Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

fash

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but how do you hide this information from the people who constitute the NHS, journalists, regulators, civil servants and politicians? It only takes one whistleblower to alert the public to the whole thing.

"Earlier access to novel drugs and treatments", "new private hospitals to reduce wait times", "outsourcing X to improve efficiency and reduce wait times" etc

ancapailldorcha

fash wrote: »

"Earlier access to novel drugs and treatments", "new private hospitals to reduce wait times", "outsourcing X to improve efficiency and reduce wait times" etc

Until reality bites and now scans take several times longer due to corner cutting and much fewer people can avail of treatment. It's a project that's doomed to fail and fail badly.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but how do you hide this information from the people who constitute the NHS, journalists, regulators, civil servants and politicians? It only takes one whistleblower to alert the public to the whole thing.

How did they keep the ignoring of care homes from the public since February despite so many coming out and saying it?

Because there are plenty of people willing to follow the government line and spout half truths and twist things so that it is very difficult to find the reality. And without hard evidence then it is very difficult for anyone to shout able the government.

Corbyn produced a raft of documents prior to the recent GE purporting to show that the sale of parts of the NHS was very much on the table. These were simply dismissed as a political ploy and basically dropped pretty soon after.

Liam Fox announced a number of trade deals which were claimed to be a get result when in most cases, they were at best a continuation of what the UK already had and in certain cases were actually worse. But they were sold as a result and that is what most people will remember.

Nody

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but how do you hide this information from the people who constitute the NHS, journalists, regulators, civil servants and politicians? It only takes one whistleblower to alert the public to the whole thing.

They don't hide it; it will be lauded as NHS getting access to more competitive drugs faster (the fact the prices will go up is not mentioned in the FTA), it will be lauded with enabling UK farmers to get more competitive on the global market (we've already seen the vote on adding to the law of not lowering today's standard which tories voted down) etc. A lot of the stuff will not even necessary sit in the FTA agreement itself (which will cover the tariffs etc.) but in the lofty "working on reducing the administration in areas xyz" etc. which comes down to changing how things are done. NHS will have to take in US companies in the bid to "provide better service and latest technology", to "reduce the time spent on administration to focus on delivering world class healthcare" etc. All fancy ways to say we outsource stuff and force NHS to pay more for it but you'll never find that called out in any FTA text and things that as you say will fall down but it will take a decade or two to really show. There will of course be further scandals and the government will "promise to take steps to make sure it does not happen again" but in reality by then it's the new normal and not going away. NHS will be gutted and sold out piece meal and be left with an underfunded carcass of itself to service those to poor to get a "proper" private insurance that lets them skip the public queues; and people will bitch and moan about it but I'll promise you now no one will remember to connect it to Boris and Brexit in a decades time.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

How did they keep the ignoring of care homes from the public since February despite so many coming out and saying it?

Because there are plenty of people willing to follow the government line and spout half truths and twist things so that it is very difficult to find the reality. And without hard evidence then it is very difficult for anyone to shout able the government.

Care homes are not remotely the same thing. The NHS has a special place in the British public's heart that no other organisation, group or institution enjoys.

Leroy42 wrote: »

There will always be people who will just blindly accept whatever the government says just as there'll always be skeptics. Cancer treatment becoming inaccessible due to the greed of US corporations makes for some pretty bad headlines. Elderly people rotting in care homes is just de rigeur.

Corbyn produced a raft of documents prior to the recent GE purporting to show that the sale of parts of the NHS was very much on the table. These were simply dismissed as a political ploy and basically dropped pretty soon after.

True but now we have a functioning opposition. Being on the table doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to happen by any stretch.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Liam Fox announced a number of trade deals which were claimed to be a get result when in most cases, they were at best a continuation of what the UK already had and in certain cases were actually worse. But they were sold as a result and that is what most people will remember.

They don't care. People wanted to leave. Trade was just a way to avoid sounding clueless. I'd be surprised if any of the 17.4 million had bothered to check the details of any of these deals.

fash

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Until reality bites and now scans take several times longer due to corner cutting and much fewer people can avail of treatment. It's a project that's doomed to fail and fail badly.

The more grim realities of brexit haven't yet happened - yet they've gotten away with that too. Visible consequences can take years to become visible and can be blamed on the nearest convenient scapegoat.

