BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Its never been an issue around the chlorination itself. The issues are more to do with animal welfare and preventing the harmful bacteria in the first place so you should need to chlorinate the chicken.mrfpb said:
I only read recently that bagged salads sold in the UK are chlorinated, and have been for a few years. It puts a new perspective on the debate.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
The chlorination hides poor welfare standards and poor hygiene.0 -
The reference is to the ability to practice locally rather than distance selling. Based on my conversations with a couple of firms they dont see it as a big issue. The numbers are not large and in the end it would be a bit of an swap going in both directions. Alternatively they have said they will find ways around it where the affected people still work but dont 'front it up'.rjsterry said:
Strange. Now it's kicked me out, too. Managed to get to it again though. The main point was about mutual recognition of professional qualifications and registration, which will principally affect individual ability to practise pretty significantly but will also affect distance selling of services to some degree. Mutual recognition will be left to professional bodies to organise on a country by country basis, so the access to each national market will be different.Stevo_666 said:
Are to explain or cut and paste? I just got an invitation to subscribe when I clicked that first link.rjsterry said:Some sobering thoughts for anyone in professional services - you know, the stuff we are really good at and makes up a huge chunk of our exports. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications is unlikely to form part of any trade deal, let alone one done this year.
https://amp.ft.com/content/fccf588e-5687-11ea-abe5-8e03987b7b20?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/bulletins/exportsandimportsstatisticsbycountryforuktradeinservices/julytoseptember2019#exports-of-other-business-services-remains-the-uks-largest-export-service-type
It would be good to understand whether that just impacts individuals practicing abroad, or distance selling of services as is more often the case (for example I just got a large bill today from our French legal and tax advisors who do the work in France. Does that mean they will lose out on selling into the lucrative UK market?)
Here is the bulk of Alan Beattie's blog.Problem: it’s going to be hard to replicate the current access that those professionals have to the EU market from the mutual recognition of their qualifications.
Here’s why. Services are notoriously hard to put into trade deals. Most preferential trade agreements (PTAs) don’t go far beyond the (fairly feeble) multilateral World Trade Organization commitments. Regulations are harder to negotiate than tariffs.
The EU internal market — thanks, in one of Brexit’s more pervasive ironies, to pressure from the UK as a member state — has an unusually developed degree of mutual recognition of professional qualifications. It’s patchy, yes. But in corporate law, for example, it is relatively easy for professionals qualified in one member state automatically to claim the right to practise across the EU. The only close equivalent anywhere else in the world is the Trans-Tasman agreement between New Zealand and Australia.
Replicating this in an EU-UK PTA is going to be, as it were, a hard case to win. EU trade deals largely cover the “common commercial policy” — issues delegated to central EU authority, many of which can be negotiated over relatively easily and voted on en bloc. But the patchwork nature of mutual recognition of professional qualifications in the single market, with a lot of blocking powers for member states, is much harder for non-EU members to access through trade deals.
Allowing regulated professionals to practise across borders means getting official regulatory bodies (legal bars, accountancy institutes) and sometimes national governments to recognise foreign qualifications as equivalent. They are generally loath to agree that a non-EU professional whose qualification is recognised by one member state can automatically practise across all of them, lest a single lax national regime act as a backdoor.
The EU’s best attempts at mutual recognition of professional qualifications in trade deals, with the bilateral Canada, Japan and South Korea agreements, haven’t gone very far. The Canadian (Ceta) agreement set up a governance framework that individual professions can plug deals into. But Ceta went into force in 2017, and still the only professionals that have got anywhere close are the respective associations of architects, who for some reason always seem to get on.
Lawyers, as you’d expect, are made of more disputatious stuff. Discussions between the EU and Canadian legal associations have made little progress. The South Korean trade deal set up a “foreign legal consultant” status whereby EU lawyers in South Korea could give advice to companies without gaining rights of audience in court. But it was only one-way: Korean lawyers did not get the same privileges in EU member states."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nope, you are going on about the economics when that isn't a factor for many who voted leave, as DB mentioned.surrey_commuter said:
I think you have responded to the wrong personStevo_666 said:
Which bit of the highlighted part of his post above did you not understand?surrey_commuter said:Dorset_Boy said:The ongoing pain for Greece would have been substantially less post 2008 if they could have devalued their currency. The same is true for Italy and Spain to a lesser extent as their problems weren't quite so huge.
Britain's debt levels in the lead up to 2008 would have put us in a position worse than Spain or Italy, but probably not quite as bad as Greece had we followed the herd's rush into the Euro.
Sterling devalued by 30+% and we could control the other measures taken to recover post 2008.
