BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
I've never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?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'...
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You are reading too much into something that isn't there.Stevo_666 said:
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.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
First hit. In the Telegraph.Stevo_666 said:
I've never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?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'...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes, your disagreement...rjsterry said:
You are reading too much into something that isn't there.Stevo_666 said:
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 -
Ah, so now everything Trump says should be taken as fact because it suits a Brexit related argument?rjsterry said:
First hit. In the Telegraph.Stevo_666 said:
I've never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?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'...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It’s a pretty common view.Stevo_666 said:
I've never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?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'...
Gets reported on US outlets all the time0 -
-
The nhs does not just have buying power. It also has a strategic decision making process regarding what drugs it will and will not buy based on their benefits. The US model detests this as it is not in big pharmas interests. Long may our current system continue.0
-
Just as a reminder you posted “i’ve never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?Stevo_666 said:
Ah, so now everything Trump says should be taken as fact because it suits a Brexit related argument?rjsterry said:
First hit. In the Telegraph.Stevo_666 said:
I've never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?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'...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/
RJST then gave you a link to the Telegraph quoting the President of the US.
You then rejected this gold standard evidence because it was seemingly anti-Brexit.
0 -
Over-interpreting again, Stevo. You claimed (somewhat implausibly) that you had never seen any reference to SC's assertion. I'm just pointing out that "American patients first" was widely publicised. Here's something more academic.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20016689.2019.1650596
And an article talking about the lobbying that led to the policy.
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/us-lobbyists-brexit_uk_5c5b26c6e4b00187b5579f64?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADYIT2V6sIjwIcmw0jPT4Cv3-NYxMIwLqz4pl4MJNMGxBFbz58_UyDVWJa8dxRD8N8EEWm7N4fq8Rnv2_Hz1fgX_CQrlddu_KOXsWfJJ437N9ktlO_qGOUTI56BSidvIBSd8WsrGuB4aj023TDY4WmmvkNov1smfjIcaiPrT4IFr1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Meanwhile Johnson appears to be walking back on his (non-binding) political declaration.
Not necessarily the most consensus building run up to the talks....0 -
Careful John, you'll get labelled a leftie by Coopster with those views!john80 said:The nhs does not just have buying power. It also has a strategic decision making process regarding what drugs it will and will not buy based on their benefits. The US model detests this as it is not in big pharmas interests. Long may our current system continue.
0 -
I shouldn't worry, actual left wing views don't really countPross said:
Careful John, you'll get labelled a leftie by Coopster with those views!john80 said:The nhs does not just have buying power. It also has a strategic decision making process regarding what drugs it will and will not buy based on their benefits. The US model detests this as it is not in big pharmas interests. Long may our current system continue.
0 -
So the commentators in Brussels seem to be agreeing that no deal is getting more likely, on the basis that they recon the UK gov't genuinely believes that the threat of no deal must be credible (not just with the gov't but that it has popular support and if the gov't spins it properly, not as politically costly as you would think) and that what they want isn't really that far fro mthat anyway.
0 -
Yes. The prediction seems to be that we'll end the transition without an FTA and then realise that is a mistake.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think there is a bit of disgruntlement at the EU's perceived rolling back on the political declaration. If Brexit wasn't so binary in its reporting in the UK, I think there would be more commentary about this.rick_chasey said:Meanwhile Johnson appears to be walking back on his (non-binding) political declaration.
Not necessarily the most consensus building run up to the talks....0 -
In what way is it perceived that the EU have rolled back on the political declaration?TheBigBean said:
I think there is a bit of disgruntlement at the EU's perceived rolling back on the political declaration. If Brexit wasn't so binary in its reporting in the UK, I think there would be more commentary about this.rick_chasey said:Meanwhile Johnson appears to be walking back on his (non-binding) political declaration.
Not necessarily the most consensus building run up to the talks....“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Dynamic alignment. Apparently, the wording around the level playing field conditions was changed in the run up to the final drafting to make it clearer that it didn't involve dynamic alignment*. With this is in mind, it is hard to interpret the current drafting to mean dynamic alignment.tailwindhome said:
In what way is it perceived that the EU have rolled back on the political declaration?TheBigBean said:
I think there is a bit of disgruntlement at the EU's perceived rolling back on the political declaration. If Brexit wasn't so binary in its reporting in the UK, I think there would be more commentary about this.rick_chasey said:Meanwhile Johnson appears to be walking back on his (non-binding) political declaration.