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

They don't hide it; it will be lauded as NHS getting access to more competitive drugs faster (the fact the prices will go up is not mentioned in the FTA), it will be lauded with enabling UK farmers to get more competitive on the global market (we've already seen the vote on adding to the law of not lowering today's standard which tories voted down) etc. A lot of the stuff will not even necessary sit in the FTA agreement itself (which will cover the tariffs etc.) but in the lofty "working on reducing the administration in areas xyz" etc. which comes down to changing how things are done. NHS will have to take in US companies in the bid to "provide better service and latest technology", to "reduce the time spent on administration to focus on delivering world class healthcare" etc. All fancy ways to say we outsource stuff and force NHS to pay more for it but you'll never find that called out in any FTA text and things that as you say will fall down but it will take a decade or two to really show. There will of course be further scandals and the government will "promise to take steps to make sure it does not happen again" but in reality by then it's the new normal and not going away. NHS will be gutted and sold out piece meal and be left with an underfunded carcass of itself to service those to poor to get a "proper" private insurance that lets them skip the public queues; and people will bitch and moan about it but I'll promise you now no one will remember to connect it to Boris and Brexit in a decades time.

I don't think you're getting my point. How it's sold matters not. What matters are the tangible effects.

Farmers are going to notice their circumstances change for the worse. Cancer patients who are denied healthcare are going to notice. The government is simply not skillful enough to sneak this stuff through. It'll get torn apart in the Commons if nothing else.

J Mysterio

Shelga wrote: »

Just reading this article makes my head hurt: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/uk-confirms-high-tariffs-for-irish-food-exports-if-brexit-trade-talks-fail-1.4257533

Why on earth are they doing this again? Why would you start a fight with your neighbours for absolutely nothing?

Good job the UK has enough production to cover all its own food needs then isn't it?

What? You mean they will still have to import our beef so they can eat? Ok.

Joe_ Public

I recall this report being published a couple of years back, by the right wing US Cato/Koch thinktank with the help of one Danny Hannan. It suggests they'll play it cautiously initially, test the waters in other areas and then gradually go after the big prize - healthcare. I agree with others - it will be done slowly and with nuance, in a creeping like fashion.

- "As for other services areas, health services are an area where both sides would benefit from openness to foreign competition, although we recognize any changes to existing regulations will be extremely controversial. Perhaps, then, for other areas the initial focus should be on other fields such as education or legal services, where negotiators can test the waters and see what is possible. That said, we would envisage a swift, time‐​tabled implementation of recognition across all areas within 5 years."

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

Good job the UK has enough production to cover all its own food needs then isn't it?

What? You mean they will still have to import our beef so they can eat? Ok.

They might go vegan. As plausible as any other Brexiteer plan.

Nody

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Farmers are going to notice their circumstances change for the worse. Cancer patients who are denied healthcare are going to notice. The government is simply not skillful enough to sneak this stuff through. It'll get torn apart in the Commons if nothing else.

You mean the same farmers who all voted Tories who voted in not to protect today's standards? If Brexit has shown anything is that the the politicians in Commons stand by party first, second and third and way down the list sits the actual concerns of the people who voted them in. And the voters have reinforced that fact by voting out anyone who went against the party whip as being a "traitor" etc. I think you are greatly overestimating how Commons will act; esp. with the lack of a proper opposition to threaten the government for at least a couple of years if not longer once the party whips starts swinging. I expect some grand standing and great flowery talks about NHS and "protecting our farmers" but once the vote comes that will mean nothing because the party tells them how to vote.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think you're getting my point. How it's sold matters not. What matters are the tangible effects.

Farmers are going to notice their circumstances change for the worse. Cancer patients who are denied healthcare are going to notice. The government is simply not skillful enough to sneak this stuff through. It'll get torn apart in the Commons if nothing else.

I do get your point, and I would be of the view that normally that should be the case.

And yet the UK is currently hurtling towards a No Deal Brexit, so unfortunately the HoC cannot tear anything apart if the government have sufficient numbers.

Will it make things uncomfortable, yeah, but we have seen plenty of examples where they will just brazen it out and then claim that Starmer, or the SNP or whomever, is just anti-Brexit Remoaner with no belief in global Britain.

We don't need to wonder how they will do it, we have already seen it played out aver the last 4 years.

