The 'No to the EU' campaign

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

turbobloke

103,929 posts

260 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
Is this the same Timmermans?

Mr Timmermans today told Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan his country was "moving further away" from Europe on human rights in a warning over future EU membership.
Possibly, he's a eurodrone after all; occupying two positions at the same time is in the job description.

limpsfield

5,884 posts

253 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Hugh Jarse said:
She must have been to a gym, no way do you get THAT toned from just lifting children.
Under-appreciated, Hugh - good work.

///ajd

8,964 posts

206 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"


Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

244 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
limpsfield said:
Hugh Jarse said:
She must have been to a gym, no way do you get THAT toned from just lifting children.
Under-appreciated, Hugh - good work.
Surely it depends upon; how far and for how long?

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

244 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"
While I do feel that the excess article is over egging the pudding a tad, I am not reassured by your quote.

turbobloke

103,929 posts

260 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"
hehe

Superb truncation, it would do a politician proud.

"EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected but have so far failed to provide a full exemption."

There are weasel words, and then there are the words in my bold.

don'tbesilly

13,931 posts

163 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"
Tucked away in the article it actually states this:

"EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected but have so far failed to provide a full exemption".

Note the word 'claim' and the part you accidentally (whoops!) clipped off "but have so far failed to provide a full exemption".

Edit: TB beat me to it



EddieSteadyGo

11,905 posts

203 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
More project fear from the leave campaign...

turbobloke

103,929 posts

260 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
EddieSteadyGo said:
turbobloke said:
More project fear from the leave campaign...
It's amazing they could get the EU and Greenpeas to help out just at the right time.

Sway

26,257 posts

194 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Examples like this remind me of my 8yo learning to argue a point.

I sometimes have to remind him that his audience aren't idiots, and therefore not to demean himself by treating them like idiots.

Is there any justifiable reason for such blatant clipping of a sentence to twist it's meaning?

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

244 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
EddieSteadyGo said:
turbobloke said:
More project fear from the leave campaign...
Perhaps there is more to fear from remaining than leaving? Either way up this entire thread appears to be some bizarre form of mental masturbation, no one is changing anyone's mind on the subject because there quite simply isn't anything substantive being offered. The mud slinging from both sides, while a vaguely entertaining spectator sport, is ultimately, pointless.

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"
...and they're to be trusted aren't they? Dear me.

///ajd

8,964 posts

206 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"
Tucked away in the article it actually states this:

"EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected but have so far failed to provide a full exemption".

Note the word 'claim' and the part you accidentally (whoops!) clipped off "but have so far failed to provide a full exemption".

Edit: TB beat me to it
Come on its the express. Rather than ask why was the sentence truncated, ask why the superfluous extra bit was added in the first place? Provide an exemption to who? The journalist writing the article?

Rather than pick on my editing - see through the huge amounts of initial spin in the article.

Example: "The UK Government has promised it will count all the votes in the EU referendum, but have so far failed to provide a full explanation of how they will do so." See? Meaningless piffle.


See here:

NHS Confederation

http://www.nhsconfed.org/regions-and-eu/nhs-europe...

Some easily found facts not express drivel said:
EU/US trade pact proposal seems to protect NHS

The latest text of the EU's negotiating proposal to the US, made public on 31 July, contains strong safeguards which enable Member States to retain full control over how they provide health services.

The text on services, investment and commerce contains the same safeguards for health services as in CETA, the trade agreement between the EU and Canada. In particular, it safeguards the right of EU Member States to adopt or maintain any measure with regard to:

- the provision of all health services which receive public funding or state support in any form
- medical and dental services and services provided by midwives, nurses, physiotherapists and paramedics
- privately funded health services other than privately funded hospital, ambulance and residential non-hospital health services (eg nursing homes)
- establishing suppliers and restricting the cross-border provision of privately funded hospital, ambulance and residential non-hospital health services (eg nursing homes)
- research and development which receives public funding or state support in any form.
Implying I have the debating skills of an 8 year in this context is a bit silly.










