The Myth of the NHS Collapsing due to Brexit.

No, I didn't. I clarified my meaning by pointing out why your figures are wrong.

Why not respond to what I actually posted?




[

 

I did, you then moved the goalposts.

 

Quite possibly, sold to them for a profit by immigrant smugglers.

 

More likely by the plod, or HMRC, who carry lists around with them ready to thrust upon all new arrivals without a moment's delay lest they should require the services of the NHS and the benefits outfits. And once they've got their new NI numbers they've got them until they reach pensionable age. The whole world is laughing at us.

 

I pointed out where your assertions fell down and gave sources.

Pointing out that your figures don't add up and providing sources to back up my points is not moving the goal posts.

 

I just re-read my post (above) - I don't mean 'sold' by the plod or HMRC, rather issued by them. Just thought I should clarify that.

 

pointing out that your assertion was incorrect was all I did, you made no mention of GDP in your original assertion, anything that came after my correct response to you is moving the goalposts.

BTW: I have not made any assertions.

 

No, it isn't. It's carrying the debate forward. What kind of discussion could there be if all anyone does is throw out random bits of information with no backing?

Then what is your point?

 

Your backing should have been in your initial post, that is how a debate works .. an assertion is made backed up by evidence which your opponent can refute with their own evidence . .you didn't supply any evidence to your initial assertion and certainly did not make any mention of NHS funding as a percentage of GDP.

Questioning your initial assertion, which was shown to be incorrect. You then moved the goalposts to funding as a percentage of GDP, which is off topic anyway.

 

No it wasn't. I've been correct all along.

How absurd. I've shown that the funding of the NHS has diminished over the years - and I've shown how that is worked out.

If you have no response to the actual evidence I've supplied, then say so.

 

nope you initial assertion was not correct, it was only when you moved the goalposts that you became correct.

 

My initial assertion was totally correct. I went on to clarify it, providing sources to back up my claims.

So, I think we're all agreed that i'm right and you're wrong, Fugazi.

That's without even touching on the fact that the remain campaigners don't mention the NHS much at all.

I don't think anyone has claimed it would collapse if Britain left the EU.

From my link I gave in the ^Wollaston's been got at" topic:

Let’s look at the claims of the Leave side first. Their pledge last week to put £100m a week into the NHS - £5.2bn a year – came after weeks in which they were suggesting they could give £350m a week to the NHS. That’s the full sum they claimed that Britain paid to the EU each week. In reality, after Britain’s rebate and EU funding to the UK is subtracted, we pay around £150m – enough to cover the £100m a week promise.
However, that’s not the whole picture. Most independent economists think that Brexit would lead to an economic shock for the country that would leave the Government between £20bn and £40bn a year worse off by 2020, according to the respected Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS). That’s between £380m and £770m a week – more than wiping out any dividend we get from leaving the EU.

If these projections prove right, then yes there’s nothing to stop a post-Brexit Government giving £100m more a week to the NHS – but they would have to do so while very severely cutting other areas of Government expenditure – be it education, defence, welfare or something else.

That's clear enough.

 

no your original assertion was not correct, not until you moved the goalposts onto percentage of GDP.

highlighted part is the important part, they think, ie they don't know, and these are the same economists that told us we would crash and burn if we didn't join the Euro, and have been unable to correctly predict 6 months in advance, let alone 10 years they are claiming.

The assumption of the Remain camp is that the worst case scenario will happen.

 

That's not moving the goal posts. That's making sense of the figures that you ( and others) just threw out from nowhere.



[qute]highlighted part is the important part, they think, ie they don't know, and these are the same economists that told us we would crash and burn if we didn't join the Euro, and have been unable to correctly predict 6 months in advance, let alone 10 years they are claiming.

The assumption of the Remain camp is that the worst case scenario will happen.[/QUOTE]

You left out this part:
. Most independent economists think that Brexit would lead to an economic shock for the country that would leave the Government between £20bn and £40bn a year worse off by 2020, according to the respected Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS). That’s between £380m and £770m a week – more than wiping out any dividend we get from leaving the EU.



I trust the IFS more than I trust any leavers.

 

You two still talking about 'moving goalposts'? Well it is topical I suppose.

 

You left out this part:
. Most independent economists think that Brexit would lead to an economic shock for the country that would leave the Government between £20bn and £40bn a year worse off by 2020, according to the respected Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS). That’s between £380m and £770m a week – more than wiping out any dividend we get from leaving the EU.



I trust the IFS more than I trust any leavers.[/QUOTE]

Even though it recently got a downward prediction so wrong that it had to publicly admit it and apologise? Jesus there's always one isn't there!

 

Oh, rubbish

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8305

Carry on burying your head in the sand.

 

"'Do I have to go on my knees?’: grovelling apology from IMF head for incorrect warnings on UK economy. Head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, accepts her organisation's low growth forecasts for the UK economy were wrong"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ead-for-incorrect-warnings-on-UK-economy.html

 

ummmm..that's the IMF. cough cough

The fact that the brexit campaign has abandoned the economic argument for leaving the EU should tell you something, cerberus.

It's now focusing on immigration. It's wrong about that, too.