Although I'd agree that many of the reasons for Brexit are not economic ones, I'd take issue with the crystal ball you clearly have at your disposal regarding the future.
Brexit may prove to be a disaster economically, equally it may not. No one knows one way or the other.
It really isn't helpful to the debate to imply that anyone with a view that is not the same as yours 'has no brain'. I'd strongly suggest that there are a sizeable number of economically intelligent people who disagree with your views!
Do you not think that if there were any economically credible people who thought Brexit was a good idea that the Leave campaign would have extensively quoted them.
Good luck finding examples."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Even though we haven't effectively left. Right...rick_chasey said:We don’t really need to as Brexit *already has caused economic harm*
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.0 -
Accountancy firms? In the two areas I have some knowledge of, a significant proportion of the UK workforce is EU qualified. Some of the the engineers on here can chip in on their field. My understanding is that its very bitty. Different circumstances for each profession in each country. Let's hope our professional bodies are geared up for negotiating mutual recognition with each of the EU27.Stevo_666 said:
The reference is to the ability to practice locally rather than distance selling. Based on my conversations with a couple of firms they dont see it as a big issue. The numbers are not large and in the end it would be a bit of an swap going in both directions. Alternatively they have said they will find ways around it where the affected people still work but dont 'front it up'.rjsterry said:
Strange. Now it's kicked me out, too. Managed to get to it again though. The main point was about mutual recognition of professional qualifications and registration, which will principally affect individual ability to practise pretty significantly but will also affect distance selling of services to some degree. Mutual recognition will be left to professional bodies to organise on a country by country basis, so the access to each national market will be different.Stevo_666 said:
Are to explain or cut and paste? I just got an invitation to subscribe when I clicked that first link.rjsterry said:Some sobering thoughts for anyone in professional services - you know, the stuff we are really good at and makes up a huge chunk of our exports. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications is unlikely to form part of any trade deal, let alone one done this year.
https://amp.ft.com/content/fccf588e-5687-11ea-abe5-8e03987b7b20?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/bulletins/exportsandimportsstatisticsbycountryforuktradeinservices/julytoseptember2019#exports-of-other-business-services-remains-the-uks-largest-export-service-type
It would be good to understand whether that just impacts individuals practicing abroad, or distance selling of services as is more often the case (for example I just got a large bill today from our French legal and tax advisors who do the work in France. Does that mean they will lose out on selling into the lucrative UK market?)
Here is the bulk of Alan Beattie's blog.Problem: it’s going to be hard to replicate the current access that those professionals have to the EU market from the mutual recognition of their qualifications.
Here’s why. Services are notoriously hard to put into trade deals. Most preferential trade agreements (PTAs) don’t go far beyond the (fairly feeble) multilateral World Trade Organization commitments. Regulations are harder to negotiate than tariffs.
The EU internal market — thanks, in one of Brexit’s more pervasive ironies, to pressure from the UK as a member state — has an unusually developed degree of mutual recognition of professional qualifications. It’s patchy, yes. But in corporate law, for example, it is relatively easy for professionals qualified in one member state automatically to claim the right to practise across the EU. The only close equivalent anywhere else in the world is the Trans-Tasman agreement between New Zealand and Australia.
Replicating this in an EU-UK PTA is going to be, as it were, a hard case to win. EU trade deals largely cover the “common commercial policy” — issues delegated to central EU authority, many of which can be negotiated over relatively easily and voted on en bloc. But the patchwork nature of mutual recognition of professional qualifications in the single market, with a lot of blocking powers for member states, is much harder for non-EU members to access through trade deals.
Allowing regulated professionals to practise across borders means getting official regulatory bodies (legal bars, accountancy institutes) and sometimes national governments to recognise foreign qualifications as equivalent. They are generally loath to agree that a non-EU professional whose qualification is recognised by one member state can automatically practise across all of them, lest a single lax national regime act as a backdoor.
The EU’s best attempts at mutual recognition of professional qualifications in trade deals, with the bilateral Canada, Japan and South Korea agreements, haven’t gone very far. The Canadian (Ceta) agreement set up a governance framework that individual professions can plug deals into. But Ceta went into force in 2017, and still the only professionals that have got anywhere close are the respective associations of architects, who for some reason always seem to get on.