Edited by ///ajd on Thursday 5th May 20:49

mondeoman

11,430 posts

266 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"
ah, that'd be like camerons negotiations, total bks in other words.

///ajd

8,964 posts

206 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"
ah, that'd be like camerons negotiations, total bks in other words.
Here, have some more facts, summarised here.

http://www.nhsconfed.org/media-centre/2014/11/nhs-...

In short - the threats are within the UK Governments power to fully mitigate.

"Nothing in TTIP will stop the four UK countries deciding, through their democratically elected governments, how to run their own health systems. But the UK can press for certain kinds of services, such as publicly funded health services, to be protected from the scope of the trade pact."

All still subject to finalisation of course, but the intent appears clear.

mph1977

12,467 posts

168 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"
hehe

Superb truncation, it would do a politician proud.

"EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected but have so far failed to provide a full exemption."

There are weasel words, and then there are the words in my bold.
or reflects the view of most of the rest of Europe that the state ownership of the provider units in a comprehensive health service that is either free at the point of use or a pay and reclaim system is not required ...

EddieSteadyGo

11,905 posts

203 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
Either way up this entire thread appears to be some bizarre form of mental masturbation, no one is changing anyone's mind on the subject because there quite simply isn't anything substantive being offered. The mud slinging from both sides, while a vaguely entertaining spectator sport, is ultimately, pointless.
+1

EddieSteadyGo

11,905 posts

203 months

Thursday 5th May 2016
quotequote all
EddieSteadyGo said:
turbobloke said:
More project fear from the leave campaign...
At the risk of quoting myself, and in order to clarify my post, it was very much tongue in cheek attempt to highlight the facile nature of the debate.

dandarez

13,282 posts

283 months

Friday 6th May 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
don'tbesilly said:
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
Tucked away, the article admits......."EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected"
Tucked away in the article it actually states this:

"EU officials claim they will have wording that allows for the NHS to be protected but have so far failed to provide a full exemption".

Note the word 'claim' and the part you accidentally (whoops!) clipped off "but have so far failed to provide a full exemption".

Edit: TB beat me to it
Come on its the express. Rather than ask why was the sentence truncated, ask why the superfluous extra bit was added in the first place? Provide an exemption to who? The journalist writing the article?

Rather than pick on my editing - see through the huge amounts of initial spin in the article.

Example: "The UK Government has promised it will count all the votes in the EU referendum, but have so far failed to provide a full explanation of how they will do so." See? Meaningless piffle.


See here:

NHS Confederation

http://www.nhsconfed.org/regions-and-eu/nhs-europe...

Some easily found facts not express drivel said:
EU/US trade pact proposal seems to protect NHS

The latest text of the EU's negotiating proposal to the US, made public on 31 July, contains strong safeguards which enable Member States to retain full control over how they provide health services.

The text on services, investment and commerce contains the same safeguards for health services as in CETA, the trade agreement between the EU and Canada. In particular, it safeguards the right of EU Member States to adopt or maintain any measure with regard to:

- the provision of all health services which receive public funding or state support in any form
- medical and dental services and services provided by midwives, nurses, physiotherapists and paramedics
- privately funded health services other than privately funded hospital, ambulance and residential non-hospital health services (eg nursing homes)
- establishing suppliers and restricting the cross-border provision of privately funded hospital, ambulance and residential non-hospital health services (eg nursing homes)
- research and development which receives public funding or state support in any form.
Implying I have the debating skills of an 8 year in this context is a bit silly.
I agree with you.

An 8 year ('old' - see above) would have far better debating skills! tongue out

Murph7355

37,708 posts

256 months

Friday 6th May 2016
quotequote all
Einion Yrth said:
Surely it depends upon; how far and for how long?
Reps and the fatness of the kids surely?
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED