On 02/06/16 09:05, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/06/2016 07:09, harry wrote:


8


There is NO information.

Only speculation.


Yet everything you and TNP say starts with "Will" and ends with
"guaranteed" or similar words. Even when they are the opposites.

No, its you that says that.



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

In article , John
Rumm writes
On 01/06/2016 20:28, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 20:05:11 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

and did not include any sort of brake on freedom of movement.

Even trying to negotiate that would have been utterly pointless, not
least because it's one of the four basic freedoms from the Treaty of
Rome, which MASSIVELY predates our joining the EC.

Indeed, and it one of the fundamental changes that the EU will have to
make if it is to survive (regardless of if we stay or go)

The only people who have an issue with it are the Little Englanders and
various far-right groups. Everybody else recognises that it's a bloody
good thing.

Free movement for the purposes of business and employment makes some
sense when limited to resonable numbers. However when it either becomes
a way to facilitate mass benefit or healthcare tourism, or a way for
the less scrupulous to engage in mass exploitation, its not sustainable.

As the disparity in economic strength of between nations in the union
increases (as new members join), its a problem that gets worse.





I agree, Free movement of Labour is not the same as Free Movement of
People.
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 02:48:02 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

However when it either becomes a way to facilitate ... healthcare
tourism

Which forgets, of course, that the ONLY reason that the NHS doesn't
recharge foreign residents for their care is because it CHOOSES not to.

Remember the EHIC card? Which allows other EU healthcare systems to
recharge the NHS for your treatment? Yes, that. The NHS could recharge
residents of other EU countries for their care here.

But it chooses not to.

Why? Would it cost more to administer than it would bring in? I don't
know. But... the only thing stopping them from doing so is internal
policy.
Because the do-gooders in the NHS say they wouldn't want to do that.
--
bert

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:49:52 +0100, bert wrote:

However when it either becomes a way to facilitate ... healthcare
tourism

Which forgets, of course, that the ONLY reason that the NHS doesn't
recharge foreign residents for their care is because it CHOOSES not to.

Remember the EHIC card? Which allows other EU healthcare systems to
recharge the NHS for your treatment? Yes, that. The NHS could recharge
residents of other EU countries for their care here.

But it chooses not to.

Why? Would it cost more to administer than it would bring in? I don't
know. But... the only thing stopping them from doing so is internal
policy.

Because the do-gooders in the NHS say they wouldn't want to do that.

That would count as "Internal NHS policy", would it not?

In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:49:52 +0100, bert wrote:

However when it either becomes a way to facilitate ... healthcare
tourism

Which forgets, of course, that the ONLY reason that the NHS doesn't
recharge foreign residents for their care is because it CHOOSES not to.

Remember the EHIC card? Which allows other EU healthcare systems to
recharge the NHS for your treatment? Yes, that. The NHS could recharge
residents of other EU countries for their care here.

But it chooses not to.

Why? Would it cost more to administer than it would bring in? I don't
know. But... the only thing stopping them from doing so is internal
policy.

Because the do-gooders in the NHS say they wouldn't want to do that.

That would count as "Internal NHS policy", would it not?
Set by pressure from the do-gooders.
--
bert