Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Peter Flanagan wrote a very reflective piece in this morning's Irish Times. Loads to dwell on, in particular his reminder of the rhetoric of other European populist politicians, and the deeply unsettling fact the Poland and Hungary want to stay in the EU:

All Britain wants to do is leave - the likes of Hungary and Poland want to stay, and use their influence to challenge the liberal values on which the Union was founded. As painful as the British have made their departure, it’s time to consider who we’re being left behind with.

Touché! For the first time, it makes me glad the British want to leave before they undermine it further.

His second, enormously overlooked point was on the rapidly growing inequality he sees in Britain, for which the EU is being scapegoated:

Rather, what strikes me most about the UK is the inequality -I live in one of the poorest boroughs in the UK, where high-rise luxury apartment blocks face council towers, the residents of both peering out at each other with mutual suspicion. A United Nations report last year found that a fifth of the UK’s population are living in poverty, while a separate study found that the five poorest regions in Northern Europe are all in the UK. People are angry, and they are right to be. Snake-oil salesmen like Farage and Boris Johnston gave people a chance to give two fingers to the elites, and they took it...

Are the British really as xenophobic as they’ve been made out to be since Brexit?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Peter Flanagan wrote a very reflective piece in this morning's Irish Times ...

Totally undermined by his reference to an out-dated and very selective report - the "poorest regions of Europe" fallacy. If we're going to hold Brexiteers and the utterings of Tory leadership contenders to a high standard, then people writing on "our" side need to avoid injecting this kind of inaccuracy into their writing.

lawred2

CelticRambler wrote: »

Totally undermined by his reference to an out-dated and very selective report - the "poorest regions of Europe" fallacy. If we're going to hold Brexiteers and the utterings of Tory leadership contenders to a high standard, then people writing on "our" side need to avoid injecting this kind of inaccuracy into their writing.

You're the first person I've seen to question the accuracy, veracity or findings of that report. I must have missed the deconstruction of that report. When/where did that happen?

Leroy42

Jonathon Pie's latest video makes the valid point that what the Trump visit shows is just how much the UK will now be reliant on the US for its future. That they have given up being part of the club of the EU, with a voice, to now having to simply accept whatever rules and regulations the US desires in order to get any sort of trade deal.

As the largest and most powerful country in the world we are all reliant on a good relationship with the US, Ireland as much as anyone. But at least we have tried to limit that influence and become part of a club with, at least theoretically, the ability to negotiate on relatively equal footing.

Surely the UK can see exactly what the future holds for them. Afraid to annoy the Chinese, willing to accept any amount of put-downs and insults in order to stay close to the US (he has derided the PM, the Mayor of London, passed on far-right videos, he has torn up the UK agreed Iran deal, pulled out of the Paris Accord, threatened tariffs on UK goods such as Bombardier).

CelticRambler

lawred2 wrote: »

You're the first person I've seen to question the accuracy, veracity or findings of that report. I must have missed the deconstruction of that report. When/where did that happen?

You haven't been paying attention! It's been deconstructed several times over the life of this discussion (pervious threads). Google it for the full debunking, but in essence, the "Europe" used in the original study was limited to the north-western, Anglo-Teutonic corner of the continent, and the financial parameters were a bit iffy too.

lawred2

CelticRambler wrote: »

You haven't been paying attention! It's been deconstructed several times over the life of this discussion (pervious threads). Google it for the full debunking, but in essence, the "Europe" used in the original study was limited to the north-western, Anglo-Teutonic corner of the continent, and the financial parameters were a bit iffy too.

Is this not it?

Seems to be saying many areas of the UK on a par with the later Eastern European accession states. Is that not a Pan-European report?

What was iffy about the financial parameters?

Actually nevermind - you've said it's been discussed at length here before so I don't want to take the thread back there.

An Ciarraioch

ChUK, we hardly knew you - would the Lib Dems even want Umunna or Allen now?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/04/change-uk-poised-to-lose-at-least-half-its-mps-heidi-allen-chuka-umunna-lib-dems

Headshot

wow Change UK is not lasting long

Sam Russell

Headshot wrote: »

wow Change UK is not lasting long

It appears they are becoming the Loose Change of UK politics.

marno21

Change UK was always going to go this way - further splintering is of no benefit to anyone - especially in a FPTP based system.

The Lib Dems seem an appropriate outlet for their policy directions. Until Corbyn gets the door anyhow.

devnull

Really they should have joined the Lib Dems in the first place or just called themselves the Remain Party, the fact that the remainers are so divided is a problem - sitting as independents will just dillute those peoples influence and the remain course.

The Brexiteers for all their faults at least are aligning under a single cause with Farage.

jochenstacker

devnull wrote: »

Really they should have joined the Lib Dems in the first place or just called themselves the Remain Party, the fact that the remainers are so divided is a problem - sitting as independents will just dillute those peoples influence and the remain course.

The Brexiteers for all their faults at least are aligning under a single cause with Farage.

It's pure Judean People's Front stuff at this stage.

devnull

The remaining parts of Change UK are talking about how they are going to take on the Lib Dems according to what is being reported on Sky News at the moment.

Absolute madness and playing into Farage's hands.

robinph

Wondering if Trump might have given Brexit a bit of a clattering today by admitting that the US is after the NHS in any future deal? We all knew it already, but that he said it in the press conference might finally get some of the people blindly screaming leave means brexit means no deal to stop and have a think for a moment.