 

Bloody acronyms!

You're backing the wrong horse, lil, trust me on that. BREXIT, BREXIT, RA-RA-RA!!

 

How can I leave out the very thing you posted and I quoted to in my response and as far as the IFS is concerned, I suspect an organisation that would be set to lose £800,000 if we voted out cannot be seen as unbiased.
The IFS uses the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR)’s study as the basis for its forecasts. The NIESR has been wrong time and time again on the EU.
The NIESR backed scrapping the pound, which would have been a disaster.
The NIESR recommended rejoining the ERM after Black Wednesday, which would have been a disaster.
Even the IFS has to admit that any hypothetical ‘hit’ will be small and less than the OBR’s past errors in forecasting. The report states that the effects of leaving the EU ‘would certainly be much smaller than the effect of the 2008 recession, which hit the public finances to the tune of around £175 billion. Indeed, it would be below the downgrades to the forecasts made by the OBR between the Budgets of March 2011 and March 2013 (estimated at £43 billion).

It is in other EU countries interests to strike a free trade agreement. The EU sells the UK far more than the UK sells the EU. In 2015, the UK bought £67.8 billion more in goods and services than the UK sold to the EU. In 2014, 20 EU member states sold the UK more than the UK bought from them in 2014. The UK is the EU’s largest single export market for goods, larger even than the United States, with whom the EU is presently trying to negotiate a free trade agreement.

Even pro-EU campaigners have conceded the UK will strike a free trade agreement. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, has admitted: ‘If we were outside the EU altogether, we’d still be trading with all these European countries, of course we would … Of course the trading would go on … There’s a lot of scaremongering on all sides of this debate. Of course the trading would go on’. The CBI, The UK’s former Ambassador to the EU and leading supporter of the BSE campaign, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the pro-EU Centre for European Reform all agree with him.

The UK will not become a less attractive destination for foreign direct investment (FDI). There is very little evidence that being in the EU has had much of an impact on investment flows into the UK. Historically EU countries have not been major investors. Official figures show that the total net foreign direct investment (FDI) into the UK from the EU has been in decline over the last ten years, with the EU actually disinvesting in the UK in 2010 and 2013.

Despite the referendum and the prospect of a British exit from the EU, the Chinese investment group SinoFortone announced £5.2 billion of investment into the UK in October 2015. In November 2015, the UK and India struck £9 billion worth of commercial deals, with the Government noting that: ‘India invests more in the UK than the rest of the European Union combined’.

Major international investors have made clear that they will continue to invest in the UK regardless of the result of the referendum:

Toyota has been clear that it has located in the UK because of the tradition of UK vehicle manufacturing and the large domestic market, as well as good transport, workforce, working practices, the English language and a supportive government. The EU is not even mentioned on its list of factors. Its chief executive, Akio Toyoda, has pledged to keep building cars in the UK in the event of a Leave vote.

Nissan announced a £100m investment programme in their Sunderland plant last September, after it became certain that an EU referendum would take place. Its Chief Performance Office, Trevor Mann, has said that, with a future UK-EU trade agreement, ‘[Brexit] wouldn’t make a lot of difference’. Carlos Ghosn, Chief Executive of Renault-Nissan, has similarly commented that ‘I don’t think there’s a reason to worry’.

Hitachi’s Chief Executive, Takahiro Hachigo, has also confirmed that the company will continue to do business here after a British exit from the EU. In March last year, Honda also announced a £200m investment programme in the UK car industry.

Major international investors have made clear that they want the UK to have a looser relationship with the European Union. In an EY survey it was found that 72% of US investors and 66% of Asian investors wanted the UK to reduce its links to the EU.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has received €7.4m from the EU since 2007. It is not an independent organisation. In addition, the IFS states that in 2014, 11% of its research funding came from the EU. It states that it has received £4,118,651 from the European Research Council in total and received £792,931 in 2014 alone.

The rebate on our contributions we receive is a discretionary grant which the European Commission can pay to the UK if it so chooses. There is no obligation on the Commission to pay it. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has said: ‘It is not a unilateral decision of the British Treasury or the British Government to just say, “This is our rebate. We are entitled to it. Pay up”. The way this works and has always worked is there is a negotiation with the European Commission’.

The IFS underestimates the net contribution. In 2014, the UK’s net contribution was £9.872 billion. This rose to £10.649 billion in 2015. This is much higher than the £8 billion suggested by the IFS, which takes into account payments to the private sector to the UK without taking into account money paid by British companies to the EU. The overall balance between the UK and the EU institutions (the current account deficit added to the capital account surplus) was £10.9 billion in 2014.

I'm sorry I don't trust the IFS at all.

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/business/19031-vote-leave-responds-eu-funded-ifs-release.html

 

Of course there will be a trade agreement, but it will come at a cost.



The rebate on our contributions we receive is a discretionary grant which the European Commission can pay to the UK if it so chooses...

It's part of the MFF

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36085281

Your source isn't being strictly honest.

Reality Check verdict: He's right that the rebate is not a permanent feature of EU membership, but the UK has a veto over the process that would scrap or reduce it.


And there's this:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/nissan-considers-legal-action-against-150049101.html