Jump to content

Recommended Posts


kwasi on telly today complains about eu punishing brits and that maybe the uk should do the same to them 

 

ignoring not only 

a) uk govt pre Brexit approved this olan

b) his government set exactly same requirements to enter U.K.   

the people who pushed for and enacted Brexit are the very people who still don’t have a clue 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-an-electronic-travel-authorisation-eta


aye Mal - but you would think the people who pushed for this wouldn’t have the gall to simultaneously complain about it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13760813/amp/holidaymakers-Brussels-Brits-need-visa-waiver-travelling.html

 

 

Don’t forget to fill out your forms next year either 

 

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/transport/article/britons-travelling-europe-visa-summer-2025-lr8xjm6m5

  • Agree 1

Simon Calder in yesterday's Independent seeks to clarify the forthcoming rules for third country nationals travelling to Europe:

'Slaying the myths about tougher post-Brexit red tape for UK travellers to Europe

The Man Who Pays His Way: Can we all start singing from the same post-Brexit hymn sheet, please?'

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/eu-brexit-red-tape-travel-entry-exit-system-etias-b2601368.html

Those are not the reasons Brexit has failed so badly, and if anything we would have been in a better position in the EU rather than out for the above.  Instability in the middle East, the craziness of Putin and potential for a SARs type pandemic were all known before we  voted.  Let's face it he is a small islander harking back to the days of Empire and gunboat diplomacy, who exploited many people's xenophobia to deliver a massive home goal for the UK. 

  • Like 2

Did I say anything about brexit  ? 

I was simply pointing out that it was predictions and based on his available information at the time.

Predictions are never realistic or normally accurate I mean who could have predicted we wouldn't win the euros (again) or that Trump would run for president (again) or that Oasis would get together (again) 😉 

Sparts

coming onto a Brexit thread where people are currently pointing  out just how wildly wrong Brexit in chief Dan Hannan continues to be, only to go “did I mention Brexit?” Is disingenuous at best 

 

none of his predictions in 2016 were ever going to come true   But people believed him and he continues to get paid for his garbage about “we hold the upper hand”

 

 

As he is making a tit of himself yet again this weekend, always funny to revisit Dan hannan’s pre referendum Brexit predictions for 2025

Is it possible to read and not cringe?

 

https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

His forecast was wildly optimistic/idealist and had gone through no stress testing ie what ifs; at the time there was considerable global insecurity which he ignored, similarly climate change.  He wanted Brexit and had to backfit an outcome suitable to justify it to others.  That is not how analysis and projections work.

Big corporations look ahead ten, twenty and more years ahead and come up with a variety of scenarios what the world could look like, not necessarily what it will.  

Edited by malumbu
  • 1 month later...

God bless the UK and it's delusions that they need to deliberate over this or that their decision will have any consequence whatsoever

(as with everything Brexit related, some performative nonsense, followed by them just falling in line )

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2lj58jql8o

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Sovereignty? Monarchy? The British pound? 
 

fark all that shite 

(turns out being a rule taker and adopting a single currency isn’t the barrier some brexiteers feared after all)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/26/51st-state-usa-trump-starmer-eu-special-relationship/

  • 1 month later...

Just over half felt it was wrong, so that reflects the vote itself.  However, rather than nitpicking the meaning of the figures I am interested on how on earth 11% feel life is now better.  Of which a quarter of them voted to stay.

Perhaps some of this forum can enlighten me.  The Romans did quite a lot of good in Britain, and even traded with their enemies in Wales and Scotland.  I'm not sure we can answer "What has Brexit ever done for us?"

 

  • Agree 1

I would say 55/35 is significantly different to 48/52

 

its not totally analogous of course and you’re correct to question some of the other points raised 

but it was clearly a massive deception and a massive mistake 

If Trump decides to invade/takeover Greenland there will be massive rupture between Europe and USA and uk will have to pick  side 

  • Agree 2

A rather old article about the benefits of leaving the Common Agricultural Policy  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/10/brexit-leaving-eu-farming-agriculture

I'm not sure if we have seen any benefits yet.  CAP was acknowledged to be CrAP by many I knew in this area, but major reform a challenge.

Not sure why I should be posting possible benefits of Brexit - what about those of you who voted leave.  Where is Cat nowadays!

  • 1 month later...

