A hard Brexit is not our National Health Service's biggest threat. The Tories are.
News outlets continue to be awash with coverage over Donald Trump’s – now U-turned – insistence that the NHS and all other sectors of the UK’s economy could be up for negotiation and potential access in a free trade deal with the US.
As a result, there has been an overly simplistic trend in the coverage and assessment – both in the mainstream media and on social media – of to what extent a trade deal with the US would subject the NHS to the risk of being privatised. The Twittersphere is awash with #FBPE accounts claiming that those who voted Leave ought to be the first to have to pay for their healthcare. In the majority of these tweets it is taken for granted that the NHS will inevitably be privatised because of Brexit, no matter how “soft” or “hard” said Brexit is.
At the same time, even those who are slightly less zealous in their ideological purity and attempts to have the UK remain in the EU lock stock and barrel, continue to repeat the mantra that a hard-Brexit inevitably means the privatisation of the NHS. However, both of these positions are flawed, and it is time they are called out as such. Because their continued repetition does damage to an objective account of how the NHS has been privatised and continues to be privatised whilst we have been, and continue to be, a member state of the European Union.
In short, being in the European Union in no way shape or form guarantees that the NHS cannot be and will not be privatised.
For a start, a “hard” Brexit, understood as the UK leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, does not automatically guarantee the privatisation of the NHS. In fact, a series of experts and expert bodies, the majority of whom are against Brexit, at least have the intellectual honest to recognise that Brexit could in fact afford a British government certain tools with which to renationalise parts of the NHS that it currently cannot as a result of EU competition law. These expert bodies include the Kings Fund, and the British Medical Association.
To be clear, I am not arguing – and neither are they – for Brexit. Nor am I trying to minimise the fact that there is a degree of truth to the argument that the UK trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could incentivise governments to grant greater foreign access to the NHS, in order to entice larger economies such as the US or China, into signing a free trade agreement. The National Health Action Party has pointed this out on a number of occasions in the pages of Left Foot Forward. But what I am arguing, is that there is a real risk that by simply equating Brexit with Trump and therefore the total privatisation of the NHS, that we fail to draw attention to the fact that large parts of the NHS have been privatised, and continue to be privatised, whilst we have been, and currently are, a member state of the EU.
By repeating the simplistic mantra of Brexit = privatisation it is clear that those who are actually responsible for the privatisation of the NHS, both past and present, are benefiting from this simplification. In some cases, it is allowing those who actively privatising the health service to pose as its the saviour. A case in point being Health Secretary, and Tory leadership candidate, Matt Hancock. Only recently the Daily Mail – admittedly hardly a bastion of objective news coverage – wrote a fawning article covering Matt Hancock’s response to the affair. The article being entitled, ‘”The NHS is Not for Sale”: Health Secretary hits back after US Ambassador says healthcare should be on the table in any transatlantic post-Brexit trade talks’.
This gross simplification allows politicians such as Hunt and Hancock, both of whom want to be the next Prime Minister, a free pass to paint the privatisation of the NHS as something which happens, or could happen, purely from the intervention of the external or the foreign. It occludes, or at the very least, it fails to direct attention to where it should be.
For example, our current Health Secretary has appeared in advertorials – paid for by a private company – to promote the rollout and uptake of that company’s app (GP at Hand) across the NHS. An app which is currently undermining the financial foundations of general practice; leads to the cherry picking of patients; and has resulted in already cash strapped Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) across London having to bail out Hammersmith and Fulham CCG where the app is registered, to the tunes of millions. In fact, it now looks like local services could close as a result of the app. And still, the Health Secretary refuses to release funding to alleviate the deficit the app is causing.
Where’s the outrage about this? Why aren’t people writing about this on Twitter? If they care so much, then where are the protests against this? It’s hardly news, the National Health Action Party and others have been writing about these issues for months! The same goes for Jeremy Hunt.
During his time as Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt was aided and abetted by the Chief Executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens, who incidentally before coming into the post worked as a lobbyist for an American healthcare company and actively sought to privatise the NHS through the now defunct EU-US TTIP trade deal, to Americanise the NHS from top to bottom. I am referring of course to the attempts to rollout Accountable Care Organisations (ACOs) across England. These models of delivering healthcare, now rebranded at Integrated Care Systems, represent the total privatisation of the NHS, and guess what? They’re being rolled out as we speak, in plain view, in a process which began in 2016, whilst we were a member of the EU, and currently remain one.
The biggest threat to the NHS is not some ginger haired, foul tempered president, as unsavoury an individual he may be. The biggest threat to our NHS resides on the benches of the House of Commons. They sit under the respective banners of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.
In sum, none of this is to argue that citizens should not be concerned about the impact a hard Brexit could have on the NHS. However, we do the NHS a disservice when we make out that a hard Brexit is the biggest threat facing the service when it is literally being privatised beyond recognition whilst we are members of the EU.
Ultimately, the responsibility and the power to fight for a fully funded NHS lays in the hands of the people, we can’t delegate our responsibilities to fight for what represents the very best of this country, to a foreign trading bloc – a bloc it is worth noting that hardly has a squeakyclean record of its own when it comes promoting free marketisation within public services.
Kane Shaw is Press Officer to the National Health Action Party.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
7 Responses to “It is time people got real on the EU and the NHS”
Two Right Feet
Have you ever considered that the biggest threat to the NHS is actually the one organisation that British voters have little or no control over? That being the EU if we were to remain in it. But but I hear you squeal…
Well have you ever wondered what will happen when the creeping sovereignty grab that underpins Brussels precious project gets around to ‘harmonising’ Health provision across the continent? Would Brussels choose the creaking crumbling monolithic resource greedy model of the NHS that according to the left is virtually always in crisis (and has been for 40 years) or will the powers that be in Paris and Berlin demand an insurance based model based on their seemingly better performing mixed systems? it a no brainer who Brussels will side with.
Don’t think the UK could veto it either because Blair and Brown negotiated away virtually all our vetoes when they signed up to Lisbon.
Its one of the reasons why ‘No Deal’ despite its obvious short term difficulties is a far better option than remaining ever would be in the medium to long term.
I think it might be an idea not to conflate Brexit with Tory bashing. There’s plenty of time for that once we leave the EU.
Patrick Newman
Dont be daft. A hard Brexit will leave us at the mercy of the USA and the voracious drug companies. If the EU did try to force a form of organising how we deliver health that would be an excellent reason for having a referendum – not some bungled negotiations by that wally Cameron!
Chester Draws
Patrick, there are countries outside the EU who manage to not be a the mercy of the USA and its “voracious” drug companies.
Canada, right on the US border, has socialised medicine. So does Australia. New Zealand. Actually, most of the world. How do they all manage, you should ask yourself.
Janet Marks
Two Right Feet – I suppose the clue is in your ‘handle’….? Must be awkward living with 2 right feet and a fantasy about the EU. Keeping it simple, I’m with Patrick Newman – if we have to be attached to a trading bloc (and we do these days, because we aren’t a global empire/commonwealth any more), then I’d rather be in Europe than in with the USA. There are always going to be compromises, and a ‘No Deal’ decision will not give us short term ‘difficulties’. Its going to be hard enough rebuilding trust in our country as a safe place to invest. Have you looked at how Portugal, with its Socialist govt, is doing these days, inside the EU?
Tom Sacold
Meanwhile in Peterborough our Labour Party swap a convicted criminal for a antisemite. Nice one !!!