Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In any event its all a bit academic - we will never know the truth as there's no real chance of a leave majority vote, I don't think. Just more years of grinding decline while unelected bureaucrats decide our future and get fatter. Then at some point the exposure of the fault-lines in the Euro economic system leading to right wing nutters getting more power (or god forbid control of some member states). Not all will lose out - the poor EU members will obviously get a lot better off as our contributions find their way to them, but the richer states will inevitably be in decline (it's simple arithmetic after all - there's a pot we all pay into and take out of, in varying amounts - there's no voodoo magic that makes the pot grow so we can all take out more than goes in).


I will never be less happy to be proved right, but that's my prediction. It will take a few years, maybe two or three decades, but unless there's major EU reform that seems inevitable to me.


Sounds like Cameron's project fear in reverse, but that's my honest view.

"Of course you can choose to believe they are bluffing but I believe they mean what they have explicitly said as they have good reason for doing so."


I genuinely do think they are bluffing. Of course it is in their interests to scare us into voting to remain - they want us to remain. If their politicians said don't worry we will be cooperative in our mutual interests (which is what the German CBI type people are saying) they would be (rightly) worried we would feel confident that it is safe to vote to leave. That would be madness - so yes, I do genuinely think it is an obvious bluff and negotiating position. They would be stupid to say otherwise and they are certainly not stupid.

The E.U is just a financial Empire.. Like all Empires they rise and fall..


The E.U. might not be here in another 10-15 years. Like when your children have grown up.


A Sinking Ship.. No place for Chivalry where The E.U. Referendum is concened.


Sink or swim .? I'm for swimming. I'm out.


Foxy.

I should have added: the 'good reason' for them not doing so is that it would damage them as well as us! Nobody sensible thinks tariffs are a good idea and I'm sure they don't either (after all, they are in the EU free trade organisation!). So why would they cut off their noses to spite their faces?
Robbin, Germany is bound by the same rules as every EU member. She won't be able to do a unilateral deal with the UK on trade. We WILL be subject to the same rules as Norway and Switzerland. This is just fantasy to think we are so special that other EU members will just accept a special deal for us while they have no such deal. Clearly you have no understanding whatsever of how the EU and trading rules work.

Blah Blah, with respect, that is nonsense. There are 46 nations who trade tariff free with the EU and do not have to accept any of the rules and regs surrounding free movement of labor. Yes, Norway and Switzerland do have to accept tariffs as part of the deal they achieved with the EU, but that's primarily because they are smaller nations on the periphery of the EU and those deals were tailored to suit the needs of both parties individually. The UK with a population of 60 odd million, would be in a similar position to the United States, India or Australia. None of which pay any tariffs on trade.


Louisa.

Robbin, France and Germany have both said they won't start negotiating the new trade agreement until after Brexit has been concluded in two years. The main reason they've given is they want to settle the fate of EU citizens living in the UK before starting trade negotiations because they don't want Britain to use that as a bargaining chip.


The EU has also said that the UK has 3 models it can adopt with the EU post Brexit-- the Norway model (which still requires payments to the EU and still requires unlimited EU immigration) but is tariff free; the Canadian model which is just being finalized (you can see the terms), or WTO rules (which is what everyone without an explicitly agreed trade agreement uses with the EU including the US) which includes tariffs.



robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I should have added: the 'good reason' for them

> not doing so is that it would damage them as well

> as us! Nobody sensible thinks tariffs are a good

> idea and I'm sure they don't either (after all,

> they are in the EU free trade organisation!). So

> why would they cut off their noses to spite their

> faces?

That's not true Louisa. Having a trade agreement with the UK does not mean those countries have tariff free trade. They just have better than WTO terms. No country has tariff free access to the EU block without also being part of the free movement of citizens and paying a contribution to the EU. No one.


The Canada deal covers many (though not all goods) but does not cover any services for instances. When you are part of the EEA (free trade zone) then everything is covered and there are less bureaucratic checks (which also increase the cost of doing business).


Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah, with respect, that is nonsense. There

> are 46 nations who trade tariff free with the EU

> and do not have to accept any of the rules and

> regs surrounding free movement of labor. Yes,

> Norway and Switzerland do have to accept tariffs

> as part of the deal they achieved with the EU, but

> that's primarily because they are smaller nations

> on the periphery of the EU and those deals were

> tailored to suit the needs of both parties

> individually. The UK with a population of 60 odd

> million, would be in a similar position to the

> United States, India or Australia. None of which

> pay any tariffs on trade.

>

> Louisa.

Yes, grinding decline. I didn't say economic decline, although I think that is not too far off.


The NHS is dysfunctional, overwhelmed and getting worse. There are not enough school places. House prices mean living in London/owning in London is well out of reach of most. Wages have been driven way down in some sectors. We are shut out from trading with massive economies in any proper way. We are shut out from employing expert migrants in certain areas because they are not from the EU. I'm not saying I'm not in favour of migration and different cultures - I am - I think they are good and differences are good - it is all a question of degree and whether there is unfettered migration or migration that can be controlled in order to avoid overcrowding of public services etc.


Generally I see decline in the quality of life, yes.

And those free trade deals were done with a trading bloc of 500 million people, not a small island of just 65 million. Size of market matters in trade negotiations. You are not comparing like for like.


But if you actually look at those deals, they are mainly with smaller countries, namely in South America with individual exports of less than 2bn. This is significant because there is no market competition detriment on such small levels of exports. They are deals set up namely to help poorer economies. We on the other hand export 200bn worth of goods/ervices to the EU annually, which is a different ball game altogether when it comes to market competiton.

Robbin-- and how is the EU responsible for the NHS and school places? EU migrants pay more in taxes than they use in services (fact). The lack of public services is due to austerity. If all the immigrants left, there would be a bigger hole in the public finances to provide NHS services and school places and service levels would be even worse not better.


There have been studies that prove immigration has not had any major impact on low-skill wages. I can link to it if you don't take me at face value. That idea is a total misconception.


I agree about house prices. Immigration has helped drive economic growth through the importation of skills, particularly in London. The rapid expansion of jobs this has allowed has led to a rapid expansion of population. Jobs growth in London unsurprisingly has equaled population growth. So without all those new jobs, there would be less pressure on housing.


I'm not sure an economically stagnant city that is not creating jobs though is anyone's idea of a better situation... Surely a more logical response is to increase building (particularly by the government as the private sector is failing to meet demand). Killing growth seems like a weird way to address a housing problem.

That is completely right LondonM. The solution to housing pressure is to mass build. And we are only in that mess because of the failure to build enough over the lat 20 years. Why politicians cling to this idea that the private market alone will do it is anyone's guess. We've mass built before, and we weren't part of any EU then.
Also, people within the UK move to where there are jobs which is why the populations of the North have decreased. I don't understand what part of that people don't get either. They are blaming the EU for things that are nothing to do with the EU but the demographic and economic strategies of our own governments.

I can understand why the vociferous social media contingent /preaching to the converted has the entirely opposite effect!


Also, not keen on banned (for good reason) posters pontificating their tedious views on here either.


Scottish voters must be thoroughly sick of all this referendum business. The same arguments are being played out over and over again.


I don't think remainers will have anything to worry about tomorrow.

"I really don't get how people..."


"I don't understand what part of that people don't get..."




Poor bewildered darlings. 'People' eh? Can't trust 'em, can't shoot 'em.


Never mind, all over soon and you can start telling folks how they're thinking wrongly about all kinds of other shit.

I have never said that anyone's decision to vote one way or another was wrong. In fact, I've explicitly said that I respect people who want to leave, particularly for sovereignty.


However, it is not a question of viewpoint to say something that is factually incorrect like that other countries have free trade with the EU without a free movement of people. It simply isn't. And if you read through my posts, almost every comment I have made has been concerning the factual accuracy of statements that have been made.


And I have definitely not insulted or belittled anyone Jules. I really resent the implication that I have.

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's your problem maxxi?


Is that a rhetorical question or a genuine attempt to engage?


Seriously- stop

> trying to put words in my mouth


My dear boy/girl you've used so many I wouldn't know where to begin.



and stop stirring

> shit for no reason just because you are bored.


Is that what I'm doing? Thanks for clearing that up... for putting words in my mouth (as it were).


I knew you would know what I was up to.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...