Lawyers, as you’d expect, are made of more disputatious stuff. Discussions between the EU and Canadian legal associations have made little progress. The South Korean trade deal set up a “foreign legal consultant” status whereby EU lawyers in South Korea could give advice to companies without gaining rights of audience in court. But it was only one-way: Korean lawyers did not get the same privileges in EU member states.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Don't mention that to Johnson 😬Stevo_666 said:
Even though we haven't effectively left. Right...rick_chasey said:We don’t really need to as Brexit *already has caused economic harm*
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You are definitely joining in on the wrong conversationStevo_666 said:
Nope, you are going on about the economics when that isn't a factor for many who voted leave, as DB mentioned.surrey_commuter said:
I think you have responded to the wrong personStevo_666 said:
Which bit of the highlighted part of his post above did you not understand?surrey_commuter said:Dorset_Boy said:The ongoing pain for Greece would have been substantially less post 2008 if they could have devalued their currency. The same is true for Italy and Spain to a lesser extent as their problems weren't quite so huge.
Britain's debt levels in the lead up to 2008 would have put us in a position worse than Spain or Italy, but probably not quite as bad as Greece had we followed the herd's rush into the Euro.
Sterling devalued by 30+% and we could control the other measures taken to recover post 2008.
Although I'd agree that many of the reasons for Brexit are not economic ones, I'd take issue with the crystal ball you clearly have at your disposal regarding the future.
Brexit may prove to be a disaster economically, equally it may not. No one knows one way or the other.
It really isn't helpful to the debate to imply that anyone with a view that is not the same as yours 'has no brain'. I'd strongly suggest that there are a sizeable number of economically intelligent people who disagree with your views!
Do you not think that if there were any economically credible people who thought Brexit was a good idea that the Leave campaign would have extensively quoted them.
Good luck finding examples.0 -
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Can you keep your leftiebollox for the appropiate thread!rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
What you have written is claptrap0 -
You'll have to expand on what you think is left or right wing about that.coopster_the_1st said:
Can you keep your leftiebollox for the appropiate thread!rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
What you have written is claptrap1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Not to mention what about it is claptrap. It seems entirely correct to me.rjsterry said:
You'll have to expand on what you think is left or right wing about that.coopster_the_1st said:
Can you keep your leftiebollox for the appropiate thread!rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
What you have written is claptrap0 -
I'm pretty sure every supplier wants to break down the price barrier, not just US ones that's what they are in business to do - make a profit. The US suppliers are probably a bit more open about it, as Americans sometimes are. This isn't a US thing, it's a market thing - the NHS has massive buying power so can extract big discounts from suppliers.rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
Food - I don't have any data on that but clearly its not in our interests to allow massive undercutting. There are potential solutions that can be part of a trade deal, but it seems you are already assuming the worst. Anecdotally, the only two occasions I have suffered food poisoning were in France. Just sayin'..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The lefties have suffered a heavy electorial defeat and are now pretty much obsolete for the next 4ish years. The only way they feel they can stay relevant is by ramping up the leftiebollox and attacking a successful British company that produces tea.elbowloh said:
Not to mention what about it is claptrap. It seems entirely correct to me.rjsterry said:
You'll have to expand on what you think is left or right wing about that.coopster_the_1st said:
Can you keep your leftiebollox for the appropiate thread!rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
What you have written is claptrap
The lefties have lost the plot and some on here are gullible enough to be sucked in by this rubbish0 -
US Govt thinks that they are subsidising the NHS because of the strict price controls they impose on drug companies.Stevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure every supplier wants to break down the price barrier, not just US ones that's what they are in business to do - make a profit. The US suppliers are probably a bit more open about it, as Americans sometimes are. This isn't a US thing, it's a market thing - the NHS has massive buying power so can extract big discounts from suppliers.rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
Food - I don't have any data on that but clearly its not in our interests to allow massive undercutting. There are potential solutions that can be part of a trade deal, but it seems you are already assuming the worst. Anecdotally, the only two occasions I have suffered food poisoning were in France. Just sayin'...0 -
OK. You'll get no argument from me that the Yorkshire Tea thing was ridiculous, but why join in with the pathetic identity politics? And what has any of that to do with trade deals, NHS medicines purchasing, animal welfare or food standards?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
By "the lefties" you mean a very small minority of people who don't like the Tories who happen to be on Twitter.coopster_the_1st said:
The lefties have suffered a heavy electorial defeat and are now pretty much obsolete for the next 4ish years. The only way they feel they can stay relevant is by ramping up the leftiebollox and attacking a successful British company that produces tea.elbowloh said:
Not to mention what about it is claptrap. It seems entirely correct to me.rjsterry said:
You'll have to expand on what you think is left or right wing about that.coopster_the_1st said:
Can you keep your leftiebollox for the appropiate thread!rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
What you have written is claptrap
The lefties have lost the plot and some on here are gullible enough to be sucked in by this rubbish
0 -
You know, I can let almost all of the nonsense you spout just wash past me, but sometimes it gets my goat.coopster_the_1st said:
The lefties have lost the plot and some on here are gullible enough to be sucked in by this rubbish
Your blind fervour for Brexit has led to supporting a government that might be right wing in name - and shows some of the characteristics of the far right, e.g. xenophobia - but an awful lot of its policies, especially the more populist sort, are not right wing in any shape, manner or form.
Many of us, and I would say it looks like the majority of Brexit critics on this forum, are not left wing at all, and in fact advocate policies that are more right wing than the Brexiteers: you know, little things like policies that favour business and prosperity rather than impoverishing a whole country.
The cheap "leftie" slur has literally come to mean "someone who disagrees with me". Identity politics at its most pathetic.0 -
Meh the "righties" seem to want to take a course of action that harms the ability of our National Health service to pay for drugs, removes our seat at the table of the world's largest trading block and then break apart a media institution that projects British values (and therefore soft power) across the globe.coopster_the_1st said:
The lefties have suffered a heavy electorial defeat and are now pretty much obsolete for the next 4ish years. The only way they feel they can stay relevant is by ramping up the leftiebollox and attacking a successful British company that produces tea.elbowloh said:
Not to mention what about it is claptrap. It seems entirely correct to me.rjsterry said:
You'll have to expand on what you think is left or right wing about that.coopster_the_1st said:
Can you keep your leftiebollox for the appropiate thread!rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
What you have written is claptrap
The lefties have lost the plot and some on here are gullible enough to be sucked in by this rubbish
But its the righties that are the patriots and love their country.0 -
Who was it who was scaremongering over the NHS 'being sold out to the US' at the recent election and is still pushing this lie?rjsterry said:OK. You'll get no argument from me that the Yorkshire Tea thing was ridiculous, but why join in with the pathetic identity politics? And what has any of that to do with trade deals, NHS medicines purchasing, animal welfare or food standards?
Who is scaremongering over the American food standards lowering ours as part of a US trade deal?
The answer to both is lefties with a sprinkling of remoaners added in. The are upping the scaremongering because they are now obsolete for 4+ years and the usual gullibles on here are getting sucked in.0 -
Really? However if needed it shouldn't be difficult to explain to the Americans the economics of buying power. In the same way the likes of Wal-mart or Tesco screw their suppliers on prices, because they are very big buyers.surrey_commuter said:
US Govt thinks that they are subsidising the NHS because of the strict price controls they impose on drug companies.Stevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure every supplier wants to break down the price barrier, not just US ones that's what they are in business to do - make a profit. The US suppliers are probably a bit more open about it, as Americans sometimes are. This isn't a US thing, it's a market thing - the NHS has massive buying power so can extract big discounts from suppliers.rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
Food - I don't have any data on that but clearly its not in our interests to allow massive undercutting. There are potential solutions that can be part of a trade deal, but it seems you are already assuming the worst. Anecdotally, the only two occasions I have suffered food poisoning were in France. Just sayin'..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In other news, Downing Street rebuffs the EU's opening gambit and quite right too.
https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/25/downing-street-rejects-eu-opening-trade-offer
Quotes from the article:
“The EU has respected the autonomy of other major economies around the world such as Canada and Japan when signing trade deals with them. We just want the same,” a No 10 spokesman said.
“We agree the UK’s trade with the EU is significant. The US’s [trade] is on the same scale – yet that did not stop the EU being willing to offer the US zero tariffs without the kind of level playing field commitments or the legal oversight they have put in today’s mandate.”
“Level playing field is an EU construct, not a piece of terminology which we use,” Boris Johnson’s official spokesman said.
“We have been very clear on our commitment to discuss open and fair competition as part of negotiations, but we will not accept any demands for the UK to follow EU rules, just as we would not expect the EU to accept UK laws.”
Pretty clear and simple really, but the Eurocrats are having problems grasping these point it would appear."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It seems to be a lot of strutting up and down with chests puffed out from both sides at the moment. Not convinced I need to take any of it seriously until we get stuck into the real negotiations.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
😄coopster_the_1st said:obsolete for 4+ years
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I am sure we have tried but they see it as state price fixing resulting in the UK getting a free ride on the R&D expenditure which is funded by US consumers.Stevo_666 said:
Really? However if needed it shouldn't be difficult to explain to the Americans the economics of buying power. In the same way the likes of Wal-mart or Tesco screw their suppliers on prices, because they are very big buyers.surrey_commuter said:
US Govt thinks that they are subsidising the NHS because of the strict price controls they impose on drug companies.Stevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure every supplier wants to break down the price barrier, not just US ones that's what they are in business to do - make a profit. The US suppliers are probably a bit more open about it, as Americans sometimes are. This isn't a US thing, it's a market thing - the NHS has massive buying power so can extract big discounts from suppliers.rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
Food - I don't have any data on that but clearly its not in our interests to allow massive undercutting. There are potential solutions that can be part of a trade deal, but it seems you are already assuming the worst. Anecdotally, the only two occasions I have suffered food poisoning were in France. Just sayin'...
