We should think of Jo at the ballot box

I wouldn't believe B oris Johnson, Farage, Cameron, Gove, Osbourne is they said today is Tuesday
by the time I got round to reading this post it is already Tuesday in Australia

The father, brother and sister of Boris support staying in

Boris apparently spent a weekend with Rachel agonising over his thoughts and decision about which way to campaign and whether or not he should go against the PM. That also shows to me that he is not 100% Brexit but, having committed himself, has to put his all into it.

And, on 23 May 2016 "As the daughter of a local NHS surgeon, the preservation of an excellent NHS, free when people need it – not only now, but for when today’s children are old – is absolutely fundamental to me and I will fight to preserve this for as long as I am in politics."

"With regards to claims that the TTIP will lead to NHS privatisation; when I sat on the Health Select Committee last year I raised this with the EU’s Director-General for Trade and he said categorically that, even if the NHS is not specifically exempted, all publically funded health services like our own will still be protected. To be very clear: TTIP will not oblige the UK to open up our public health services to private companies." from charlotteleslie.com/where-i-stand/nhs-and-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip/

And, 5 days ago, "Negotiators from the United States and the European Union have confirmed that it will continue to be for EU member states to make decisions about whether and to what extent they involve the private sector in the provision of public services. The EU's chief negotiator on TTIP has stated that EU countries will continue to be free to decide how they run their public health systems." from www.cherylgillan.co.uk/campaigns/transatlantic-trade-investment-partnership-ttip

See www.nhsconfed.org/regions-and-eu/nhs-european-office/influencing-eu-policy/transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership and follow the link (about 5 lines down) to the full text of a letter from Gail Cartmail, Assistant General Secretary of the Unite Union, restating her position that the TTIP agreement poses no risk to the NHS.

She says
" TTIP poses no risk whatsoever to public services in the EU, including the NHS;
nothing in TTIP would affect how the NHS in the UK operates at the moment; and
nothing in TTIP would prevent a government from reversing policy as regards the involvement of private operators in the NHS."

Scrub the second sentence of my post - I read it as "if Britaion were not in the EU" - but there is nothing unique about the NHS. Within the EU there are plenty of state-owned health services. I can't imagine them all being clobbered! sounds very like a planted scare-mongering tactic!! A bit of deep investigation into the sources of this is needed.

Good grief

This sounds absolute balderdash - it must be a wind-up or a diversionary tactic timed for just before the vote. If Britain were not in the EU then Brussels would have even less input into what happens to the NHS than it does now.

The NHS is no different in its status as “state-owned enterprises and monopolies” to national health schemes in EU countries - so are they to be "privatised or dismantled" under this secret "Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership . . . between Brussels and Washington" too?

practical What the fu flip have you been reading?!!!

That is such cobblers.

Granny 2026, I did not say what you claim I said I said it would make me feel aligned , me does not mean you or anyone else , it means - me, I, Anniebach , one person, got it this time ?

A MAJOR leak from Brussels has revealed the NHS will be killed off if Britain remains in the European Union.
Hundreds of papers from the secretive trade talks between the US and EU have been released online.
They appear to confirm fears that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks between Brussels and Washington will, when ratified, lead to the health service being privatised or dismantled.
The documents, obtained by Greenpeace Netherlands, include a US proposal to have a committee with representatives from Washington and Brussels to meet each year “to review state-owned enterprises and monopolies” which would include the NHS.
The committee would meet annually and would not be guaranteed a representative from Britain.
But it would still be able to review state-run services in this country. Its duties would include checking that state services do not “distort” the market.
One section of the papers makes it clear that the EU and America would seek eventually to end all forms of state intervention in competition with the private sector.
Opponents of TTIP have long argued that including healthcare in the treaty will force the privatisation of the NHS or at least make the process impossible to reverse.
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.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister David Cameron has refused to ask for an exemption while trying to persuade British voters to back the Remain campaign in the EU Referendum.
Pro-Brexit campaigners have long warned that if Britain remains in the EU it will see its health service privatised and the NHS broken up.
The party’s health spokeswoman Louise Bours said: “If we don’t say goodbye to the EU we will have to say goodbye to the NHS.
“This committee has been requested by American investors, who will meet with EU officials once a year to decide the fate of our NHS."

POGS, thank you , the attacks on the .kinnocks on this forum have been so cruel. They are grieving.

Durhamjen,

My response was made after reading Anniebach on page one,in which she stated that to vote Brexit was to share the same mind set as Britain First.
Hence my post relating to that.
There was no inference that voting to remain lacked integrity.

I work,and caught the post during my tea break.....I do not have time to read through whole threads which have a tendency to change as they go along.
I do wish that GNet forums were arranged with answers to a post being placed directly underneath that post.
It would be far easier to keep track than trolling through pages and back referencing.

Neither did I mention immigration,but as you have chosen to bring it up,here is my answer regarding the UKIP poster.

I do not support Ukip and Nigel Farage.
I think the poster is very ill conceived ,as is that with two figures and the see-saw.Neither have done well for their corners.

As for Baroness Warsi....she seems to have announced that she was for Brexit and then remain,on the very same day !
She upset Stonewall some years ago with comments which they deemed to be homophobic,so is not without her controversies.

Lunch over...I have work to do.

Neither was there reference to immigration.
I have stated before that my partner,some clients and friends were immigrants.

Anniebach

I agree the Kinnock's have not used her death to politicise.

I can also agree, if I am permitted to, with your friend Glenys Kinnock who said this.

"The] amount of hatred that the referendum discussions have been causing I’m sure has contributed to the madness that we’re seeing and the acrimony and nastiness – real cruel nastiness – that’s being peddled currently is just unacceptable and can only lead to more and more anger and the kind of anger which generates that kind of hatred...

“The acrimony is palpable. It is awful"

Wise words Ms. Kinnoick. That sentiment does not apply to those from either side of the campaign, it belongs to both and nobody need look no further than some posts on GN to understand exactly what she says.

That is my perception of the article and I don't go along with the bias politics, the sniping at the other side, it is puerile and if somebody from either side of the campaign says something I agree with I really do not care.

practical, did not Kinnock say they regarded her like a niece ?

I can't see anything wrong on POGS post.
Compared to using the thread on her death as a squabbling thread and everyone thinking that was ok I can't think POGS post comes anywhere near that

Durhamjen.

It has bugger all to do with Ana, she simply made a fairly innocuous comment that didn't suit you.

Using 'context' what comments in the article make you and it would appear others believe it is negative in tone.

Kinnocks dad says she is a relative

Warsi was the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Dewsbury at the 2005 general election, becoming the first Muslim woman to be selected by the Conservatives. During the election campaign she was criticised for election literature which was described as "homophobic" by the gay equality group Stonewall.
are some phobic's more acceptable than others

The likes of Stephen Kinnock is not using the death of a close family friend for political gains, neither is her husband using the death of his wife for political gain

The Spector is using her death for political point scoring

You can nit-pick all you want, but you were the one who made a false assumption. So I missed the word 'merely' out of my post. I couldn't care less about your opinion of my expanation.

So, Ana, why do you think POGS put the article and the quote from it on the thread if it wasn't for perusal? Your explanation is just plain daft!

But Murray is doing it, too, but in a negative way.
I note you haven't said who wrote it, a neocon Brexiteer.
I think the tone of his article was appalling. How can he pretend he isn't using her death to say what he did, to promote his cause?

Ofcorse you do Durhamjen, so will another dozen posters I can think of.

The reason I posted those words were because I too am equally 'dusgusted' at the posts that are using this tragedy to what I see as propagating their political views such as calling the Leave Campaign as using her death. Another comment made on Sunday said this " I would even have been disturbed by an attack on a far right Tory ( I would make some exceptions"). I could go on.

The article is saying something different to me .

It is about the use of a death to promote a cause. Why do it. It is not telling anyone to throw in the towel. It is pointing out that there has been a call for the 'tone' of the dialogue to change from most people,even on Gransnet, it has not been heeded and we can all see that.

If you're addressing me, whitewave, I did not 'suggest' that POGS put the article up for perusal. I refuted durhamjen's assumption that they were POGS's own words.

That's all.