Jump to content

Recommended Posts

keano77 Wrote:

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

> Well kford, October 31 is 22 or 23 weeks away. As

> things stand your theories might soon be tested.



With any luck, we'll see sense and stay wedded to the world's biggest trading bloc.


If we don't, I'll suspect you and all the other Let's-go-WTO loonies will go very quiet, or, more likely, start blaming everyone but yourselves for the mess you've got us into.

kford Wrote:

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

> or, more

> likely, start blaming everyone but yourselves for

> the mess you've got us into.


The betrayal narrative started yonks ago, and that's all that Farage has dished out during this election, no policies, just the language of betrayal. Populism is easy solutions to complex problems and when they don't work it's the fault of others, that they weren't carried out properly, that they didn't 'believe' in them enough. A comforting lie is easier to sell than an uncomfortable truth. Much easier for the modern day careerist politician to carry on citing the imaginary 'will of the people' when in fact they should be telling the country the uncomfortable truth that what was promised was simply undeliverable...

Let's face it, Tories will be lucky to get one seat, BP are likely to get most of the seats but not all.

It means that the Tories have well and truly hung themselves, not just their handling Brexit but all the other things they've done. If BP win, it means that there is a huge number of people who want to leave, so a 2nd Reform is risky for Remainets, as the might not win again. It does not define the terms of how we would leave. It would be foolish to leave on solely WTO terms.... so, really back to square one. But worse as it would prove no strong confidence in our government at all.

lilolil Wrote:

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

> Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps someone on

> the forum can enlighten me...

> Why, when I didn't have a polling card and only

> gave my name and address was I not asked for

> identification??


The tricky part is: if you wanted to ask for ID, what identification would you even ask for, in a country in which there is no compulsory form of ID?


Passports and driving licences would presumably be accepted. But what about those people who have neither? Plus driving licences do not show citizenship.


If you think of it, this (the lack of compulsory ID and lack of a population register) is the key reason behind the Windrush scandal, which could have NEVER happened in most countries in continental Europe, as they tend to have compulsory ID and a population register, often listing whether you are a citizen or a foreign resident in the country.


In fact, how do you even prove citizenship without holding a passport? Windrush has shown that, in many cases, you don't - indeed British citizens were deported illegally!


It's also why foreign parents (especially European) of children born here and entitled to British citizenship are strongly advised to apply for a British passport straight away, since proving the settled status of the parents, which entitles the children to citizenship, can be hard if not impossible if done many years after birth.

keano77 Wrote:

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

> Not ideal I grant you but if Parliament cannot get

> its act together we will crash out in October no

> matter what the prima donnas think they?ve ruled

> out. Macron?s in no mood for interminable

> extensions.

>

> WTO though would apply in the two-year extension

> period while our future relationship is

> negotiated.

>

> Who will be negotiating the future relationship?

> After today?s elections will Farage be involved?


Only if he succeeds in a General Election and enters a coalition IMHO.


A General Election is unavoidable now - probably the Autumn.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> Let's face it, Tories will be lucky to get one

> seat, BP are likely to get most of the seats but

> not all.

> It means that the Tories have well and truly hung

> themselves, not just their handling Brexit but all

> the other things they've done. If BP win, it means

> that there is a huge number of people who want to

> leave, so a 2nd Reform is risky for Remainets, as

> the might not win again. It does not define the

> terms of how we would leave. It would be foolish

> to leave on solely WTO terms.... so, really back

> to square one. But worse as it would prove no

> strong confidence in our government at all.


The deal is still on the table as far as the EU is concerned and if we go WTO/No Deal and then want to negotiate a free trade deal with them at any future point - then we must accept the deal.


So any referendum may as well include what has already been negotiated, remain and no deal on a STV. I still believe there are big security issues with No Deal that we are not privy too as they are too sensitive.

JohnL Wrote:

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


> The deal is still on the table as far as the EU is

> concerned...