The fact we don’t loudly celebrate this wonderful example of the efficiency of the NHS suggests we may secretly agree with them.0 -
Or is it because it shows that a nationalised organisation doesn't necessarily mean everything to do with it is inefficient.surrey_commuter said:
I am sure we have tried but they see it as state price fixing resulting in the UK getting a free ride on the R&D expenditure which is funded by US consumers.Stevo_666 said:
Really? However if needed it shouldn't be difficult to explain to the Americans the economics of buying power. In the same way the likes of Wal-mart or Tesco screw their suppliers on prices, because they are very big buyers.surrey_commuter said:
US Govt thinks that they are subsidising the NHS because of the strict price controls they impose on drug companies.Stevo_666 said:
I'm pretty sure every supplier wants to break down the price barrier, not just US ones that's what they are in business to do - make a profit. The US suppliers are probably a bit more open about it, as Americans sometimes are. This isn't a US thing, it's a market thing - the NHS has massive buying power so can extract big discounts from suppliers.rjsterry said:
It's not the nationality that's relevant, it's the stated aim of breaking the NHS's grip on pricing of medicines. Given that those medicines are paid for through your taxes, I would have thought you would be keen to take advantage of the way the NHS purchases medicines. Further, the US health system is significantly more expensive than the UK model, so what do we have to learn from them? On food standards,quite apart from the the animal welfare arguments and the much higher incidence of food poisoning arising from the US system, allowing in significantly more cheaply produced meat will put UK producers out of business, which will then remove that choice.Stevo_666 said:
No more unreasonable than us expecting them to stick to our rules. Plenty of other trade deals are struck without one party having a say in setting the laws of the other, including those where there is close.proximity and substantial trade such as US-Canada. This one is no different.briantrumpet said:
I'm curious as to why you think it's unreasonable for them to expect us to 'stick to their rules' to trade with the EU. Isn't that exactly what the US would expect us to do (e.g. 'chlorine-washed chicken is fine', or 'open up the NHS to US healthcare industry') in order to trade with them? It'll be difficult for the UK to get anywhere with the US unless we accept the terms (aka 'rules') they insist on?Stevo_666 said:
Maybe we should do a deal with the party that wants a trade deal. The EU backsliding in the Canada deal and their unreasonable insistence we stick to their rules means it will be difficult to get anywhere with them.rolf_f said:
I would say that Dominic doesn't give a stuff about chlorinated chicken either way (he won't be eating it) and he certainly wouldn't want a block on chlorinated chicken getting in the way of us caving in to a terrible trade deal with the US. So this is the EU protecting itself and the UK (assuming it agrees to this) negotiating as badly as ever.TheBigBean said:It feels like the UK is negotiating this round a lot better than May did with the withdrawal agreement. For example, I don't think the UK has any intention of allowing chlorinated chicken, but it is forcing the EU to make this a condition to its agreement i.e. make it look like a concession from the UK.
To me it seems like quite a good ultimatum - we can have a trade deal with Europe or one with the States but not with both. But given our intelligence as a nation, I guess the latter would be the favoured option.
Healthcare? Why is the involvement of US firms bad but the involvement of EU firms good?
PS: if chlorine washed chicken is your big brexit related issue - and if it did come to pass - here's a shock top tip: dont buy it...
Food - I don't have any data on that but clearly its not in our interests to allow massive undercutting. There are potential solutions that can be part of a trade deal, but it seems you are already assuming the worst. Anecdotally, the only two occasions I have suffered food poisoning were in France. Just sayin'...
The fact we don’t loudly celebrate this wonderful example of the efficiency of the NHS suggests we may secretly agree with them.
Having worked in the states for some months now, my general feeling would be that we should steer away from the American way of healthcare as much as possible.
0 -
.......
The fact we don’t loudly celebrate this wonderful example of the efficiency of the NHS suggests we may secretly agree with them.
NHS and efficiency in the same sentence!
Maybe there is some efficiency in buying power, but certainly not in the distribution of those drugs where there is massive wastage.
0 -
I notice you didn't actually disagree with any of the quotes. In any event, it kicks off next week so we will find out soon enough.rjsterry said:It seems to be a lot of strutting up and down with chests puffed out from both sides at the moment. Not convinced I need to take any of it seriously until we get stuck into the real negotiations.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
