Darth Vader
Player Valuation: £25m
Is that money they gave back to the UK
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
Is that money they gave back to the UK
The leavers told us they did have a plan if the referendum was to leave.
Statement by Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Gisela Stuart on NHS funding
June 03, 2016
A STRONGER NHS AND MORE MONEY FOR THOSE IN NEED - WHY LEAVING THE EU HELPS PROTECT WORKING PEOPLE
Our NHS is a precious asset. No other European country gives its citizens the guarantee of free healthcare, there when people need it, irrespective of ability to pay.
The NHS is a great British institution and its core values - of solidarity, fairness and inclusivity - need to be protected and defended. The wealthy can always buy themselves top quality care and jump the queue for treatment. Working people don’t have that option. Working people need an NHS which is strong and well-funded to give them security at every stage in their lives.
As our population grows, and as we all live for longer, so the pressures on the NHS are set to grow. We believe that one of the best ways to protect, and to strengthen, the NHS, for the people of this country is to use some money we currently spend on EU membership to invest in improving healthcare.
The NHS leadership has said it needs an additional £30 billion each year by 2020 to meet future pressures. Eight billion pounds will come from spending increases, and £22 billion will need to come from efficiency savings. The Government rightly committed at the last election to meet that £8 billion target.
But we don’t underestimate how difficult it will be to make the £22 billion worth of efficiency savings. Again, we are sure ministers, managers, doctors, nurses and everyone in the Health Service will do everything they can. However, trusted health experts such as the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation and the King’s Fund have all stressed how difficult it will be to achieve the planned net efficiency savings of 2% each year.
This level of savings is far above what the NHS has achieved historically. And the demand for NHS services is only set to grow. NHS Improvement, the NHS regulator, has identified rising demand as one of the principal challenges for the NHS’s future funding.
If we vote to leave the EU on 23 June, we will be able to do something about one of the main causes of higher demand - uncontrolled and unlimited migration from the EU into the UK.
In 2015, 270,000 people came to the UK from Europe, a population movement equivalent to all the inhabitants of a city the size of Newcastle arriving in our country. Net migration was 184,000, a population increase equivalent to adding a city the size of Oxford to the UK population. Year after year, similar numbers arrive.
On top of this, between 2005 and 2014, there were 475,000 live births to mothers who were EU citizens. This is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Manchester to the UK population. The cost of maternity services alone to these families is likely to exceed £1.3 billion.
As we have set out before, it is government policy for five new countries to join the EU: Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. We are paying billions to these countries to help them join. The EU is already opening visa-free travel to Turkey. That would create a borderless travel zone from the frontiers of Syria and Iraq to the English Channel. The EU’s plans for future growth will lead to demands being placed on the NHS far beyond what its funding can cope with.
We have set out our plan to change the immigration system after we vote to leave. We will end the ‘free movement’ of people from the EU and take back control. We will introduce a points-based system under which migrants will be admitted to the UK on the basis of their skills, not their passport.
But even after we take back control of our migration policy, the NHS will still face funding pressures. Restoring control over our borders is a necessary step, but there is more we should do to guarantee quality care for working people.
We need to ensure the NHS has as much money as possible and after we vote to leave we will have the means to do so without damaging public finances.
After we Vote Leave on 23 June, the Government should use some of the billions saved from leaving the EU to give at least a £100 million per week cash transfusion to the NHS.
This money will be over and above the commitment that the Prime Minister rightly made at the last election to an £8 billion real terms increase.
How can we pay for this additional spending? From the money we save from leaving the EU.
The UK’s gross budget contribution is currently over £19 billion or £350 million per week. According to Treasury estimates, this will increase to nearly £400 million per week by 2020.
We get some cash back through a negotiated rebate and some other money we hand over to the EU is spent here in the UK on areas like farm subsidies.
But the rebate is not a fixed benefit anchored in the treaties. It is there only by the consent of other EU nations, it has to be negotiated, it has already been reduced, and if we vote to stay it can, and will, be whittled away.
If we Vote Leave, we take back control of the whole sum. We will no longer be dependent on other countries to protect the money we get back in our rebate. And we will continue to support farming, science, universities and poorer areas of the UK with the money they currently receive from the EU.
That would mean we would then be able to spend all of our net EU contribution of £10.6 billion on our priorities like the NHS and cutting VAT on fuel.
Other money will also be liberated to spend on public services in the event of a vote to leave.
We have already set out plans to amend the European Communities Act 1972 immediately after the referendum to stop multinationals using EU law to claim tax refunds in the UK. This will save taxpayers between £7 billion and £43 billion by 2021.
It is wrong that big businesses have been using the European Court to starve public services of money they could never have recovered under English law.
If we leave the EU we could also restore our system of taxation of offshore companies which was set aside by the European Court. The European Court’s judgment has cost UK taxpayers an estimated £840 million each year.
We can also scrap the EU’s foolish rules on how Whitehall runs procurement processes which add billions to costs every year. The European Commission’s own conservative figures suggest that procurement rules cost at least £1.7 billion each year and delay projects by years.