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

You mean the same farmers who all voted Tories who voted in not to protect today's standards? If Brexit has shown anything is that the the politicians in Commons stand by party first, second and third and way down the list sits the actual concerns of the people who voted them in. And the voters have reinforced that fact by voting out anyone who went against the party whip as being a "traitor" etc. I think you are greatly overestimating how Commons will act; esp. with the lack of a proper opposition to threaten the government for at least a couple of years if not longer once the party whips starts swinging. I expect some grand standing and great flowery talks about NHS and "protecting our farmers" but once the vote comes that will mean nothing because the party tells them how to vote.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here to be honest. We don't know what standards will be traded away in any actual trade deal. The new Conservative MP's are nothing like the current batch of businessesmen, landed gentry and token minorities.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do get your point, and I would be of the view that normally that should be the case.

And yet the UK is currently hurtling towards a No Deal Brexit, so unfortunately the HoC cannot tear anything apart if the government have sufficient numbers.

Will it make things uncomfortable, yeah, but we have seen plenty of examples where they will just brazen it out and then claim that Starmer, or the SNP or whomever, is just anti-Brexit Remoaner with no belief in global Britain.

We don't need to wonder how they will do it, we have already seen it played out aver the last 4 years.

We won't know what the UK is hurtling towards until New Year's Eve to be honest. I don't think Johnson himiself cares one way or another for no deal, Norway or selling out to the US.

The Remoaner argument died some time ago. The UK has left. It's a weird sort of Brexiter who is still sticking to that but the country has moved on as far as I can tell. In February, nobody was talking about Brexit. My inclination is Johnson going for some sort of bespoke deal that entails close alignment as much as possible without accepting free movement of people. People will moan about the ECJ or whatever but if he can end free movement, he'll have gutted the heart of the Brexit movement and can get on with governing the country.

Joe_ Public

Nody wrote: »

You mean the same farmers who all voted Tories who voted in not to protect today's standards? If Brexit has shown anything is that the the politicians in Commons stand by party first, second and third and way down the list sits the actual concerns of the people who voted them in. And the voters have reinforced that fact by voting out anyone who went against the party whip as being a "traitor" etc. I think you are greatly overestimating how Commons will act; esp. with the lack of a proper opposition to threaten the government for at least a couple of years if not longer once the party whips starts swinging. I expect some grand standing and great flowery talks about NHS and "protecting our farmers" but once the vote comes that will mean nothing because the party tells them how to vote.

And they certainly told them how to vote last week when defeating an amendment that would have offered reassurance to farmers worried about cheap low standard imports flooding the market from the US. So it seems quite possible they'll sell out uk farmers and lower food quality at the same time they're making big claims about tackling inequality and obesity!

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

You mean the same farmers who all voted Tories who voted in not to protect today's standards? If Brexit has shown anything is that the the politicians in Commons stand by party first, second and third and way down the list sits the actual concerns of the people who voted them in. And the voters have reinforced that fact by voting out anyone who went against the party whip as being a "traitor" etc. I think you are greatly overestimating how Commons will act; esp. with the lack of a proper opposition to threaten the government for at least a couple of years if not longer once the party whips starts swinging. I expect some grand standing and great flowery talks about NHS and "protecting our farmers" but once the vote comes that will mean nothing because the party tells them how to vote.

I get angrier every time I think about the damage those new MP's from the north are doing to their constituents when they just go along with the government. Those Corbynites who religiously stuck by him when it should have been clear he was out of his depth and the 2017 election was such an aberration it just spurred them on. The damage that will happen will have to be shared a little by Labour putting forth Corbyn as a solution when he never was anything other than a principled backbencher and nothing close to a leader that could hold the government to account.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Good job the UK has enough production to cover all its own food needs then isn't it?

What? You mean they will still have to import our beef so they can eat? Ok.

It's fine, we can send our beef to NI before it is exported to the UK. There will be no checks or tariffs imposed that way, at least that seems to be the plan.

So there is nothing stopping farmers in Ireland setting up in Northern Ireland, selling their goods to the NI company, who then sells NI beef to the UK and avoiding the checks, customs and tariffs that would apply to beef from Ireland, right?

