UK's chief medical officer worried about ability to provide health care in event of no deal brexit

[StealthPolarBear]

There is a link on twitter. This is suddenly seeming very real.

Let's hope enough MPs get the shit frightened out of them to vote WA. If I had to chose between that and No Deal, I as a Remain voter would vote WA. We're leaving so let's leave in the least worst way possible.

Project Fear becoming Project Reality.

Although, there are still many people in social media advocating for a "No Deal"

Has anyone seen .surfer? Last time she posted on these boards, she was extolling the virtues of No Deal and saying that literally nothing anyone said would make her change her mind.

Surfer appeared yesterday.

6 million will be 'lost' I reckon. Messy.
researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8397#fullreport

That’s a bit funny given that the NHS already fails to provide adequate healthcare. Must be very bad.

Racecardriver in what way does the NHS fail to provide adequate care ? Are you talking about the whole of the NHS or just certain areas ?

It’s true that in some specialities (eg mental health) and in some areas (eg rural) NHS services are not adequate.
Brexit will simply make everything worse. A no deal Brexit, catastrophically worse.

I as a Remain voter would vote WA. We're leaving so let's leave in the least worst way possible

Absolutely not, there is not going to be a no-deal.
How can i be so confident?
Easy, having spent so much time and energy on informing us (correctly) what a no deal would mean, esp NI and on security, TM cannot then allow no-deal to happen, she cannot hide behind "oh those nasty MPs didn't support me" because she has choices, an extension to renegotiate ( if she changed her red lines) a revoke, a PV, even a GE.

BUT once her deal is through, that's it, we are leaving and all the WA does is prolong the uncertainty (up to 4 years worth) and we could end up with a no-deal at the end of all that!
Business and talent will continue to leave the UK, we'll carry-on paying in 10s of billions with no say on the rules.

She has no majority and her whole strategy is to scare us all into supporting her deal.
She is nothing more than a playground bully.

Considering the late stage of Brexit process that 'Parliament briefing' is awful.
It is full of if's and maybes and only worthy of a brief mention in a daily rag.
The WA is not a 'deal' at all, but a structured approach to the UK leaving which is essential if the UK is not to collapse. Trade deals of ANY sort take years to discuss and get put into 'law' and leaving with a no deal means NO TRADE essentially for many months (as an emergency measure to prevent starvation) and then years to get written more comprehensively.
A bit like paying half the subs to your gym and being allowed to be in the warm and use some of the facilities but not all.
A no deal scenario puts all the decisions in the EU's hands. Their truck drivers and companies will be free to do whatever is necessary to suit them and although many of their activities are of course a massive help to the UK they can be withdrawn at immediate notice without recourse from the UK.

A 'no deal' means that ALL communications between the UK and EU STOP. No meetings or discussions will be scheduled. Legally I think the UK would have to make diplomatic efforts and request a series of meetings with the EU negotiating team but they are not obliged to attend, although saying that, they would.

@jasjas1973 , I entirely accept that WA is further delay - and no guarantee of stability after the transition period- and that the economically most stable option would be Remain. But that is not going to happen.
However WA gives us the option of something slightly less dreadful than No Deal. I'll take that.

The health secretary said he was now the largest buyer of fridges in the world, but manufacturers are being asked to stockpile medicines, so what do you think the NHS may need to refrigerate?

The fact that the WA is 585 pages long and is only the OUTLINE and not actual details suggests there is a hell of a lot to be discussed.
We are roughly aware of some 760? laws and treaties that will need rewriting, so the WA can only have had less than about half a page just mentioning each one, let alone real legally binding detail. The WA as it stands says something on the lines that things stay as they are (functioning) until the various aspects are dismantled and rewritten in a 'controlled' manner. The UK is of course paying for this 'normality' which is only fair as until treaties are rewritten and come into effect the UK is benefiting.

{so what do you think the NHS may need to refrigerate?}
I would guess some of the stock that manufacturers are stockpiling, possibly on the manufacturers premises but also at NHS facilities as transportation may be more 'patchy' and deliveries may become every two or three days rather than every day.
There was mention of a search for 7 mass grave sites a few months back. What sort of fridges are they?

All scare mongering, a Government that would deliberately and without good cause, play russian roulette with our lives? will never ever happen.
Are people going to just accept limited flights, food, medicines, people dying etc etc no, of course not and we do not have the numbers in the forces and Police to control rioting and strikes.

As one of the worlds largest employers and health service, unless we know what the Gov/NHS normally spends on fridges and given the Government's own manipulation on figures ie inc Student loans and private school fees in total education spending..... i would take Hancocks word with as much seriousness as Hancocks Half Hour!

I was watching the 'story' of the disaster at Pearl Harbour last night and the upshot was that if the Commander in Pearl Harbour had received even one out of 3 possible bits of information that had failed to reach him say literally 45 minutes earlier, the whole course of WW2 would have been different. One piece of information should have come from the President of the USA himself.

No, people wouldn't just accept it, they'd turn on the Government with a vengeance.

Politicians are held accountable in this country and they could not justify a no-deal disaster, having months in advance predicted it.

Are people going to just accept limited flights, food, medicines, people dying etc etc

Leave voters will because apparently all Leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for

{Are people going to just accept limited flights, food, medicines, people dying etc etc}
At present showing I would say yes they will accept it.
I am categorically not suggesting direct action but ALL the MPs offices should have pickets outside them so they are in no doubt about what the 'people' want. Continual barrage of letters and so on.
BoJo was so principled that he said he would lie down in front of the bulldozers and vote to stop the extra runway at Heathrow, but when it came down to it he had a hair appointment in some far off country to go to.

I think people will accept it too. We will tut and moan on social media and get into long queues for items that become critically short. We will be too busy surviving to riot. Apart from some anarchist types, I don't think we even know how to conduct civil unrest here.

All scare mongering, a Government that would deliberately and without good cause, play russian roulette with our lives? will never ever happen

Ahahahaha

Why yes, yes they will.

{All scare mongering, a Government that would deliberately and without good cause, play russian roulette with our lives? will never ever happen}
All governments that have taken their country to war have 'gambled' on their citizens lives as the outcome is rarely known in advance.
Although it would not be discussed in open debate but all actions a government takes will have been 'evaluated' in terms of casualties and lives lost. We see the very tip of the iceberg when companies make 'risk assessments' but at other levels projected casualty rates are 'guessed'. In the armed forces, the 'chiefs' estimate how many will be killed or seriously wounded in any particular campaign.

I was watching the 'story' of the disaster at Pearl Harbour last night and the upshot was that if the Commander in Pearl Harbour had received even one out of 3 possible bits of information that had failed to reach him say literally 45 minutes earlier, the whole course of WW2 would have been different. One piece of information should have come from the President of the USA himself.

There is a persistent rumour (and I hope for any Brits sake, it is a rumour) that Britain deliberately concealed knowledge of the Japanese attack to ensure US entry into the war. We need to remember that any Japanese ambitions would have impacted greatly on the bits of Empire now long-forgotten (well, by Brits), so a working knowledge of Japanese naval codes would hardly be surprising.

That said, it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to have suspected a Japanese attack on US naval power ... they weren't particularly subtle about it. Keeping the US out of the area was the only way they could attack China, which was their long-held goal.