BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

surrey_commuter

bompington said:

rjsterry said:

Gove insisting that 50,000 customs officials will be employed by the end of the year is quite a ballsy claim.

I'm sure there are lots of ex-Stasi types in Eastern Europe they could bring in...

Very good

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

Our ambitions are so meagre and our red lines so strident it is almost as if we are positioning ourselves to walk away.

I find myself wondering if we have to pay the £39bn and whether we should just say fvck it and spend 10 months preparing to leave on our terms.

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

Our ambitions are so meagre and our red lines so strident it is almost as if we are positioning ourselves to walk away.

I find myself wondering if we have to pay the £39bn and whether we should just say fvck it and spend 10 months preparing to leave on our terms.

£39bn is only a third of an HS2. Seems like a bargain to me.

briantrumpet

It strikes me that the Tory party isn't the only body that has been shifting over the past four years...

rick_chasey

Not signing up the the European Arrest Warrant agreement which seems a bit odd, though I guess being a safe haven for continent criminals is one of those “opportunties” Brexiters say doomsday remoaner folk are missing.

rick_chasey

As an aside, who wrote this?

Judges kill off Heathrow 3rd runway and Britain getting the modern air transport infrastructure we need, despite the elected Parliament voting for it overwhelmingly. Presumably this is the kind of overreaching undemocratic judicial activism Boris wants to curb ... or perhaps not

morstar

rjsterry said:

Gove insisting that 50,000 customs officials will be employed by the end of the year is quite a ballsy claim.

Easier than nurses. You can imagine the conversation.

Just get me 50,000 extra somethings so we can bloody well shout about it.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Our ambitions are so meagre and our red lines so strident it is almost as if we are positioning ourselves to walk away.

I find myself wondering if we have to pay the £39bn and whether we should just say fvck it and spend 10 months preparing to leave on our terms.

Our expectations are being managed.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Our ambitions are so meagre and our red lines so strident it is almost as if we are positioning ourselves to walk away.

I find myself wondering if we have to pay the £39bn and whether we should just say fvck it and spend 10 months preparing to leave on our terms.

Our expectations are being managed.

I would agree but feel they are being managed towards accepting a Rwanda style deal

rjsterry

You sound surprised.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rolf_f said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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'...

US Govt thinks that they are subsidising the NHS because of the strict price controls they impose on drug companies.

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.

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.

I've never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?

First hit. In the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/

Ah, so now everything Trump says should be taken as fact because it suits a Brexit related argument?

Just as a reminder you posted “i’ve never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?

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.

No, I rejected it because of the source - Trump. Do you now count his pronouncements as reliable etc?

I mean what has he to do with US trade policy? He's only the president. 😄

From the article

Alex 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.

Everything else Trump comes out with is rubbished on here. He's got his own 350 page thread on here for just that.

Anyhow, as I said, stop acting like its already decided, I'm sure you're not a paid up member of the LMS. Also there will no doubt be equivalent benefits for the UK going the other way, its how negotiations work.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rolf_f said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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'...

US Govt thinks that they are subsidising the NHS because of the strict price controls they impose on drug companies.

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.

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.

I've never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?

First hit. In the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/15/trump-threatens-use-us-trade-talks-force-nhs-pay-drugs/

Ah, so now everything Trump says should be taken as fact because it suits a Brexit related argument?

Just as a reminder you posted “i’ve never seen anyone refer to this US view before. Got a link?

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.

No, I rejected it because of the source - Trump. Do you now count his pronouncements as reliable etc?

I mean what has he to do with US trade policy? He's only the president. 😄

From the article

Alex 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.

Everything else Trump comes out with is rubbished on here. He's got his own 350 page thread on here for just that.

Anyhow, as I said, stop acting like its already decided, I'm sure you're not a paid up member of the LMS. Also there will no doubt be equivalent benefits for the UK going the other way, its how negotiations work.

