Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Good to see Wavy Dave going cap in hand to Angie asking to help in solving his problems at home.

What a creep.

Also, see he is going house to house around Europe, not sure if his passport is order, or if he has to kneel in order to be let in.

Also, I hope he has medical insurance, just he has the fortune to have a heart attack.

=-=-

Angela Merkel: David Cameron's demands for EU reform 'not impossible'

Germany Chancellor meets with the Prime Minister to discuss EU reform but Polish counterpart says he 'won't get far'




By Matthew Holehouse, Political Correspondent, in Berlin

12:56PM BST 29 May 2015

Follow





Angela Merkel has handed David Cameron’s bid to reform the EU a major boost, saying that treaty change is not “impossible” and that the rules on migrants’ access to benefits can be reformed.


Following talks with Mr Cameron in Berlin, the German Chancellor said that European leaders “cannot say that treaty change is total impossibility”.



The Prime Minister is demanding major changes to Britain’s relationship with Brussels before the in-out referendum he has promised to hold by the end of 2017.


At the centre of the plan is a pledge to ban EU migrants from claiming in-work benefits for four years, in the hope that remove the state subsidy for low-paid work cuts migration.

He insists full treaty change is needed to secure the reforms – opposed by many other leaders, in part because it could trigger a round of referendums in other states to ratify it.

The remarks were a positive end to Mr Cameron’s rocky two-day tour of Europe to sell his reform package, which took in four capitals and three servings of strawberries. He wants to speak to every EU leader before a summit in Brussels next month.


They came hours after Poland rejected Mr Cameron’s benefit plans as a “definite no”.

However, Germany wants to make it harder for migrants to claim from its own system, and Mrs Merkel said she is closely watching rulings from the European Court of Justice, the EU’s referee.

She said European leaders must look carefully at Mr Cameron’s demands before ruling out treaty change.

“Where there's a will, there's a way,” she said.

"I will go into these discussions constructively. I want to find a solution.”


“Of course, when you are convinced of an idea you cannot say that treaty change is a total impossibility.”

She said that the EU is “not a social union” and the level of benefits “vary starkly”. “We have strike a fair balance with social benefits,” she said.

Mr Cameron said he was “very heartened” by her remarks.


He said that Europe needs “the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc”, and said his counterparts must not be “frightened” of a looser arrangement.

Mrs Merkel recognised Mr Cameron’s election victory by rolling out the red carpet. He was greeted at the Federal Chancellery by an honour guard comprising of a marching band, which played the British and German national anthems, and a large detachment of sailors.


Earlier in the morning, Poland’s Prime Minister told Mr Cameron she would fight his benefit plans. They have caused outrage among politicians who vow to defend the “rights” of their expatriates, many of whom send their earnings back home

Over a breakfast of smoked trout and strawberry salad at the Palace on the Water in Warsaw, Ewa Kopacz told Mr Cameron she is “strongly opposed measures that may lead to discrimination against Poles and other EU citizens seeking legal employment in the UK.”

“She defended one of the fundamental rights on which the EU common market is based,” he office said.

Mr Cameron reassured Mrs Kopacz he was “committed to respect the principle of free movement”, a No 10 spokesman said.

“They agreed that there were issues concerning the interaction between free movement and national welfare systems that should be discussed further."


The news served by Francois Hollande the previous evening alongside lobster and turbot had been no more appetising, according to those present.

A French source at the Elysee Palace dinner said Mr Cameron’s welfare plans would be difficult for many EU countries to accept.

A No 10 source acknowledged the difficulty of the meeting, saying there will be "a lot to work through but there was a clear willingness to talk further".

George Osborne, the Chancellor, dismissed the protests from some capitals as bluster.

"Whatever public positions you hear people in Europe take, what I detect is a real willingness now to negotiate,” he said.

Mr Hollande made a point of telling reporters that Mr Cameron had only shared “some” of his reform ideas, and he expected to hear more in due course.

The tour was begun with a lunch of lemon sole with Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister, on Thursday. Mr Cameron hailed the Netherlands as an “old friend” and a “like-minded ally”.

Merkel doesn't want us to leave the EU and looks like being helpful in getting the changes we want.

LOL!

So Bitter Red Fred! So Bitter.... Shame :0)

Elderly face NHS discrimination under new UN death targets

Elderly people will be treated like second-class citizens and denied medical care under new targets which give priority to saving the lives of young people



By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor

12:01AM BST 29 May 2015


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/11637179/Elderly-face-NHS-discrimination-under-new-UN-death-targets.html


The NHS will be forced to discriminate against the over 70s to meet ‘highly unethical’ UN health targets which seek to reduce premature deaths in younger people, senior medics have warned.


Under the proposed Sustainable Development Goals, UN member states must cut the number of deaths from diseases like cancer, stroke, diabetes and dementia by one third by 2030.


However because many are age-related illnesses people who succumb to those diseases from the age of 70 are not deemed to have died prematurely and so are not included in the target.


In an open letter published in The Lancet, an international group of ageing specialists say the new guideline sends out the message that health provision for younger groups must be prioritised at the expense of older people.


