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...

Sorry BigChoc it’s all going to be wonderful under WTO rules, haven’t you heard?

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

Just checking , fish is classed as food right ?

Just remind me how much of the fish caught in our waters is shipped to the EU ?

A parliamentary report published today has found that some 75 per cent of fish caught in the UK is exported, mostly to the European Union, while the majority of fish eaten in the UK is imported

Read more: www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4043758/EU-trade-key-success-UK-fish-industry-75-home-caught-fish-exported-majority-fish-eaten-Britons-imported.html#ixzz4wAi4d89d
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

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”

Unless the NHS changes its rules and limits care to citizens, I'm not sure what good ID cards would do. There are 1 million plus Britons living in Europe who would presumably qualify for an ID card but not for NHS care.

Asking the NHS to do these checks is stupid, counterproductive, will not raise additional funds, and is 100% guaranteed to lead to people entitled to care being charged or refused treatment.

(list of things the UK government managed to over complicte ..)

...Driving licences, and the (until recently) ludicrous requirement for a paper counterpart.

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.

I think we can all agree on that.

I guess a big part of the problem is trying to retrofit payment into a system that wasn't designed to have payment in it, Eg the US system works very well - in its own, peculiar way - and the insurance / payment part is very straightforward indeed, because it is ingrained in it. But one key bit is that once you have given your insurance details once, you don't have to give them over and over again when you access case under the same practioner or when you are referred for further treatment by them, so working out how much it would cost to check eligibility for every procedure is bound to produce a huge figure that is higher than it need be.

And I'm a bit at the suggestion that anyone who works in a health care system that features payment in it in a significant way is obviously not as caring as those who work in the NHS. It's possible to be completely dedicated to helping people get better AND make sure that the system continues to function as intended.

Yy, Lurking, we do seem to have a kind of reverse Occam's Razor principle in most government policies and processes.

Why do you think that is? (Genuine question)

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
Many moons decades ago, a df of mine received a bill for their treatment costs for an rta that was completely their fault. It was covered by insurance but they were very shocked. I've often wondered if they were unlucky or people just kept quiet about it.

Wrt the editing of place of birth and death of Irish figures on Wiki - James Joyce died in Zurich, BBC, not Paris.

People using the "expats abusing the NHS” line might be interested in this.
“If you are in receipt of a UK pension and have registered a valid UK S1 form with the relevant authorities in your country of residence, and your healthcare is paid for by the UK by virtue that S1 form, then you are now entitled to return to England to receive free NHS hospital treatment, just like someone who is ordinarily resident in England.”
This will apply to the vast majority of pensioners abroad, apart from those who have worked in their country of residence.

This is the relevant document.
www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-overseas-visitors-hospital-charging-regulations/summary-of-changes-made-to-the-way-the-nhs-charges-overseas-visitors-for-nhs-hospital-care

Interesting reads:

medium.com/personaldata-io/the-dis-information-mercenaries-now-controlling-trumps-databases-4f6a20d4f3e7
Now that Trump, his SuperPACs and even their vendors have got a ton of data on every American, what could they do with that? We look at the PSYOPS dashboards that have been built by the same vendors to manipulate populations in Libya, Afghanistan and countless other countries

Conclusion
On one side, Putin is said to apply the old Russian playbook in propagating false stories (or even contenting himself in people believing he could).

On the other side, Trump is about to get the key to all the NATO apparatus, and has direct access through his donor Robert Mercer (rumoured owner of Cambridge Analytica) and his campaign to many of the same tools.

www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/soft-power-uk-influence/soft-power-ev-vol1-a-g.pdf
Use the index on the left, click on 'Behavioural Dynamics Institute - written evidence' (or scroll to p. 199).
Behavioural Dynamics Institute, HoL Report, 'Soft Power'
When the UK does what Russia may or may not do (see first link), it is called 'strategic communication campaigns' and it is all perfectly ok - in fact the more effective the UK can be at interfering in the affairs of a foreign sovereign state the better, according to the BDI (SCL/Cambridge Analytica).

Having asserted that there is little difference between hard power and soft power - they are two sides of the same coin of a govt achieving a foreign policy objective - the report goes on:
In general, a soft power effort should proceed in the following manner: an overall aim is determined, and this is distilled into specific behavioural objectives, perhaps supported by initial primary and secondary research. For each objective, the most salient and measurable self-identifying and cohesive target audience is selected, and primary research is conducted upon that group. This research will be in-depth and multi-stage, and will test a range of research parameters. Meanwhile, a baseline will be established to determine the effectiveness of the campaign. Analysis of the wealth of data thereby produced will allow the design of specific, fully articulated and actionable recommendations, which may or may not be communications-focused. The campaign will then be conducted, and its effectiveness is then measured.

