Westminstenders: Sucking up to the 'enemy'

[RedToothBrush]

Phil Hammond called the EU the enemy. Then retracted it. A classic political move, to pitch to one group and then say you didn't mean it after all.

This is the UK's negotiation strategy. Because the negotiation isn't really with the EU. Its the ongoing debate over the what leaving the EU actually means since it wasn't officially defined prior to the referendum and has been left to politicians to say its one thing to persuade people to support them and then decided no that's not really what they meant after all.

The whole thing makes it impossible for the EU to respond to us, because we don't appear to know what we want.

The EU have been explicit in their position. So things they can not do because of the limitations of trade rules and EU law. Its possible work arounds could be possible for some things - but certainly not all which too many Brexiteers fail to acknowledge.

And then there is the a50 deadline which is like a snake coiled around May's neck slowly strangling her. A self imposed screwing of our negotiating position. One that kills off our Brexit options and ups the stakes into a brinkmanship battle - not with the EU but between the hardlines and the sane. Its not even about remaining, though that option might well end up being the only option left on the table through our own folly, rather than out of EU malice.

The longer we take to work out what we want the higher the stake become and the more we destroy the foundations of our economy in the meantime, even if we do stay in.

We have only just noticed that we've lost money worth 25% of our GDP and we have no net assets anymore, when in early 2016 we had significant assets. Project Fear they said was wrong. Well was it?

We are flat broke as a nation.

Then there is the Great Repel Bill. The Bill was supposed to be in the Commons this week. It was delayed a week due to the sheer number of amendments. There are nearly a dozen with enough Tory rebels to make them stick. Including one for parliament to have a meaningful vote on what option we take - including no deal. If parliament rejected this, we would be left in a situation where we sure as hell better hope a50 is reversible or we could end up unlawfully leave the EU by accident!

And the Lords could be fun for the Repel Bill. The Labour whip has vowed to examine every amendment properly even if the commons don't. And they are free and within their rights to do so.

Still May could exit stage left. Or left with egg all over her face as she has to suck up to the 'enemy' for being such a tool for the last 18months, because she hasn't made progress on the negotiations that really matter. The Tory party ones.

Whichever way you cut it, you can be sure on only one thing: it will go to the wire for both. And possibly beyond with an eleventh hour extension to prevent chaos.

There are hints that the public mood might be changing. Not fast enough. Yet. Interest rates? A break in the triple lock? Phil's budget sure will be interesting. Especially as Brexiteers want money to prepare and protect us from a no deal scenario which they also tell us will be just fine and won't be a problem. Bye Bye NHS, don't get flu this winter. As a note once infamously said: 'There's no many left'.

We are Greece. Only worse. And out of pressure and deadlines we alone created. We just haven't realised it. Yet.

And if this doesn't make you cringe and brace yourself in horror:

Danny Kemp‏ @dannyctkemp
May wants to take the floor at EU summit dinner on Thursday to explain Brexit policy to fellow leaders, senior official says

Just remember her party speech and think: What could possibly go wrong...

I agree that it's a difficult task for the NHS, in the absence of ID cards in this country. I can see that some doctors may have a moral problem with it, but....well....that's not their decision to make. If they feel that strongly about it, they can offer FOC medical care to anyone who wants it by setting up their own practice that does just this. Or volunteer with someone like Medicins Sans Frontiers. If they are employed by the NHS, they need to abide by the NHS rules.

Well, that's a perfectly fine thing to say but you are aware the NHS has a massive staffing crisis aren't you? I am not sure how you could have missed it? The fact is if any employer puts in a rule that a huge number of employees feel goes against their strongest principles they are going to find themselves in trouble. If the NHS and Government take your line and push this to the extreme that staff leave in even greater numbers than they already are we won't have an NHS.

Many people who work for the NHS believe very strongly that is it their duty to provide treatment at the point of need to anyone who requires it. They also feel that the issue of people using the NHS for free who are not legally entitled to do so is actually a very small problem, which is dwarfed by far greater issues with funding and management. That we are wasting precious money on dealing with something insignificant when they time and money could be spent on solving real problems.

Telling the very people who actually care about the NHS that they should enact a policy, based on fundamentally racist misrepresentation of the issues, or that they should leave to take their much needed talent somewhere else seems rather counter productive.