There are billions of savings that Government will be able to make after we vote leave and escape the control of the rogue European Court.
A vote to leave is a vote for a fairer Britain. You only have to look at who funds the IN campaign to realise this: the undeserving rich, the investment banks that crashed the world economy in 2008 and who bankrupted the people of Greece, and the multinational corporations who spend millions on lobbying the corrupt Brussels system.
This is the choice on 23 June.
A Vote to Remain means that we keep handing over control of £350 million of our money to the EU every week. A Vote to Remain means we cannot control immigration. A Vote to Remain means greater pressure on the NHS, school places and housing.
If we Vote Leave, we can take back control of our borders and our money. By 2020, we can give the NHS a £100 million per week cash injection, and we can ensure that the wealthy interests that have rigged the EU rules in their favour at last pay their fair share.
That is why we believe a Vote to Leave is the right choice for social justice, safer for public services, jobs, and families and better for the next generation.
ENDS
I look forward to parliament tomorrow when Gove et al launch their 'immediate plan' to amend the European Communities Act 1972.
Statement by Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Gisela Stuart on NHS funding
June 03, 2016
A STRONGER NHS AND MORE MONEY FOR THOSE IN NEED - WHY LEAVING THE EU HELPS PROTECT WORKING PEOPLE
Our NHS is a precious asset. No other European country gives its citizens the guarantee of free healthcare, there when people need it, irrespective of ability to pay.
The NHS is a great British institution and its core values - of solidarity, fairness and inclusivity - need to be protected and defended. The wealthy can always buy themselves top quality care and jump the queue for treatment. Working people don’t have that option. Working people need an NHS which is strong and well-funded to give them security at every stage in their lives.
As our population grows, and as we all live for longer, so the pressures on the NHS are set to grow. We believe that one of the best ways to protect, and to strengthen, the NHS, for the people of this country is to use some money we currently spend on EU membership to invest in improving healthcare.
The NHS leadership has said it needs an additional £30 billion each year by 2020 to meet future pressures. Eight billion pounds will come from spending increases, and £22 billion will need to come from efficiency savings. The Government rightly committed at the last election to meet that £8 billion target.
But we don’t underestimate how difficult it will be to make the £22 billion worth of efficiency savings. Again, we are sure ministers, managers, doctors, nurses and everyone in the Health Service will do everything they can. However, trusted health experts such as the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation and the King’s Fund have all stressed how difficult it will be to achieve the planned net efficiency savings of 2% each year.
This level of savings is far above what the NHS has achieved historically. And the demand for NHS services is only set to grow. NHS Improvement, the NHS regulator, has identified rising demand as one of the principal challenges for the NHS’s future funding.
If we vote to leave the EU on 23 June, we will be able to do something about one of the main causes of higher demand - uncontrolled and unlimited migration from the EU into the UK.
In 2015, 270,000 people came to the UK from Europe, a population movement equivalent to all the inhabitants of a city the size of Newcastle arriving in our country. Net migration was 184,000, a population increase equivalent to adding a city the size of Oxford to the UK population. Year after year, similar numbers arrive.
On top of this, between 2005 and 2014, there were 475,000 live births to mothers who were EU citizens. This is the equivalent of adding a city the size of Manchester to the UK population. The cost of maternity services alone to these families is likely to exceed £1.3 billion.
As we have set out before, it is government policy for five new countries to join the EU: Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. We are paying billions to these countries to help them join. The EU is already opening visa-free travel to Turkey. That would create a borderless travel zone from the frontiers of Syria and Iraq to the English Channel. The EU’s plans for future growth will lead to demands being placed on the NHS far beyond what its funding can cope with.
We have set out our plan to change the immigration system after we vote to leave. We will end the ‘free movement’ of people from the EU and take back control. We will introduce a points-based system under which migrants will be admitted to the UK on the basis of their skills, not their passport.
But even after we take back control of our migration policy, the NHS will still face funding pressures. Restoring control over our borders is a necessary step, but there is more we should do to guarantee quality care for working people.
We need to ensure the NHS has as much money as possible and after we vote to leave we will have the means to do so without damaging public finances.
After we Vote Leave on 23 June, the Government should use some of the billions saved from leaving the EU to give at least a £100 million per week cash transfusion to the NHS.
This money will be over and above the commitment that the Prime Minister rightly made at the last election to an £8 billion real terms increase.
How can we pay for this additional spending? From the money we save from leaving the EU.
The UK’s gross budget contribution is currently over £19 billion or £350 million per week. According to Treasury estimates, this will increase to nearly £400 million per week by 2020.
We get some cash back through a negotiated rebate and some other money we hand over to the EU is spent here in the UK on areas like farm subsidies.
But the rebate is not a fixed benefit anchored in the treaties. It is there only by the consent of other EU nations, it has to be negotiated, it has already been reduced, and if we vote to stay it can, and will, be whittled away.
If we Vote Leave, we take back control of the whole sum. We will no longer be dependent on other countries to protect the money we get back in our rebate. And we will continue to support farming, science, universities and poorer areas of the UK with the money they currently receive from the EU.
