EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[sutty27]

Have the governments of India etc ever complained?

I share your concern, but they might find that there are benefits which make it work out for them. Can't think what, but it's worth checking.

 

It looks like it, theres plenty to read here.

 

NEW DELHI: India has finally decided to cut down on brain drain that is crippling its medical sector.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-plans-bonds-to-stop-doctors-brain-drain/articleshow/12843215.cms

 

MUMBAI: The Union health ministry has clamped down on doctors who wish to settle abroad after pursuing higher studies there, especially in the US. Grappling with a severe shortage of doctors in India, it will no longer issue no-objection certificates to doctors who want to settle abroad permanently.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-makes-it-hard-for-doctors-to-stay-abroad-after-higher-studies/articleshow/51952164.cms

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=india+suffer+brain+drain&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=eeZGV5agLMnW8geSzYaIBA#q=india+government+doctors+brain+drain

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2016 at 13:14 ----------

 

Since preventing foreign medical practitioners from coming to the UK "for the good of their own country" would reduce the pool of qualified doctors in the UK and therefore drive doctors' pay up as a straightforward consequence of supply and demand, I look forward to reading about your negotiations to reduce doctor pay levels in the UK without causing a brain drain from the UK itself.

 

 

And you think that's a good moral case for poaching doctors from poorer countries.

Edited May 26, 2016 by sutty27

[unbeliever]

Since preventing foreign medical practitioners from coming to the UK "for the good of their own country" would reduce the pool of qualified doctors in the UK and therefore drive doctors' pay up as a straightforward consequence of supply and demand, I look forward to reading about your negotiations to reduce doctor pay levels in the UK without causing a brain drain from the UK itself.

 

 

Perhaps it would be better to seek to train more doctors ourselves so that the flow of physicians goes in both directions.

[JFKvsNixon]

Perhaps it would be better to seek to train more doctors ourselves so that the flow of physicians goes in both directions.

 

Of course it would be better to train more doctors, but this and previous governments do not want to fund the training for the doctors. It's far cheaper to import the doctors.

 

After all the NHS spending would increase significantly, with very little improvement in services.

[panzer1]

Article in the daily mail on line by max Hastings.he lists all the bad things regarding the EU and then goes onto say he is voting in as it is easier to make change from within than from outside

The interesting thing is the last sentence where he states that without change he can see a further UK referendum within a decade at which point he would envisage an out vote.

The EU is not open to change, the article regarding Junkers threat to isolate democratically elected right wing govts shows that. There would appear that even in voters expect to leave the EU in the not too distant future.

This referendum, unless Cameron wins by a massive majority will not put this matter to bed, it will continue to rumble on causing divisions in the Tory and labour parties.

The number of labour supporters who have turned against Corbyn is quite large due to his hypocritical behaviour in this matter. If he can turn a lifetimes political belief on this matter what other held beliefs is he willing to turn in.

[High Greener]

From ONS net migration now running at 330000, second highest level ever. ONS predict rise of population of 4 million within next few years. May just have swayed a few more to vote out.

 

Yep, lets see if such facts wake people up

[L00b]

And you think that's a good moral case for poaching doctors from poorer countries.

No, I think that's a pragmatic business case for the British taxpayer.

 

Now, I'm in good health (touching wood) and have a private healthcare package through work, and am a high rate taxpayer positively surrounded at home by NHS middle management paper pushers on stratospheric pay/perk deals (and I frequently have cause to wonder when do all these actually go to work)...so, in or out of the EU, I don't have any problem at all to "save poor countries" by downscaling the NHS and its budget.

 

But then, since I am mindful of the short- and medium-term consequences to blocking entry to/chucking out medically-trained furreiners, I don't mind keeping up my tax contributions as they are, and the current status quo with the NHS and its cohort of furreiners either.

 

How about you?

Perhaps it would be better to seek to train more doctors ourselves so that the flow of physicians goes in both directions.

Indeed.

 

But that has nothing to do with the EU (besides, in a small part, the EU funding to both British students studying medicine abroad within the EU and to medical R&D studies/programs in UK universities).

Edited May 26, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

 

But that has nothing to do with the EU (besides, in a small part, the EU funding to both British students studying medicine abroad within the EU and to medical R&D studies/programs in UK universities).

 

I forcefully reject the notion that that there is any such thing as "EU funding".

As I've stated before, there is no EU money. It's taxpayers' money which the EU has inefficiently stirred and spat back out again with the words "EU money" stamped on it.

This is especially true in the case of the UK, as we are net contributors and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Whatever good thing you identity that the EU does with our money, we could do it ourselves and still have a whole truck load left over for other good things.

[L00b]

I forcefully reject the notion that that there is any such thing as "EU funding".

As I've stated before, there is no EU money. It's taxpayers' money which the EU has inefficiently stirred and spat back out again with the words "EU money" stamped on it.

This is especially true in the case of the UK, as we are net contributors and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Whatever good thing you identity that the EU does with our money, we could do it ourselves and still have a whole truck load left over for other good things.

The EU is a club, it's subscription money, therefore club money, not "each club members' money".

 

And the club money spending model is redistributive in the exact same sense as No.11 is with UK corporate and taxpayer's tax income, and all other countries with a redistributive tax model wherein fewer net contributors balance the non-trivial majority of non-contributors.

 

If you don't think the UK is benefitting from its club membership, vote out.

 

Simples.

 

As for the notion that the UK government would dedicate the entire £8.5bn of its net contribution to the EU budget to the same budgets and allocations as the EU within the UK...LOL.

 

Are you really believing that No.11 would fund British students studying medicine in Munich or Milan? When it doesn't fund tuition fees at home to begin with?

 

Are you really believing that No.11 would fund speculative/blue sky research into gene sequencing and astrophysics? When it leaves that to the EU and has now for years been both reducing University budgets and encouraging strong-arming Universities to rely upon private sponsorship and revenue streams instead?

 

The South would get much more, the North would get much less -especially so under the tories- and the sum total of both wouldn't be anywhere near £8.5bn: need I remind you, that there's a record-breaking deficit to plug.

Edited May 26, 2016 by L00b

[Hambeast]

Remain currently 1/8 with PaddyPower. Hard luck, guys!!!!!

[unbeliever]

The EU is a club, it's subscription money, therefore club money, not "each club members' money".

 

And the club money spending model is redistributive in the exact same sense as No.11 is with UK corporate and taxpayer's tax income, and all other countries with a redistributive tax model wherein fewer net contributors balance the non-trivial majority of non-contributors.

 

If you don't think the UK is benefitting from its club membership, vote out.

 

Simples.

 

As for the notion that the UK government would dedicate the entire £8.5bn of its net contribution to the EU budget to the same budgets and allocations as the EU within the UK...LOL. The South would get much more, the North would get much less -especially so under the tories- and the sum total of both wouldn't be anywhere near £8.5bn: need I remind you, that there's a record-breaking deficit to plug.

 

I'm quite consistent on this. I do not refer to the money spent by the UK government as "government" money either. It fives a false impression that this money is being provided by the government where as the reality is that it is our own money which the government has taken control of. I don't object to the fact that this takes place, but it's important to remember who's money it actually is.

 

Your maths is a little out there. If you're talking about maintaining notionally EU spending in the UK, that's an extra £4.5bn on top of the £8.5bn of our "net" contribution. It's not just a matter of where to spend the £8.5bn, but also the £4.5bn that the EU spends in the UK.

Let's say that the priority is the deficit. So what. We can retain the £4.5bn of spending, add another £4.5bn from the £8.5bn and still have £4bn left over to reduce the deficit.

 

How to spend the vast amount of money we currently hand out to the EU would be down to the democratically elected UK government. That's kind of the point.

I don't know how it would be spent, but plugging the deficit is not a terrible idea as it would leave even more money for public services in a few years' time.

There's already a lot of redistribution from south to north in the UK, so I don't share your scepticism.

Edited May 26, 2016 by unbeliever