With regard to so-called 'health tourism', I believe it was found to be less than 0.3% of the NHS budget. Although it must be hard to quantify.

fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/

Here is a factcheck article on it: www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-health-tourism-cost-nhs-billions

The amount is peanuts. I imagine the cost of setting up and enforcing ID cards could easily end up costing far more than the amount we are supposedly losing. The whole discussion is simply an extension of the 'everything is the fault of those nasty foriegn people' narrative that has got us into this brexit mess.

Sorry Hester I meant another factcheck? I didn't mean to ignore you

In fact the cost of the staff time to check everyone's ID and then chase them for payment (plus deal with appeals and arguements) would probably add up to more than the amount of money being lost.

lh Germany and Sweden, where I've worked, have ID cards, but you don't get into trouble not carrying them.
As with driving licences in the UK, if the police want to see them, you have a certain number of days to produce ID at the police station.
e.g. all the joggers I know just carry their keys, no cards.

btw, in 30 years of being more in Germany than England, I've only had to produce ID (passport in my case) when collecting parcels from the PO, reporting a theft, or if I wanted an official form of some sort completed.
It's not that they ask random people in the street for their ID

Maybe Misti can say if that is the same in France ?

For a doctor or hospital visit, you take your medical card. Obviously, in emergency, as in the UK, people just get treated and only asked for medical card when they are sufficiently well to answer.

I've never been asked for ID at the GP, just my medical card the first visit.
Took about 30 seconds to note the details
On all subsequent visits, they just ask if any details have changed, but don't ask to see the card again

Rather trusting really, as I might not have renewed my insurance, for all they know. Again, I assume they've done cost/benefit analysis that more checks cost more than they would bring in.

btw, I've always been able to phone my GP in the morning and get a same day appointment
My dentist too would stay late if anyone phones to say they have pain
So, this system works well

When I've checked online for some official forms or services at the town hall, or when I've opened a bank or brokerage account, the instructions included "bring ID" which implies people don't always carry it

I think the issue with the NHS , is that frontline staff do not want to be the gatekeepers to the service , we deal face to face with the people we care for in all manner of distressing situations. Generally you want people with a really high empathy quota working in those roles , for really obvious reasons .

No worries Bigly!

Actually I've just found another interesting article:

^'It's not health tourism that's thrown the NHS into crisis, it's the cuts.
The government's strategy of blaming foreigners for the mess will end in an ugly place.'^

As an aside, it states the NHS budget 16/17 was £116 billion. It makes me want to cry thinking of the money that'll be wasted on Brexit when the health service is so starved of cash. Tens of billions as a divorce settlement, plus more billions on enabling the civil service, customs etc to deal with it. Truly mad.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2017/02/its-not-health-tourism-thats-thrown-nhs-crisis-its-cuts

Just a thought, but it crosses my mind that surely whether someone is entitled to free NHS services would be on their Summary Care Record that is accessed electronically by care services as well as on any other electronic patient record systems?

Someone with some knowledge of this may be able to answer this?

If so then it would explain why most people are not asked for this information when they go to a hospital if they are already in the system. However, some people may choose to opt out of online systems, so may need to provide ID... And of course with any database there is the chance of cock up and information missing meaning it might need confirmation again.

Don't worry Hester I understand that there is bus full of money for the NHS as soon as we are free from those awful EU elitist types...that's of course if it doesn't all get spent on foreigners coming over here and stealing our operations.

I get asked if we have a social worker along with my son's school when we go to a & e.

I did the calculation of how much it would cost to employ staff to check the id of patients in each and every episode of care and sure enough it turned out to be about the same as the estimated costs of “health tourism”. Of course a politician can’t stand up and say that, but that doesn’t stop it being true.

lh Germany and Sweden, where I've worked, have ID cards, but you don't get into trouble not carrying them.

(sigh ).

Since when has the UK ever been able to take a simple idea - especially from Europe - without making it a million times more complex.

Metrication ?
Smoking ban ?
VAT ?

It was - and still is - a constant source of amazement to my DF that the British can't seem to do "simple".

