Brexit, for once some facts.

[Woosh]

what is Dan Hannan trying to achieve?
Confuse and conquer?

British MEP gives BRILLIANT reason why Swiss-style Brexit trade deal is BEST for Britain:

Mr Hannan told talkRADIO: "They’ve got a great relationship with the EU, they got low taxes, they got strong growth, they’ve got a really good system of local democracy.

"I think we could learn a lot from the way the Swiss arrange things."

He is now arguing for a Swiss model and the DE brags about it?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/950882/Brexit-news-latest-news-UK-EU-customs-union-trade-Switzerland-Schengen-area-video

 

[flecc]

what is Dan Hannan trying to achieve?

He is now arguing for a Swiss model and the DE brags about it?

He's obviously not looked into this. The Swiss multiple agreement model specifically excludes services, something we are very dependent on in our EU trading relations.

That's detailed in the radio program I drew attention to in the post that started this thread.

The short program extract can still be heard, here's the link to it.
.

 

[Danidl]

Now off topic but my attention being drawn to it by that last posting from the express. This relates to the legal treatment of that infant Alfie Evans, and similar hard cases which have appeared in court. It seems perverse to me that law courts be used for this purposes. If the NHS forms a view that there is nothing further in the care they can offer, they should immediately relinquish care and allow the parents to do what they can. Going to court should be reserved only for those cases where the life of the patient is being put in jeopardy by the actions of the parents eg blood or organ donation refusal. That a judge would link himself to such actions is absurd. Phrases or actions such as "death with dignity" if applied to an infant is an obscenity.. Reserve that for those who have had an opportunity to live a life.

 

[Woosh]

He's obviously not looked into this.

he seems to say that SM is better to deliver brexit aims than CU.
It's not that I criticise his view on benefits of the SM, that was an old argument from remainers. He seems to go back to the old having cake and eating it, extoll all the advantages of the SM without mentioning how we are going to pay for them and the ECJ.
If brexiteers accept now that the SM is better than CU, then one more step: any FTA with the EU will be in essence a 'customs arrangement' therefore over time, voters will come to accept that any deal is less good than the SM membership.

 

[flecc]

If the NHS forms a view that there is nothing further in the care they can offer, they should immediately relinquish care and allow the parents to do what they can.

That is what was happening in the Alfie Evans case. The hospital wanted to cease life support but the parents went to law repeatedly to stop them.

The reason the parents get the opportunity to do this is that the hospitals as a matter of common decency seek the parents agreement first.

Since in the Evans case there had been a prior judgment by the court, the parents couldn't just take the child to Italy in defiance of a court ruling. Had they not gone to court before, they would have been able to take the child to Italy to take advantage of that offer, unless the hospital went to law in the child's interests.

The facts of this case aside, I disagree with your stance. There have been cases where parents have patently put their own principles before the welfare of the child, making the intervention of the law essential.
.

 

[Danidl]

The facts of this case aside, I disagree with your stance. There have been cases where parents have patently put their own principles before the welfare of the child, making the intervention of the law essential.
.
Had I not addressed that by referring to the cases of blood and transplants? Where the patient's life was being put in jeopardy by the wilful actions of parents? .
It could be appropriate for a judge to make a ruling that for a hospital to turn off life support equipment in specific incidents , would not be considered manslaughter or subject to legal challenge, but to instruct a hospital to do so would be malign.
I do recall other incidents where hospitals and courts acting for the hospitals refused parents the right to remove their terminally ill children . To what purpose?

 

[flecc]

Had I not addressed that by referring to the cases of blood and transplants? Where the patient's life was being put in jeopardy by the wilful actions of parents? .

I go further though, parents putting the welfare of the child in jeopardy by prolonging known or possible suffering.

It could be appropriate for a judge to make a ruling that for a hospital to turn off life support equipment in specific incidents , would not be considered manslaughter or subject to legal challenge, but to instruct a hospital to do so would be malign.

I'm not aware any judge has ever made such an order instructing a hospital to turn off life support. I believe such an order would be unlawful and I cannot ever imagine a judge making one. Their actions are to confirm a hospital's judgement.

I do recall other incidents where hospitals and courts acting for the hospitals refused parents the right to remove their terminally ill children . To what purpose?

As the first example above, to avoid unnecessary suffering for the child. Those cases were where hospitals considered there was either a certainty or a real risk of this happening.

I watched a televised account of one such case conference at Great Ormond Street childrens hospital. There was a small army of all the medical people involved in the case discussing it together in every detail in order to reach a correct conclusion. To me the notion that two parents with no specialist knowledge and often motivated by either emotion or religious dogma know better is unrealistic.

We use the law to prevent animals being subjected to unnecessary suffering. Surely that's at least as important for human beings?
.

 

[oyster]

I suspect he isn't aware of the true meaning of the word, or more likely was trying to speak "common" to endear himself to the plebs

For someone who pontificates and pronounces in Latin, he doesn't deserve a scintilla of ignorance to be allowed as an excuse.

 

[Danidl]

I go further though, parents putting the welfare of the child in jeopardy by prolonging known or possible suffering.



I'm not aware any judge has ever made such an order instructing a hospital to turn off life support. I believe such an order would be unlawful and I cannot ever imagine a judge making one. Their actions are to confirm a hospital's judgement.



As the first example above, to avoid unnecessary suffering for the child. Those cases were where hospitals considered there was either a certainty or a real risk of this happening.

I watched a televised account of one such case conference at Great Ormond Street childrens hospital. There was a small army of all the medical people involved in the case discussing it together in every detail in order to reach a correct conclusion. To me the notion that two parents with no specialist knowledge and often motivated by either emotion or religious dogma know better is unrealistic.