Prof Peter Lloyd-Sherlock, professor of social policy and international development at the University of East Anglia, and lead author of the letter, said: “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people.

“We already know that there is age discrimination in cancer care and surgery and these targets give that the stamp of approval.

“The targets are not quite set in stone yet, so we have a final opportunity to impress upon the UN the need to alter this explicitly ageist health target.

“If this doesn’t happen, people aged 70 and over will become second-class citizens as far as health policy is concerned.”

The letter warns that the UN target: “has the potential to undermine cherished, fundamental principles of universality and health as a right for all.”

“Put simply, it tells policy makers, particularly in poorer countries that older people do not matter,” the signatories warn.


Others who have signed include ageing experts from The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Institute for Ageing and Health at Newcastle University as well as representatives of The Alzheimer’s Society, Age UK, and HelpAge International.

Baroness Sally Greengross, former director of Age Concern England who also signed the letter said: "If adopted, this UN target could lead to institutionalised discrimination against older people in health care, both here in the UK and globally.

“This target will inevitably reinforce the ageist bias that pervades many aspects of health care decision-making.”

The Sustainable Development Goals which are due to come into effect later this year, replace the Millenium Development Goals which ran up to 2015 and include ambitions for climate change, health care, development and policy.

If the target was met, around 42,000 lives would be saved each year for the under 70s. However if older people were included in the target an extra 130,000 lives would be saved.

Although the guidelines are not binding, health experts warn that the UN is likely to take a dim view of countries who fail to comply.

Last year the Royal College of Surgeons warned that elderly people are being denied life-saving operations because of age discrimination within the NHS.


It is illegal to discriminate against elderly people, but charities say it still happens in the NHS

Data released for the first time showed that across large areas of the country, almost no patients above the age of 75 are receiving surgery for breast cancer or routine operations such as gall bladder removal and knee replacements.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), was also criticised for attempting to change its funding criteria to take into account "wider societal benefits" when deciding on whether to fund drugs.

Health experts branded the move ‘deeply suspect’ and said the elderly, may lose out because they do not contribute as much to society as younger people.

Tom Gentry, policy advisor at AgeUK said that people were living far longer than in the past, with even the average 70-year-old expected to live for at least another decade.

“We know that access to surgery is getting worse for older people, and yet we are talking about people who still have years left to live,” he said.

“We need to improve. We are fighting entrenched cultural attitudes about the value of older people and this target will not help that.”

In 2013, the Government introduced age discrimination laws which mean patients should not be denied procedures on grounds of age. Doctors are supposed to assess patients based on their fitness for an operation, and likely benefit from it.

A spokesman for the Department of health said: “It is wrong to deny people treatment just because of their age, which is why we made it illegal.

“Decisions on care should only ever be based on clinical need.”



Further reading:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10942295/NHS-defies-the-law-to-deny-pensioners-vital-operations-warns-Royal-College-of-Surgeons.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9165629/Elderly-dying-due-to-despicable-age-discrimination-in-NHS.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/10279143/Lives-of-elderly-at-mercy-of-postcode-lottery-in-ageist-NHS-figures-suggest.html

This choosing treatment due to age has been going on for years under several governments. It is inevitable that limited resources have to distributed according to some system. Age and possible outcome have always been the most common methods.

Yes Haystack, needs must etc.

But what is the UN doing poking it nose in?

fred - you're beginning to sound as if you admit that DC may indeed get some decent concessions out of eu
if he does, you'll pour scorn on any success ..... and of course pour scorn should he not succeed

nurse, nurse ... please be on standby with the hypodermic

Perhaps, the con party to hire Blatter as a helper for Lynton Crosby when it comes to the referendum. Birds of a feather come home together at No 10.

So it looks like the elderly, unlike murderers, rapists etc etc do not have 'A Right To A Life'
H your post 60542 in your dreams re being helpful. Of course they don't want us to leave they will miss our contributions.
2517

Manuel,

You are being as daft as usual.

=-=-=-=-=-

All dynamic organisation need "careful" examination of its workings, laws, rules and regulations etc. regularly, and the consequences of those, which produce unwanted, or previously unforeseen consequences should be modified.

Normal for a civilised society, but those changes have to be subservient to needs and of the whole, not some little man doing it for personal, or small minded party political reasons.

The changes Cameron will get and then bluster about, could be gained at less cost by normal negotiation within the EU. He is wasting tax payers money on a referrendum for party politic reasons.

Some modification of immigration responsibilities are probably reasonable, as well as in other areas.

Integration of Political policies, Defence and Fiscal and Financial and Taxation rules and other areas, will occur within the EU, with or without the UK.

I think Cameron is a chancer with respect for his own needs and desires but not those of the total he is supposed to represent.

Another point is, whatever he seems to get after his attempts to bully, bluster or bribe from the “said negotiations” and then sell to the UK public, the changes will never be enough for the loony right wing of the tory party. Many of whom want out of the EU, for reasons, which I suspect, are not the ones they are giving.

-=-=-=-=-

Also, many of the EU countries have elections coming up and they have their own versions of the loony right and UKIP and the last thing they need is opening up of basic treaty revision.