I've not suggested some future FTA with the US is anything. This is a specific policy being enacted now in the US to reduce domestic drug prices, specifically by charging more for overseas sales (not just UK). This is an ongoing policy - the link I posted was from 2 years ago. It's fine if you hadn't seen it but it really isn't just some off the cuff comment at a rally or late night tweet. What we do about it is another matter entirely.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

To be fair, if we are leaving, our stance on dispute resolution and fisheries appears the more reasonable of the two.

rjsterry

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

To be fair, if we are leaving, our stance on dispute resolution and fisheries appears the more reasonable of the two.

Worth noting that the London Fisheries Convention came into force in 1953, long before we joined the EU.

rick_chasey

On the border police. Say they're 12,000-50,000 people.

Imagine how much bargaining power they'll have. One strike and they'll bring everything grinding to a halt.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

On the border police. Say they're 12,000-50,000 people.

Imagine how much bargaining power they'll have. One strike and they'll bring everything grinding to a halt.

Police can't strike. If customs officials strike, the UK could simply wave everything through. Hardly anything is checked anyway.

bompington

rick_chasey said:

On the border police. Say they're 12,000-50,000 people.

Imagine how much bargaining power they'll have. One strike and they'll bring everything grinding to a halt.

But hey, we've got 8 million people to recruit them from so we can always just sack them and get more, can't we?

Longshot

Corona Virus...

A dastardly Tory ploy to hide the forthcoming Brexit-led recession and, as a bonus, significantly reduce our state pension liabilities?

Nice work Dom.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

On the border police. Say they're 12,000-50,000 people.

Imagine how much bargaining power they'll have. One strike and they'll bring everything grinding to a halt.

Police can't strike. If customs officials strike, the UK could simply wave everything through. Hardly anything is checked anyway.

50,000 people seems a lot to check hardly anything.

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

On the border police. Say they're 12,000-50,000 people.

Imagine how much bargaining power they'll have. One strike and they'll bring everything grinding to a halt.

Police can't strike. If customs officials strike, the UK could simply wave everything through. Hardly anything is checked anyway.

50,000 people seems a lot to check hardly anything.

Hardly anything as a percentage of the overall volumes. Better? It's something like 3%.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

On the border police. Say they're 12,000-50,000 people.

Imagine how much bargaining power they'll have. One strike and they'll bring everything grinding to a halt.

Police can't strike. If customs officials strike, the UK could simply wave everything through. Hardly anything is checked anyway.

50,000 people seems a lot to check hardly anything.

Hardly anything as a percentage of the overall volumes. Better? It's something like 3%.

is that 3% of non-Eu imports?

rjsterry

Obviously there is a massive difference between the checking 3% (with the possibility of anything being checked) and nothing being checked.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

On the border police. Say they're 12,000-50,000 people.

Imagine how much bargaining power they'll have. One strike and they'll bring everything grinding to a halt.

Police can't strike. If customs officials strike, the UK could simply wave everything through. Hardly anything is checked anyway.

50,000 people seems a lot to check hardly anything.

Hardly anything as a percentage of the overall volumes. Better? It's something like 3%.

is that 3% of non-Eu imports?

Yes.

rick_chasey

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

rick_chasey

Oh, mate.

rick_chasey

What did you think leaving a single market meant?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Ironically, the EU seem to have as one of their negotiating aims tying up the UK with sufficient EU red tape to slow down our economic development post-Brexit.

Well yes, now that we're a direct competitor. Why would you expect us to be treated differently from China or the US?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Ah bigbean with his supermarket checkout theory.

Should cost around £1.5bn a year, right?

Bonfire of the redtap....ah nevermind.

Not in this case. Just pointing out that a one day customs strike isn't likely to be that much of a deal as the UK has the ability to not check stuff.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Oh, mate.

So why do you think the EU are so keen to keep their influence over our rules? I don't think they're being charitable, do you?