We use the law to prevent animals being subjected to unnecessary suffering. Surely that's at least as important for human beings?
.

I have attended a case conference, not a stage managed one , so am in a position to disagree, . It involved mental issues not end of physical life, but end of independent life.

Your stance is well meaning and I hope well intended but illogical. By simple definition, killing is not promoting the welfare of the patient. It is terminating the welfare of the patient. There can be no greater jeopardy to the patient than killing them. That class of arguement is crass and beneath your logic.
If your argument is that some lives are not worth living, and that by deliberately ending them we are somehow demonstrating mercy, . That stance at least has some logic but has consequences, which i think you can follow. It is a logic we need to reject,because of these consequences.

 

[flecc]

I have attended a case conference, not a stage managed one , so am in a position to disagree, . It involved mental issues not end of physical life, but end of independent life.

Your stance is well meaning and I hope well intended but illogical. By simple definition, killing is not promoting the welfare of the patient. It is terminating the welfare of the patient. There can be no greater jeopardy to the patient than killing them. That class of arguement is crass and beneath your logic.
If your argument is that some lives are not worth living, and that by deliberately ending them we are somehow demonstrating mercy, . That stance at least has some logic but has consequences, which i think you can follow. It is a logic we need to reject,because of these consequences.

In your use of the word killing, I believe your position is probably motivated by a religious belief Danidl. That would be one I reject.

As I do your unnecessary use of other emotive words such as "life not worth living" or "deliberately ending" life. Letting nature take its course to avoid unnecessary suffering is not wrong, and it doesn't amount to deliberate killing.

Just because an intervention has become possible due to medical advances is not necessarily right, especially when that intervention can create or extend a period of suffering.
.

 

[Danidl]

In your use of the word killing, I believe your position is probably motivated by a religious belief Danidl. That would be one I reject.

As I do your unnecessary use of other emotive words such as "life not worth living" or "deliberately ending" life. Letting nature take its course to avoid unnecessary suffering is not wrong, and it doesn't amount to deliberate killing.

Just because an intervention has become possible due to medical advances is not necessarily right, especially when that intervention can create or extend a period of suffering.
.

I am not sure that a religious ethos is driving my comments, but could of course have some bearing on my attitudes. It is not possible to live within any society without absorbing some of the memes. It is always difficult to be sure of all the inputs affecting one... Certainly I do not believe that life should be artificiality maintained, and have long held that belief. My training is as a scientist and I look towards logical positions.

There is however a huge difference between a decision of an adult person, who has experienced life ,and now wishes to end it on their own terms, and a child who is not given that opportunity. That morphine would be given to persons in great pain , and in so doing would hasten their end, would not disturb me. But that morphine be given so as to accommodate the medical team and their shift change would.
We are not going to agree on this.

 

[Danidl]

Quasi Brexit and similar topics. .. the address by Mr Macron to the US houses of Congress is available on YouTube , by ABC news . Incredibly clever , well constructed demolition of narrow nationalism....

 

[flecc]

It is always difficult to be sure of all the inputs affecting one... Certainly I do not believe that life should be artificiality maintained, and have long held that belief. My training is as a scientist and I look towards logical positions.

That morphine would be given to persons in great pain , and in so doing would hasten their end, would not disturb me.

I can't see why we should greatly disagree since much of what you say here and that I've enhanced bold I agree with

But that morphine be given so as to accommodate the medical team and their shift change would.

Once again I agree.
.

 

[oldgroaner]

From the Telegraph
How much did the DUP cost to rent?
"
Brexit warningDUP threatens to bring down the Government if it crosses red line on Customs Union"

Of course a few more "Bungs" could solve that problem

 

[oldgroaner]

It really is time for someone to remind the Government that the leave campaign fought for Brexit on the principle of remaining in both the Customs Union and the Single Market.
Why isn't this happening?

 

[flecc]

It really is time for someone to remind the Government that the leave campaign fought for Brexit on the principle of remaining in both the Customs Union and the Single Market.
Why isn't this happening?

Because the EU have spelt it out that we can't have our cake and eat it. Meaning we can't stay in the CU and SM and have independent trading agreements duplicating the EU ones with a choice of either path.

Faced with that impasse TM and co are choosing independence over security. I think they are in for a nasty shock when the cost of that is learnt, as are all of us.
.

 

[Woosh]

Faced with that impasse TM and co are choosing independence over security. I think they are in for a nasty shock when the cost of that is learnt, as are all of us.

not so much the cost as it is impossible to have the benefits without being a member, otherwise Japanese and American companies would not have setup factories here to sell to the EU. Something has to give. I am happy with a soft brexit.

 

[oldgroaner]

Because the EU have spelt it out that we can't have our cake and eat it. Meaning we can't stay in the CU and SM and have independent trading agreements duplicating the EU ones with a choice of either path.

Faced with that impasse TM and co are choosing independence over security. I think they are in for a nasty shock when the cost of that is learnt, as are all of us.
.

That is all the more reason that voices should be raised in protest, along the lines of "deliver on your promises or cancel the whole deal"

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

 

[oldgroaner]

And just what is it about a"soft' Brexit that makes it worth while?
Protection of offshore tax havens?
We were promised access to both things, anything less should lead to cancellation as unfit for purpose, not as advertised.

not so much the cost as it is impossible to have the benefits without being a member, otherwise Japanese and American companies would not have setup factories here. Something has to give. I am happy with a soft brexit.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

 

[flecc]

I am happy with a soft brexit.

Better than a hard Brexit, but still worse than what we had.

This whole matter is a big self inflicted injury, little wonder most other EU members view what we are doing with disbelief.
.