Cameron, might be shooting his own foot off

i happen to disagree

being frightfully nice to those in strasbourg gets you absolutely nowhere ..... standing up and fighting hard and with a potential weapon in hand is far more likely to succeed ..... as MrsT showed, it isn't meant to be a popularity contest
sure as hell DC won't get anything like the published aims, but some decent moves and concessions will be well worth the fight

labour would have done absolutely nothing to get better terms and just rolled over as history shows was the inclination
do you not find it now strange that labour are suddenly supporting the idea of a referendum, having vehemently opposed this only a few weeks ago?

btw, i think several of the other eu countries will be delighted at DC's efforts and will be more than happy to hang on to his coattails to get changes which so many think are most definitely required .... it will very much suit their own agendas of staying in power and, incidentally of course, will reflect at least to some degree the wishes of a high proportion of their populace

Even Merkel is under pressure at home for treaty changes. She operated in a coalition with pressures from all sides. There has been much muttering of late from the population and coalition partners about immigration. Germany takes the bulk, by a log way, of asylum seekers and immigrants.

Manuel,

You are entitled to disagree.

I often think of you as someone who wants to be another bruiser.
Personally, I have never seen the effects of coercion leading to long-term mutual gain for both parties.

Generally, it seems to lead to resentment, ill feelings and lack of long-term co-operation.

The UK is no longer a driving force in Europe that it thinks it is, or maybe once though it was. It is being gradually emasculate and sidelined by its own follies.
Labour "accepting" of the “referendum” is "interesting", but may be accepting the inevitable, or as I suspect more devious.

Over the recent years, Labour seem to be in favour of remaining in the EU and have always been more internationalist than the piratical reactionary tories.
I have a guess that the arguments over “in” or “out” by the Tory “Neo-cons” and “Wets” may be quite heated and revealing to the public, which appeals to the labour party who themselves are in disarray.

But your last sentence reminds me of the eldest child in a family who is reluctant to relinquish the first-born automatically assumed “authority” and “superiority” when relating to sibling and others.

It seems similar to “elitism” with the “expectancy” to lead and rule.

I often think of you as someone who wants to be another bruiser.
Personally, I have never seen the effects of coercion leading to long-term mutual gain for both parties.

but you think it perfectly acceptable for the militant unions to take this stance
not very consistent are you

==============

DC has always stated that he is in favour of staying within eu, though assuredly not in its present format and becoming worse (ever more federal)
however, he accepted a little while back that, with good reason, a significant proportion of the populace will need some persuasion

labour stuck its head in the sand on this issue and also on immigration (as directed by the militant unions), and paid the penalty

however, i am pretty sure that the final count will show in favour of staying in

Once again Labour have shown themselves to be hypocrites. They were fundamentally opposed to a referendum and would only have one if there were adverse changes to the rules. They have now said that they support a vote. The reason they now give is that they can see that the public want a vote. Never mind sticking to your beliefs, just change your views to fit in with public opinion. Labour are worried about being on the wrong side of history again.

.

I think every person has a right to withdraw his labour when he/she "feels" or "knows" he/she is being abused.

Perhaps, the seen "abusers" will take into consideration the consequences of their approaches.

I don't think that one has the right to "physically" or "verbally" to "knowingly" abuse another party.

Also, I think if one is "abused" physically it is acceptable to respond like ways in order to stop the "assault".

If you look back you will see my view of "militancy" and the period.

Also, I related that my own father who was a colliery manager only had one strike in a 28 year period and that was one half day on a Christmas Eve.

He informed the employees of what change were being made and why and then circumvented problems before they arose, i.e., he foresaw, noted and informed and worked with the union representatives.

He thought that was what management was.

==-=-===-=

Dodgy Dave's changes are likely to be just lipstick presented as a success.

(He doesn't wish to leave the EU, but the referendum might come back to bite his arse.)


Immigration, there has been a tory government in all but name for 5 years during which period they have achieved nothing. If they hadn't scrapped the "ID card" proposal, the major problems of "false" claims may have been addressed.

Also, the cost of addressing free movement across borders in the EU will probably be down to the UK. The land borders in the rest of Europe are not usually monitored due to costs.

Airports and even sea ports a slightly different situation due to dangers of terrorism.

=====

Wonder why they scrapped it. I hope it wasn't down to collating "bank accounts" and
transfer of money.
===

Ps.

I didn't see the directive of the Unions.

Did you see the directives of the tory party donors of what they wanted for their money (bribes) or the help they needed with their tax returns?


Interesting, to watch Cameron being hoisted by his bribes and false promises and forthcoming U-bend u-turns.

I think every person has a right to withdraw his labour

i don't at all disagree, with the emphasis being on the person, and not the collective coercion to strike or else
i know from first hand that when a strike was threatened at BA, any personnel who did not agree with this action came under massive union pressure to stay in line
i can't remember the exact wording of the new rules, but they seemed very fair to me and are assuredly designed to remove (coercive) power from the activists and militants

i also think it is absolutely right that a union member should now have to actively opt IN to a specific political party donation