Worth noting that as a condition of the extension the WA cannot be reopened, so hopefully when Johnson et al start spouting such nonsense, the political journos point this out. Also, by the time a new leader is elected and with the summer recess, there will be no time to get any deal or even no deal through before the extension ends. But recent history tells us this will all be ignored and we'll get weeks of hard Brexiters promising yet more undeliverable, comforting lies to the Brexit supporters. This piece written by David Allen Green just after the last GE on why May would fail stands up well...https://www.ft.com/content/a46d09b5-e2da-398f-9f04-130764b56427

Also worth noting regarding whoever the Tories elect as leader...


The Cabinet Manual says that once a PM resigns ''The Sovereign will invite the person who appears most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House to serve as PM''


If that is a hard Brexiter, especially a No Deal one like Johnson, then I can think of a few Tories who won't support such a person. With such a slim majority in the HoC, it looks like what has dogged Brexit all along will also be a problem with whoever they elect, in that if you appease one side of the Brexit divide you alienate the other side.

And if Johnson wins and calls an election, he's skating on thin ice, at the last election his majority was halved down to 5k, throw in a rejuvenated Lib Dem party and the Brexit party and that could disappear very quickly. More fun and games ahead people...:)

peckman Wrote:

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

> Im a remainer but getting to the point of thinking

> let the brexiteers completely @#$%& it up .. all

> keep our head down for 5 or so years until people

> wake up and realise


What is the point of the UK having General Elections to choose a new Government or PM.

if we then pay ?Billions to the E.U. to make Laws for us and decide / dictate what we are allowed to do.


The UK Great Britain managed for centuries to run our own affairs and after Brexit we will do so again.


Fox

Sephiroth Wrote:

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

> What laws have the made for us foxy? What is we

> want to do but can?t?

>

> And you are aware that we pay but also gain back

> right?

>

> Why after 3 years won?t facts penetrate?


The E.U. does not directly make rules for The U.K.

But the rules The U.K. Government makes are subjected to the scrutiny of the E.U.

and the restrictions they impose on such rules.

They have the final word.

It?s a collective decision foxy. We are part of the process


What you and your fellow leavers are doing is depriving us of any day. We will need deals with eu, USA, China, India etc. And we will have to follow their rules because we will be desperate. Oh and those rules will preclude other rules


So if we accept American meat, we close off European access


Everything you want leaves us worse off. We had by some distance the sweetest deal. But still. Rule Britannia and all that what what

Guess what DF, if we Brexit and set up separate trade deals we'll be subject to lots of rules/caveats/restrictions etc, especially from big hitters like the US and China who will really be able to turn the screw on li'l ol' UK, assuming we are still the UK. Welcome to the world of global trading...

Name them foxy


I?m calling bullshit on this prediction. (Same with all leaver predictions from last 4 years. ?Easiest deal in history?. ?They will be queuing up to make a deal with us? etc etc ??)


You are spouting dank nonsense from there far reaches of the internet/YouTube


You know nothing


You have a grudge.


You can not make a simple case without spouting memes


You are shitting the bed for the rest of us after you are gone


Please stop

🕳 and we?re back in the fox hole.


I get fed up with the laziness of people?s arbitrary use of 10


Why not 9 or 11?


It?s a bit like when people call me up and say, I want a discount


?Give me 10% off and we have a deal? to which my thoughts are that 10% represents their level of competence, any more complex thinking is beyond them.


And we?re the same here, grabbing at a figure and gluing some random outcome to it.


Consistent though.

Sue Wrote:

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

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The E.U is unlikely to survive another 10 years.

>

> >

> > We are getting out at the right time. Others

> WILL

> > follow.

>

>

> What are you basing this statement on, exactly?


WHY do I have to Justify EVERY comment I post to you. ??


Fox

I dunno keano. I reckon a whole bunch of documents will have been signed, and will be legally binding with smart people able to examine them if there is any get out


Of course we could just listen to another sad-sack with a worrying YouTube history on an Internet forum and say it?s made up

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...