals must have a passport, though the British travel industry would lobby strongly against anything that makes it more difficult for many EU citizens to visit the UK.


Jon Davis


Credit - Simon Calder, The Independent.