That would mean we would then be able to spend all of our net EU contribution of £10.6 billion on our priorities like the NHS and cutting VAT on fuel.
Other money will also be liberated to spend on public services in the event of a vote to leave.
We have already set out plans to amend the European Communities Act 1972 immediately after the referendum to stop multinationals using EU law to claim tax refunds in the UK. This will save taxpayers between £7 billion and £43 billion by 2021.
It is wrong that big businesses have been using the European Court to starve public services of money they could never have recovered under English law.
If we leave the EU we could also restore our system of taxation of offshore companies which was set aside by the European Court. The European Court’s judgment has cost UK taxpayers an estimated £840 million each year.
We can also scrap the EU’s foolish rules on how Whitehall runs procurement processes which add billions to costs every year. The European Commission’s own conservative figures suggest that procurement rules cost at least £1.7 billion each year and delay projects by years.
There are billions of savings that Government will be able to make after we vote leave and escape the control of the rogue European Court.
A vote to leave is a vote for a fairer Britain. You only have to look at who funds the IN campaign to realise this: the undeserving rich, the investment banks that crashed the world economy in 2008 and who bankrupted the people of Greece, and the multinational corporations who spend millions on lobbying the corrupt Brussels system.
This is the choice on 23 June.
A Vote to Remain means that we keep handing over control of £350 million of our money to the EU every week. A Vote to Remain means we cannot control immigration. A Vote to Remain means greater pressure on the NHS, school places and housing.
If we Vote Leave, we can take back control of our borders and our money. By 2020, we can give the NHS a £100 million per week cash injection, and we can ensure that the wealthy interests that have rigged the EU rules in their favour at last pay their fair share.
That is why we believe a Vote to Leave is the right choice for social justice, safer for public services, jobs, and families and better for the next generation.
ENDS
I look forward to parliament tomorrow when Gove et al launch their 'immediate plan' to amend the European Communities Act 1972.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
No. It is the ball park % of UK GDP attributable to our membership of the EU.
It wont vanish overnight, but it wont go up cos we have left.
PhilEFC
Player Valuation: £35m
Is it worth it in meantime thousands of ordinary working class people losing their livelihood, houses etc? I don't think it is.
The Esk
Player Valuation: £70m
No mate, it's the value of the economic activity created in the UK by being members of the EU.
MikeEFC1878x
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Really because I feel EU will try fight but France, Italy, Germany Greece, Holland will all leave EU in next 5 years the is a rise of populist parties due to lack of sovereign democracies.
Long term and short term we will gain, EG not bailing out countries who will be on verge of bankruptcy Greece, Spain Portugal etc.
Yid4life
Player Valuation: £40m
If the remain camp had explained to the working classes what the advantages were to EU membership rather than just telling them that anyone that voted Leave was an uneducated, geriatric racist they may have won a few more over.
When you are at bottom of the food chain, you have nothing to lose from changing the status quo.
The Remain campaign was probably run by hedge fund Tories and Islington Guardianistas who don't actually know that life exists outside the M25.
Both groups were probably concerned an out vote would mean there wouldn't be enough European's to serve them their Mochachoccochinos in the morning or their £1mn 2 bed shoe box in Peckham would lose 20% to a mere £800k.
Out of touch with reality.
When you are at bottom of the food chain, you have nothing to lose from changing the status quo.
The Remain campaign was probably run by hedge fund Tories and Islington Guardianistas who don't actually know that life exists outside the M25.
Both groups were probably concerned an out vote would mean there wouldn't be enough European's to serve them their Mochachoccochinos in the morning or their £1mn 2 bed shoe box in Peckham would lose 20% to a mere £800k.
Out of touch with reality.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Wouldnt disagree with that.
Absolutely spot on.
MikeEFC1878x
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Spot on, I know people who have been labour voters for 40 years who just canceled their membership due to having to be patronised by people from London who have been brought up in a totally different world to us, Labour has big problems as do torys, when majority of their MPS support something and the people vote the other way it shows how it had become people vs politicians.
bobbydigital
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Be grateful mate. They did it "for the future of the young'uns" and not to keep immigrants out at all.
All the massively negative economic and political consequences will blow over, it's all make believe and nobody can ever predict the future so don't dare even consider it.
PhilEFC
Player Valuation: £35m
They are members of the government who have split their party and have led a campaign for a country to leave an established economic community; why shouldn't they be held personally accountable?
MikeEFC1878x
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Some people on facebook are implying (NOT saying) but could look like an outsider that they're suggesting abolishing democracy as some polls( who got it wrong on the voting day), says that younger voters was more likely to vote in..
See my previous post. It isn't that simple, and as I've said previously, trade agreements with the EU have to be signed by all 27 remaining member states. So whilst Germany, who trade with us a lot, might be happy with a deal, Romania, who don't, might not. For countries like Romania, for instance, free movement of people might be a much bigger deal than free movement of goods. You'd imagine Poland would think likewise.
The reality is that it is likely to be many years, and possibly upwards of a decade, where we have no formal trade agreement with the EU.
What?
- Status