From my first link:
Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, SCL Group, has taken its name from the whole field of study: Strategic Communication Laboratories. This group has a variety of affiliates, such as SCL Defence or SCL Elections, that have offered services in countless countries [1]. It also has its own think thank, the Behavioural Dynamics Institute, ultimately responsible for formalising the methodology, and even a(n Information Operations) Training & Advisory services branch, IOTA-Global

Edward Snowden on 'turnkey tyranny'. This applies to ID cards imo, and also to information yielded by means of direct surveillance, but also to the information social media has yielded that has been put to use by the likes of Cambridge Analytica, though I do not think Snowden anticipated this, specifically. Prescient words here.

Olennas sorry if I wasn't clear in my post , I was not saying that HCP's who work in private healthcare are less caring , that obviously isn't true , but having been in that environment , they are also not expected to be the gatekeepers as far as finance is concerned , the financial element is dealt with long before a person accesses care .
In the NHS this financial element should also be dealt with by other parties , not by front line staff . I think this is currently the case and don't want to see the onus shift to frontline staff iyswim .

Also Olenna I am not sure how the insurance system works in the USA , but say a person has a heart attack and gets treatment under their insurance , they are potentially at risk of further cardiac events , so would they still be covered if say 5 years down the line they had another heart attack ? Or would this cover be removed under pre-existing conditions ?

math interesting stuff. Orwell saw all this on the way with legalised state surveillance in WW2. It seems to have 'softened' the way for public acceptance of human rights infringements here ever since.

Cohen points out here that unlike US, there are no legal or political challenges to collusion with Russian interference in british democracy.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/21/russia-free-pass-undermine-british-democracy-vladimir-putin

We live in a complex world, with multiple constructed realities. It will become more and more essential that we understand how it is tailored to each of us…

I've got no data, but I do think that behaviourism is more limited in its reach than a lot of the very gendered proponents of it think.

Yes, the UK expats NOT entitled to most NHS care are those not yet in receipt of a UK pension - i.e. mostly people working / unemployed in the EEA and their dependents
plus iirc pensioners in countries outside the EEA not covered by S1 system, e.g. USA, are also not entitled to NHS care.

Some of those expats who are self-employed, or whose health insurance ends with their job / retirement, or in non-EEA countries, do abuse the NHS for injuries or ailments that leave them able to travel back.

Any UK (citizen) expat of any age who returns to the Uk to live there longterm would be regarded as ordinarily resident and entitled to NHS care immediately

• but probably best to organise in advance with HMRC in particular, to have official proof / correspondence of dates, UK address etc

I would expect, even with a no-deal exit, that the S1 scheme for UK expat pensioners in the EEA would be continued.
It makes pensions easier to administer and it is the gateway to refunding healthcare.

Otherwise, the NHS would receive a 6-figure influx of very expensive pensioners and does not have sufficient infrastructure - buildings or HCPs, to handle this

The HoC Health services Committee was informed that even after repaying the EEA health services, the NHS saved iirc 1,000s per pensioner in comparison to pensioners resident in the UK

I would expect, even with a no-deal exit, that the S1 scheme for UK expat pensioners in the EEA would be continued.

I would hope that this would be the case, but those who want the hardest Brexit possible will surely say no to this too, because absolutely everything the EU does, even when it's been a UK initiative, is 100% wrong. It's OK for the likes of Redwood, Gove etc. who are all wealthy, but even they might find in later life that severe illness drains their private health funds.

And I'm a bit hmm at the suggestion that anyone who works in a health care system that features payment in it in a significant way is obviously not as caring as those who work in the NHS

I know people who work in the NHS and people who work for private providers. I would not ever say those who work for private providers are in any way less caring of those they are treating. However, many of those working for the NHS do so having made a conscious choice. They could go get a job in a private company and almost certainly earn more and work better hours. They stay in the NHS despite the fact it can be a really shit and stressful place to work because they believe strongly in the principles of the NHS, one of which is providing care free at the point of need.

If you take that away from frontline staff by expecting them to police who they give care to you take away one of the main reasons they stay in the NHS. They may as well go get paid more and work less somewhere else.