I mean we heard a lot about petrol smuggling during the troubles, so does anyone think the farmers will not be able to come up with a solution to avoid what we are told is crippling tariffs for their product that is sold to the UK?

fash

Enzokk wrote: »

I get angrier every time I think about the damage those new MP's from the north are doing to their constituents when they just go along with the government. Those Corbynites who religiously stuck by him when it should have been clear he was out of his depth and the 2017 election was such an aberration it just spurred them on. The damage that will happen will have to be shared a little by Labour putting forth Corbyn as a solution when he never was anything other than a principled backbencher and nothing close to a leader that could hold the government to account.





It's fine, we can send our beef to NI before it is exported to the UK. There will be no checks or tariffs imposed that way, at least that seems to be the plan.

So there is nothing stopping farmers in Ireland setting up in Northern Ireland, selling their goods to the NI company, who then sells NI beef to the UK and avoiding the checks, customs and tariffs that would apply to beef from Ireland, right?

I mean we heard a lot about petrol smuggling during the troubles, so does anyone think the farmers will not be able to come up with a solution to avoid what we are told is crippling tariffs for their product that is sold to the UK?

Perhaps smuggling is the business plan for NI to ensure it remains part of the UK - tricky Brits...

Sam Lowe thinks that from a quick read, they aren't playing serious shenanigans with the NI protocol - which makes a change:
Sam Lowe (@SamuelMarcLowe) Tweeted: Snap assessment: much more detail needed, some things EU will disagree with and quite a bit of domestic-focused spin BUT it demonstrates UK taking obligations seriously and hopefully paves way for UK and EU to move forward on implementing the Protocol.

here

Enzokk

fash wrote: »

Perhaps smuggling is the business plan for NI to ensure it remains part of the UK - tricky Brits...

Sam Lowe thinks that from a quick read, they aren't playing serious shenanigans with the NI protocol - which makes a change:
Sam Lowe (@SamuelMarcLowe) Tweeted: Snap assessment: much more detail needed, some things EU will disagree with and quite a bit of domestic-focused spin BUT it demonstrates UK taking obligations seriously and hopefully paves way for UK and EU to move forward on implementing the Protocol.

here

Here is the RTE on the same paper,

UK says Irish protocol does not create border in Irish Sea

The UK has said the Irish Protocol does not create an "international" border on the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

According to an eagerly awaited paper on how the UK will implement the Protocol, seen by RTÉ News, London has also said there will be no tariffs on any goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so long as they remain in the UK's customs territory.

The paper also says there will be no new customs infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

The document is certain to prompt further disagreements between the EU and UK over the requirements of the Protocol.

The Irish Protocol is not "codified" as a permanent solution, the paper says.

"It is designed to solve a particular set of problems and it can only do this in practice as long as it has the consent of the people of Northern Ireland," it says.

It adds that the Protocol must reflect the reality that the parts that align Northern Ireland with the rules of the EU's single market and customs union "may not be in place forever".

It will be interesting to see the EU response to the document from the UK. It seems to me that they have opened a way to smuggle goods from Ireland to the UK and avoid tariffs. It seems to me as well that there will be tariffs between the UK and the EU and the pretense of the FTA avoiding this is dropping away by the day.

Also, the UK seems to be saying that they will not build new infrastructure at the ports because they may need to build them on the land border instead. That is my cynical reading of it.

An Ciarraioch

Yes, seem to be straight up about the Protocol - the major question mark being over how you'd determine which products would be confined to the internal market, and which could move on to the Republic.

jm08

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but how do you hide this information from the people who constitute the NHS, journalists, regulators, civil servants and politicians? It only takes one whistleblower to alert the public to the whole thing.

The people who should know, know it already. For example, Oxford Uni. who may have come up with a vaccine have been seeking companies to manufacture it so that it is available for everyone. So far they have found companies to do so everywhere except in the US, who will only do it if they have the worldwide manufacturing licence.



The UK are also setting about manufacturing hydroxychloroquine in the UK themselves, presumably because with Trump's endorsement, the US will buy up world supplies. A months course of it (for lupus, arthritus patients) costs about $25 a month in the US. In the UK and elsewhere its about £5/6.

Enzokk

And a reply from the EU to the NI Protocol paper,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1263111749147996160?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1263111751496761347?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1263111753933733889?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1263111756546813952?s=20


So not much yet on the paper itself and referring that the protocol is there to safeguard the GFA and the EU single market. They will study the paper and will then have talks with the UK around the NI Protocol.