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/24/medical-tourism-generates-millions-nhs-health the other side of the coin
Medical tourism generates millions for NHS and wider economy, finds study

Name changed but posted on WME thread last year Wealthy private health patients cost the NHS a significant amount due to blotched private surgery and associated aftercare.

If they are employed by the NHS, they need to abide by the NHS rules.

I was only obeying orders..........
If the Government wants to police access to the health service, which should include Britons returning from elsewhere and using a relative's address, they they should staff it properly.

In France you are supposed to carry your ID at all times and everyone that I know does. I used to carry a copy of my passport, but now I have a permanent resident's card.

Iirc (and things may have changed), A&Es are supposed but often don't as it costs too much to process to take details of RTAs so that they can recover the costs from the insurance

Yes. We could have a row of private security agents standing outside each GP practice - like those goons who are employed by the US government to rough airline passengers up before check-in at European airports - to forcibly prevent people from crossing the threshold unless they can show the requisite ID. What a great solution to a non problem.

I agree the Home Office might "weaponise" ID cards,
but that's because we have a serious HO problem that we need to work on
e.g. to stay within international law, even within UK law

ID cards in themselves are something a competent democracy should manage without drama.
The original ID proposals from Labour were ridiculously complicated, Tories would be no better
We have a serious problem with government becoming ever more dysfunctional in the UK, that is dragging down the country

I remember going to A&E following a RTA ( think it is called a RTI now ) because I was 7 months pregnant . All well and good , but received a bill for an ambulance , I was driven there by a friend

Useful summary if you want to explain WTO Brexit issues to anyone

(paywall) Q&A: how would trading under World Trade Organization rules affect Britain?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/q-a-how-would-trading-under-world-trade-organization-rules-affect-britain-d35t8k6jv

What is the WTO?

The World Trade Organization, based in Geneva, makes sure that international commerce is played according to some common rules.
Its origins go back to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt),
which was struck after the Second World War to ensure that there was no return to the tit-for-tat protectionism of the 1930s.

Through Gatt, trade was liberalised by lowering tariffs during multilateral negotiations, culminating in the creation of the WTO in 1994.
However, global trade liberalisation via the WTO has stalled.
Instead, countries have turned their attention to forging bilateral or “plurilateral” deals to reduce trade barriers.

So what would it mean if we started trading without an agreement with the EU, ie on WTO terms?

First, the tariffs.
Under WTO terms you must apply the same import duty, or tariff, to similar goods regardless of their origin unless they come from a country with which you have a free trade agreement.

So UK exporters will have duty imposed on their goods going into the EU, with which we conduct half our trade, unless the EU scraps tariffs for the entire world.
The EU’s average tariff is 2.6 per cent.
But this rises to 10 per cent for cars and upwards of 50 per cent for food.

Secondly, the WTO guarantees minimal access for providers of services.
So an accountant who audits the accounts of an EU company may have to set up a new office overseas and possibly re-qualify.
Services make up about 80 per cent of the UK economy.

Thirdly, WTO terms do little to reduce regulatory barriers.
A car that rolls off a production line in Sunderland can be sold anywhere in the EU if it has been approved by UK authorities;
to be sold in the US it must meet American rules, certified by a body authorised to do so.

Are there estimates on how trading on “WTO terms” would affect the British economy?

The Treasury reckoned it would reduce tax receipts by £45 billion a year by 2030 compared with staying in the EU.
For comparison, spending on the armed forces was £38 billion last year.

Another way of looking at it is to examine what happens when the UK moves away from trading on WTO terms and on to a free trade agreement.
Exports to South Korea broadly doubled between 2010, the year before a deal came into force, and 2016.
Imports also rose.
Nobody has tried doing it in reverse.

But we trade on WTO terms with the US and they are our largest single trade partner, aren’t they?
< sigh, NO major economy trades with the EU on purely WTO terms >

Not quite.
It’s true that we don’t have a free trade agreement with the US.
But as Richard North, a Eurosceptic researcher, has pointed out, < he's getting a few mentions atm >
there are dozens of investment and trade agreements between the EU and the US that British business use.

Once they've digested those less alarming facts, then gently steer them to North's description of gridlocked ports, exports and imports held up, empty shelves, flights, Euratom etc