Besides, the main point is that this is not a real problem! The NHS is not losing billions to people wrongly getting free care. It is a manufacturer issue. There is no problem that needs solving!

Manufactured issue...sorry

Faisal Islam - Long read: Why car industry is worried - UK industry, that is

The govt does not understand "just-in-time" ... or anything else

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-forensics-why-car-industry-is-getting-worried-11041671
......
Brexit Day is in the next financial year, for which investment plans are currently being signed off at board meetings.
As one would expect, detailed contingency and scenario planning has occurred.

At this stage, the shock is significant at hearing from Government that not only does it not know exactly where the UK is going to land,
but further that it does not know how these systems work,
and that the meeting is in fact about attempting to find out how the car companies' logistics and customs systems function.

An internal industry memo circulating at the Frankfurt Motor Show, revealed to Sky News, described a recent "disillusioning" meeting with the Government on Brexit customs arrangements and "a lack of detailed information and blocking of our questions"

which attendees concluded was a "desperate attempt" to get the industry to solve the customs conundrum posed by the Government's approach to Brexit.
....
At a Number 10 meeting in July, Jaguar Land Rover boss Ralph Speth is understood to have directed a "heated" monologue on the impact of no deal and no transition on the car industry towards the PM.
< so she HAS been warned >

Top JLR boss Andy Goss told Sky News that its investment in a car plant in Slovakia should now be seen as a "hedge" against uncertainty around the post-Brexit trading environment.

"It's become a hedge by default - we will assess everything in the cold light of day - we don't expect to do it, but if we have to we will,"
< moving Landrover abroad - at least that part not for the Uk domestic market - would be a massive PR blow for the Tories. Their voters and members regard LR as a British icon >

Does he know what the regulatory and trading arrangement will be in 18 months' time?
"As of today nobody knows," says JLR's Goss.

At the Frankfurt Motor Show, a Toyota boss expressed concern that assurances from Government on a tariff-free outcome to negotiations had been made at the time of a £240m investment in its Burnaston plant in Derbyshire, but "not any more"
....
The preferred solution to all of this among Cabinet Brexiteers is a massive expansion by the Government of what is known as Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) status, and this was mentioned in the Department for Exiting the EU's customs paper.

This is a European Union scheme for manufacturers to handle customs arrangements for non-EU parts internally, subject to certification and checks.
Essentially it outsources customs to authorised manufacturers inside their plant.

Privately the industry is scathing about the idea, gaining AEO status is "the devil's work" and there is "no chance" for the entire supply chain to do that.
...
Some in the industry are a little tired of the Government trumpeting small investments as endorsements of its Brexit strategy, with one refusing to allow a Cabinet minister to conduct celebratory interviews from its premises.
They claim there was "zero chance" of executives from major car manufacturers signing up to the Government's aborted attempt to get a public letter of endorsement from businesses.
...
Chlorinated chickens could yet be accompanied by Fukushima fish on the post-Brexit dining table.

one refusing to allow a Cabinet minister to conduct celebratory interviews from its premises.

Hardcore Remoaning UnBeLeaving Traitor...

Bigly

If you take that away from frontline staff by expecting them to police who they give care to you take away one of the main reasons they stay in the NHS. They may as well go get paid more and work less somewhere else.

Quite apart from this, it's a really fucking stupid idea to use healthcare professionals - whose skills are already in short supply - as accountants and border police.

If you want to check entitlements you have to devote resources to it. When you pitch up at a French hospital, the first thing you do is take your healthcare cards to a admin office, where ranks of admin officers sit at desks processing patients' healthcare entitlements (state insurance and top-up). Chasing money round the system does not come free.

Regarding the car industry, it's not just the car makers but also their suppliers and component makers who are in the shit. Supply chains are exceedingly complex and will need to be completely reengineered post brexit to limit border crossings.

I have just seen an interesting article in my local newspaper.

Its about a massive proposed new housing development which is unpopular in the area. Except its not.

Its the local conservative association asking locals to get in touch with them to oppose the development. Interestingly, it mentions no councillor nor named individual. Its just from the local association and gives an email address.

We know the local party has NO ONE left. And they have no one who can stand in any election locally. One of the two current councillors is in her 80s and yeah...

They are using the development to oppose national policy to go on a recruitment drive.

Interesting to see. I wonder if this is being done elsewhere. I suspect it is, especially the way it was worded as being from the local association. Its come from above not locally...