Latest news from the sunlit uplands, on the same day the UK economy 'unexpectedly' shrank 0.1%...

image.jpeg.2f8ed6487354d92858ecc285882615f1.jpeg

As an aside, the cognitive dissonance shown by large parts of the UK electorate over Brexit is quite a thing to behold. I don't think it's controversial to say that Brexit is now considered by a large % of the population to have failed, with the % who see it as a success in single figures. Yet, initial polling for the upcoming Runcorn by-election shows Reform winning what is a relatively safe Labour seat. Now I get protest votes and all that, but Reform were literally the Brexit Party before the rebrand. If there's such a large consensus that Brexit failed, why would so many even consider voting for a party that actively helped deliver Brexit and all the known economic damage it would cause? And that's before you even get to the fantasy economics it presented at the last General Election.

Labour haven't helped themselves either, by pursuing a nonsensical 'We can make Brexit work' approach, they have in effect made themselves impotent when it comes to attacking Reform and what they stand for...

Edited by diable rouge
Link removed, screenshot added
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Yes, given the clear (and predictable) failure of Brexit, all the negative effects, and the overwhelming proportion of people agreeing that it has failed, I really can't understand why Labour have gone down the "making it work" road.

But then I have no idea of what reversing some or all of it might involve.

Also, Reform don't mention Brexit much, do they? If at all.  They push other aspects of what they say they stand for. So the people inclined to vote for them have probably completely forgotten they were ever associated with Brexit.

  • Like 2

The voters in these redwall seats all complain of a broken Britain etc etc - yet see no connection between the  country voting tory for 14 years and those towns voting for Brexit despite being warned it would lead to problems - they just moan about everything - often quite correctly (services are expensive or being cut, roads are a state, housing is expensive etc etc) but when you ask them when things were better.. well the answer is either 

 

a) under a labour government when we part of the EU

or

b) some fictional Facebook sepia tinted picture of Britain "when you could leave your front door open, we didn't know how lucky we were"

Voters say they want the truth but when someone sane (if dull and sometimes wrong) gets into power and says "lads, things are worse than we realised" they bleat about a lack of instant fixes and say it's wrong to keep blaming the last government (despite the lie about Labour crashing the economy in 2008 STILL being a stick labour get beaten with in 2025)

as for rejoining the EU - the barriers are immense - you have a press and a large portion of the population that will behave just abysmally. You have an electorate that recognises the mistake but is all very English and "made out beds, mustn't grumble" etc etc - no backbone. And you have an opposition party (or two) that is plain bonkers and when labour do lose power they would renege/reverse any progress made in matters EU in seconds

Meanwhile EU countries can see all this clearly and have no incentive to engage until this country grows up and is able to demonstrate they won't act hysterically when reintegration starts

Edited by Sephiroth
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Yep,  the EU would definitely want cast-iron certainties that there was no chance of Brexit 2.0 before allowing the UK to rejoin.

Best we can hope for in the short to medium term  is the UK rejoins the single market. That would at least make Brexit work *better* than it currently does. 

But we live in a very volatile world and a lot can happen quickly, who'd thought we be rationally talking about the possibility of  a European Army outside the context of Brexit and its associated hysterics...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

"Best we can hope for in the short to medium term  is the UK rejoins the single market. That would at least make Brexit work *better* than it currently does. "

Not sure that is in any way feasible - what would UK give up to get that access? As soon as you go down that road all the usual suspects that got us into this mess will all be squealing all over again

(spoiler: the Uk doesn't think it has to give anything up)

 

  • 3 weeks later...

Putin's little helpers (like theTelegraph) TRUMPeting (sorry not sorry) the fact that UK only gets 10% tariff from uSA as a Brexit Dividend and validating Starmer's qauiescence 

Which ignores so much

The tariff was calculated on a childish  deficit/exports calculation and ignored any discussion

25% on cars remains in place for UK as well

The difference between 10% UK vs 20% EU is a fraction of the cost of Brexit anyway (that cost was dismissed as "worth it" or hand waved away - whereas this relatively small "Win" is heralded as a major victory

plus in any case even if UK was on 0%, teh global fallout from this will massively impact UK as a standalone country anyway

 

Of course not many countries escaped with 0% - oh but Russia did (although that is likely because they are already sanctioned)

Edited by Sephiroth
  • Agree 2

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

    • 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.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...