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

And a reply from the EU to the NI Protocol paper,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1263111749147996160?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1263111751496761347?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1263111753933733889?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1263111756546813952?s=20


So not much yet on the paper itself and referring that the protocol is there to safeguard the GFA and the EU single market. They will study the paper and will then have talks with the UK around the NI Protocol.

The detailed legal commitments set out in the Protocol must now be implemented precisely to give full effect to this solution.

I think that is the important part of that set of tweets.

It underlines the intent of the EU to enforce the protocol exactly. No stretchy bits or fudges. The EU is a legally driven entity, not a loose 'twill do, they wont notice' type of regime built of spin and lies.

black forest

And more in the same vein...


https://twitter.com/michelbarnier/status/1263118957944483842?s=21


Full text here.


May be Frost should have not sent his letter yesterday which is playing to the local audience only anyway. Scholar and Master comes to mind.

Barniers reply makes a sober reading.

Leroy42

Jebus, in diplomatic terms that seems pretty much a slap in the face.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jebus, in diplomatic terms that seems pretty much a slap in the face.

More like a patronising pat on the head.

RobMc59

jm08 wrote: »

The people who should know, know it already. For example, Oxford Uni. who may have come up with a vaccine have been seeking companies to manufacture it so that it is available for everyone. So far they have found companies to do so everywhere except in the US, who will only do it if they have the worldwide manufacturing licence.



The UK are also setting about manufacturing hydroxychloroquine in the UK themselves, presumably because with Trump's endorsement, the US will buy up world supplies. A months course of it (for lupus, arthritus patients) costs about $25 a month in the US. In the UK and elsewhere its about £5/6.

American pharmaceutical companies are also frequently backed up in their unscrupulous tactics by the FDA(who are supposed to be impartial)-I have had experience of this whilst working for a French company manufacturing an intermediate for a British cholesterol drug and the American company basically froze them out of the US market by casting unfounded doubts about the product.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

Other way round. If you unilaterally scrap most of your tariffs it becomes more difficult to do trade deals, since the countries you're negotiating with already have low-tariff or tariff-free access to your markets, and this is no longer something that you can offer as an inducement to make a deal.

Yes they will have more leverage because of threats of applying tariffs they previously announced would be removed.

But the UK may not be seen as an honest actor because it has drastically changed it's public position and that won't make negotiating easier. They are burning through any remaining goodwill.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jebus, in diplomatic terms that seems pretty much a slap in the face.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

More like a patronising pat on the head.

In diplomatic terms, these are the same thing.

But, seriously, who expected any different response? Frost's letter doesn't read like something intended to influence the course of negotiations; it reads like something intended to "win the argument", in the Jeremy Corbyn sense. It will appeal to the kind of person who think that the revisions to the Northern Ireland Protocol represented a big win for Boris. It won't appeal to the people the UK needs to make a deal with.

When the histories of this period are written, Frost's letter may be identified as the point at which the UK became open about the fact that it was prioritising playing to the gallery over securing any kind of future relationship agreement.

Jim2007

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Yes they will have more leverage because of threats of applying tariffs they previously announced would be removed.

Not the case, because the tariffs apply equally to WTO members with whom you have no trade deal. You also impose the tariffs on your own voters never a good thing if you’ve promised them prices will go down, not up.

The UK is asking for a say in who joins the EU?


ARTICLE 34.8
Future accessions to the Union
1. The Union shall notify the United Kingdom of any request for accession of a third country to
the Union.
2. During the negotiations between the Union and a third country referred to in paragraph 1, the
Union shall:
(a) on request of the United Kingdom and, to the extent possible, provide any information
regarding any matter covered by this Agreement; and
(b) take into account any concerns expressed by the United Kingdom.


It's hard to take them seriously.

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The UK is asking for a say in who joins the EU?


ARTICLE 34.8
Future accessions to the Union
1. The Union shall notify the United Kingdom of any request for accession of a third country to
the Union.
2. During the negotiations between the Union and a third country referred to in paragraph 1, the
Union shall:
(a) on request of the United Kingdom and, to the extent possible, provide any information
regarding any matter covered by this Agreement; and
(b) take into account any concerns expressed by the United Kingdom.


It's hard to take them seriously.

I understand it is a standard term, also contained in CETA to the effect that where there are relevant changes to the EU, Canada is allowed to raise concerns relevant to Canadian trade.
Note that the obligation on the EU is limited to listening to the UK. It's not very onerous