They should not have anything to do with it .
In other countries you or your relative are steered to wards a pay desk as you arrive at the hospital for your payment details .
2 Likes
I agree wendeey. I can only speak of my own experiences but as a retired teacher I am in contact with many of my ex pupils. Those who went on to university are faring well with excellent career prospects and homes of their own. In fact my own grandson and his wife both went to university and now, at the age of 30, they each have fulfilling careers and have their own home (they acquired a mortgage a few years ago and bought a semi, they are now looking to upgrade to a larger house). My grandson and his wife attained this through their own hard work without assistance from their parents (or grandparents!).
1 Like
We are talking about today 2023 and the benefits of Brexit .
How do your grandchildren going to university what 10 years ago ? Qualify as a Briexit benefit ?
3 Likes
It was you who dragged the conversation away. The Brexit benefit is that we don’t have to abide by EU rules anymore which was preventing us from building more houses.
1 Like
Yup I know, but you try telling Lincolnshire that.
Brexit happened 7 years ago so I would suggest that what has happened to the young people I have mentioned has occurred since then. Young people don’t leave university and jump straight into home ownership, they work hard and save - all done after Brexit despite the doom merchants predicting otherwise! They also had to cope with the pandemic during this time. You seem to have very little faith in what our young folks are capable of achieving!
1 Like
Can you tell me how exactly building 100,000 houses is a Brexit benefit ?
2 Likes
See my post to you 2094.
We wont be here in 2094 
1 Like
It’s part of the EU biodiversity and protect policy. It was introduced as EU Natura 2000 and the Birds and Habitats Directive.
Brexit doesn’t mean dirty rivers at all, it’s quite a strange conclusion you’re making. Rivers haven’t been dredged for decades because of these EU policies, contributing directly to flooding and silted up waterways, stagnating rivers and harming the environment.
As for the banks, that was the failure of them to ring fence high risk lending from retail banking. It happened under a labour government as I recall, it was Gordon Brown who failed to intervene when he was chancellor and failed further when he was prime minister. As usual it was the Conservatives who were left to sort out the mess when Labour ran out of money and bankrupted the economy.
2 Likes
Removing EU red tape over nutrient neutrality which holds up planning applications to build houses.
3 Likes
Thank you for making it clear. Then the doctors (if its a local medical practice) should not get reimbursed for that treatment. Hospitals (if its an NHS practice) should not get reimbursed for that treatment. The “not reimbursed” is a government decision. How clear is that?
Funnily enough, however, the simple event of leaving the EU meant that English private water companies felt enabled to ignore EU legislation on waste water. And now the government decided that not needed to adhere to EU standards means that building site waste water can also be poured into rivers. So Brexit does mean dirty rivers. Specifically Brexit.
Yes, but the government financial policy is to reduce the EU standard for ringfencing retail operations. So this post Brexit tory government want to shelf sensible regulations.
(PS it was Brown who saved the UK banking system in 2008, in case you forgot)
We don’t want more houses built near waterways it’s environmentally wrong .
1 Like
Gawd, can you twist the logic further? The rules (shaped, approved and signed off by the UK when the UK was in the EU - so not alien EU rules but UK rules) did not prevent house building. They prevented pollution from construction.
I’m going to make a comparison - which I know you struggle with. So I’ll make it super simple and clear. There are UK and EU based rules on site safety for construction. They are there to protect workers, not to stop building. It is not possible to claim “the EU are stopping house building because of safety rules”. Some construction companies dislike some of the safety rules because they add cost. No-one says - the EU are making houses more expensive. Everyone says - its good that there are safety rules to stop construction companies cutting corners and endangering people’s lives.
Or do you prefer to endanger people’s lives? Was that a slogan on a bus?
1 Like
Oh gawd the rubbish you come out with. The article I posted couldn’t make it any clearer.
It’s got nothing to do with building houses near waterways and as we live on an island we all live near waterways, even those furthest away from a waterway need to get rid of sewerage from their houses.
What on earth are you going on about now, the legislation they’re getting rid of has nothing whatsoever to do with the workers. Talk about distraction tactics.