Not necessarily the most consensus building run up to the talks....
Still, remain reporting is "Of course, the UK is a big market, so obviously the EU needs control" and Brexit reporting is "Brussels trying to colonise UK" etc.
*I haven't verified this.0 -
If you take both sets of red lines at face value then I agree that walking away does not seem so extreme.rick_chasey said:So the commentators in Brussels seem to be agreeing that no deal is getting more likely, on the basis that they recon the UK gov't genuinely believes that the threat of no deal must be credible (not just with the gov't but that it has popular support and if the gov't spins it properly, not as politically costly as you would think) and that what they want isn't really that far fro mthat anyway.
I also agree with RJS that it will be seen to be a mistake. If we assume that Boris will keep spending to keep the economy afloat then this might take until we find out what our borrowing limit is.0 -
-
reports suggest that increased Govt spending was the only thing that kept growth positive last year. I can not see the clown giving up that easily and will keep borrowing to spend. If you remove the blue rosette then he is an old fashioned Keynesian.rick_chasey said:No amount of gov't spending will cover no deal.
0 -
A fairly reasoned article on the discussion around regulation and level playing field
https://ucl-brexit.blog/2020/02/26/brexit-can-regulatory-autonomy-and-level-playing-field-be-reconciled/0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
0 -
BoJo's absence is apparently a strategy
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/boris-johnson-mop-no-10-media-public0 -
No, I rejected it because of the source - Trump. Do you now count his pronouncements as reliable etc?surrey_commuter said:
Just as a reminder you posted “i’ve never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?Stevo_666 said:
Ah, so now everything Trump says should be taken as fact because it suits a Brexit related argument?rjsterry said:
First hit. In the Telegraph.Stevo_666 said:
I've never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?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'...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/
RJST then gave you a link to the Telegraph quoting the President of the US.
You then rejected this gold standard evidence because it was seemingly anti-Brexit."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
OK, it's what they want - which is hardly surprising. Let's see what happens in the upcoming negotiations rather than assuming the we will simply fold, as many Cake Stoppers will do.rjsterry said:Over-interpreting again, Stevo. You claimed (somewhat implausibly) that you had never seen any reference to SC's assertion. I'm just pointing out that "American patients first" was widely publicised. Here's something more academic.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20016689.2019.1650596
And an article talking about the lobbying that led to the policy.
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/us-lobbyists-brexit_uk_5c5b26c6e4b00187b5579f64?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADYIT2V6sIjwIcmw0jPT4Cv3-NYxMIwLqz4pl4MJNMGxBFbz58_UyDVWJa8dxRD8N8EEWm7N4fq8Rnv2_Hz1fgX_CQrlddu_KOXsWfJJ437N9ktlO_qGOUTI56BSidvIBSd8WsrGuB4aj023TDY4WmmvkNov1smfjIcaiPrT4IFr"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I mean what has he to do with US trade policy? He's only the president. 😄Stevo_666 said:
No, I rejected it because of the source - Trump. Do you now count his pronouncements as reliable etc?surrey_commuter said:
Just as a reminder you posted “i’ve never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?Stevo_666 said:
Ah, so now everything Trump says should be taken as fact because it suits a Brexit related argument?rjsterry said:
First hit. In the Telegraph.Stevo_666 said:
I've never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?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'...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/
RJST then gave you a link to the Telegraph quoting the President of the US.
You then rejected this gold standard evidence because it was seemingly anti-Brexit.
From the articleAlex Azar, the US Health and Human Services Secretary, has said Washington will use its muscle to push up drug prices abroad, to lower the cost paid by patients in the United States.
A bit more than just a random Trump tweet.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Gove insisting that 50,000 customs officials will be employed by the end of the year is quite a ballsy claim.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm sure there are lots of ex-Stasi types in Eastern Europe they could bring in...rjsterry said:Gove insisting that 50,000 customs officials will be employed by the end of the year is quite a ballsy claim.
0