Professor Moriarty

robinph wrote: »

Wondering if Trump might have given Brexit a bit of a clattering today by admitting that the US is after the NHS in any future deal? We all knew it already, but that he said it in the press conference might finally get some of the people blindly screaming leave means brexit means no deal to stop and have a think for a moment.

But they have a special relationship. Which means that Trump will make sure that Britain will come to no harm. Trump always looks after countries with whom the US has special relationships Just ask Canada and Mexico.

Beechwoodspark

I’d say trump will put some pressure on varadkar tomorrow regarding brexit

Hurrache

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’d say trump will put some pressure on varadkar tomorrow regarding brexit

There's no pressure he can put on Varadkar. Brexit is an EU issue.

Beechwoodspark

Hurrache wrote: »

There's no pressure he can put on Varadkar. Brexit is an EU issue.

He reportedly met with the ERG, and Farage earlier today. No doubt they mentioned the backstop to him as one of the obstacles to a deal

He will raise it with LV tomorrow I would think.

Enzokk

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’d say trump will put some pressure on varadkar tomorrow regarding brexit

I doubt he even personally cares about it or know too much about it either. If Merkel had to explain to him 11 times the relatively simple fact that the EU does trade deals and not Germany, do we expect him to understand Brexit or even care about it?

Hurrache

It'll just be another instance of his ignorance as to how the EU works.

Farage et al anyway doesn't care about the backstop holding things up, they want no deal.

Enzokk

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

He reportedly met with the ERG, and Farage earlier today. No doubt they mentioned the backstop to him as one of the obstacles to a deal

He will raise it with LV tomorrow I would think.

"Leo, you need to let the backstop go."

"Donald, there is no reason in the world why any Irish leader would even think about this and it is not open for discussion."

"Okay, I have to get to my course, nice meeting you."

Stop moaning ffs

No fan of Leo but loved him refusing to meet Trump at Doonbeg.
Massive amounts of dodgy money has and may still be flowing through there.
Good in him not wanting to get anywhere near the stink of that.

I don’t think he should meet him st all but he certainly won’t be listening to any braggadocio or threats about brexit from Trump.

Leroy42

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

What options do they have? They need a substantial increase in trade with the us to offset the expected loss with the EU and US are in the driving seat. They usually are but even more so.

There won't be sales of hospitals though. Rather it will be us pharmaceuticals given No1 supplier terms. Access to university test results, access to patients for drug trials. Any new facilities will be a cooperative between NHS and some US firm, with NHS taking all the risks. That way no PM ever has to admit to selling off the NHS.

As for standards and regulations, it makes no sense to cry about having no say if you actually agree with everything. And to compete they will need a competitive advantage along with demands of any trade deal.

ancapailldorcha

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

How do you not though? Seriously. I would be absolutely gobsmacked if the Trump administration didn't already have a draft of the deal penned by US healthcare firms waiting and ready for signing. These companies spend a fortune on lobbying and we can now see the results. The NHS will still exist but it will be a vehicle for shifting it's £125 or so billion to US private firms who will take over the running of hospitals and the provision of other services.

The only way I see around this is either the outright cancellation of Brexit or the watering down of it to the point whereby it becomes meaningless. Either is fine by me.

Capt'n Midnight

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

The NHS is being starved of funding by the conservatives. It's what they do.

It also means they can turn around and suggest Private Public Partnership as a way of getting more money, until it's too late go to back.

The NHS could do with £350m a week. NI, Trident, HS2 all cost way more than that. Even Brexit uncertainty is costing £800m a week.

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4831.full

the King’s Fund, the Health Foundation, and the Nuffield Trust predicts that NHS staff shortages in England could increase from 100 000 at present to almost 250 000 by 2030 if not dealt with. This could reach 350 000 if the NHS continues to lose staff and cannot attract skilled workers from abroad,

Christy42

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

Like the backstop is for the EU it will be a hard requirement for the US. Presumably China will have its own requirements. The UK can take their pick but no one will bother to budge.

The UK has a terrible hand and everyone knows it.

funkey_monkey

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

I'm not getting the link; why, and in what way, would the NHS of all organisations be "sacrificed" in a British-US trade deal? Where's this story coming from?

Call me Al

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not getting the link; why, and in what way, would the NHS of all organisations be "sacrificed" in a British-US trade deal? Where's this story coming from?

At a press conference today Trump was asked about the NHS in the context of it being a part of a US/UK trade deal. He replied that it had to be on the table.

Popeleo

It was also in the news after the Andrew Marr interview last weekend with Woody Johnson, the US ambassador to the UK.

The NHS is specifically mentioned as being up for negotiation in a trade deal at the end of the short video below:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-48489524/us-ambassador-woody-johnson-on-us-food-if-the-british-people-like-it-they-can-buy-it

Peregrinus

This is all very vague. What does it mean to say that the NHS is "on the table" or "up for negotiation"? I can't imagine a trade deal committing the UK to privatise the NHS; that would be a bizarre provision to include in any trade deal and, if it were included, there would be zero chance of Parliament ratifying the deal.

I think a trade deal might contain two relevant provisions:

1. If and to the extent that the UK does choose to privatise or part-privatise (or further part-privatise; it's already partly privatised through contracting-out) the NHS, US tenderers can compete on an equal footing with US tenderers to take on whatever services are being privatised.

2. (Much more worrying) a change to the current purchasing system whereby the NHS evaluates drugs and decides what it will pay for them, given their clinical benefits and the cost of developing/producing them. The NHS is such a huge purchaser of drugs that it can basically set prices. Big Pharma would much prefer that the prices were set by the sellers, not the buyers.