Westminstenders: Tory Natural Selection

[RedToothBrush]

Here we go again...

{spending increases already announced for the NHS are £20.5 billion extra by 2023/24}

So bugger all use if you are planning to go shopping this evening as the extra spending might arrive in 4 years time.

Mind you, when John Humphreys is gaslighting everyone and saying that Trump didn't say what was broadcast into every home in the country, what hope is there for something more obscure.

If wishes were fishes....

ContinuityError
UK inputs into S Korean goods won't qualify towards tariff-free treatment under the EU/SK FTA.

What specific goods are you talking about? Also, it seems to depend on what percentage of third party input there is, e.g. 45% non-EU/S Korean input seems to be ok for S Korea to export to the EU tariff free without an extra agreement.

This would reduce investment and cost jobs.

ContinuityError
This would reduce investment and cost jobs.
Posted too soon - this is in the government leaflet you linked to.

All goods S Korea exports to the EU would have to satisfy the minimum % Rules of Origin content

The SK/UK agreement is at best the status quo.

Where is the actual benefit of leaving?

How much time an effort is being spent on trying to get what we've got right now, that could have been spent on securing genuinely new markets?

There are dozens more of these FTA's to replicate, the Govt has years of work ahead of it, for little or no gain.

The UK has to replace 40 EU FTAs with 70 countries, plus about 800 other trade arrangements, such as standards agreements

So Liam Fox has a looong way to go

And of course to replace the agreement with our nearest trade bloc, with whom we do about 50% of our trade - we are only about 10% of their trade

The government warnings referred to what would happen AFTER Brexit

• we haven't left yet, btw

If No Deal were so hunky-dory, we wouldn't see all these leadership candidates insisting they would somehow make the EU agree to renegotiating the WA

Cameron ran away, because he was terrified of the consequences that Leadsom quoted and wanted to avoid the responsibility.

The current candidates fear that whoever wins the contest will have only a very short honeymoon before
they have to decide to either ask for another extension,
or take the UK economy over a cliff

Isn't it funny that the referendum that was supposed to reunite the Tory party is tearing them apart and decimating their vote

Isn't it funny that it may lead to Corbyn coming to power after a Brexit crash
The only way he could ever become PM

Where is the actual benefit of leaving?
How much time an effort is being spent on trying to get what we've got right now, that could have been spent on securing genuinely new markets?
This is the key issue for me. What is better about any of this?

clavinova Are you happy about the US terms for an FTA ?

They are much worse than TTIP which the UK supported .... but were vetoed within the EU

Jon Stone@joncstone (The Independent)

I'm told that trade wonks in Washington DC have taken to calling the post-Brexit trade deal Donald Trump offered Theresa May

"the United States–United Kingdom Agreement"... or "USUKA" for short, pronounced "You sucker"

The Uk is scrabbling around frantically try to reproduce benefits it already has
while having to accept worse terms than the EU could get with most countries,
or terms that were previously refused

e.g. US:
re NHS, higher drug prices, lower food standards, US business able to sue the UK govt over laws it makes, govt restricted in trade deals with China etc

India - demands more visas

This would reduce investment and cost jobs.

You dug hard for that one didn’t you?

No, the Government leaflet did not mention half a million job losses, less money for pensioners and for the NHS. Leadsom was lying.

As for the “total continuity” of the proposed UK/SK agreement - Fox has been claiming this for a number of other agreements (Switzerland, Norway/Iceland etc) but when the details are published this is far from the truth:

Deals with Switzerland, & with Norway/Iceland, do not cover services.

The one with Switzerland is only “total” for goods during the WA transition period, and not if the UK & EU have no deal, and not beyond the WA transition.

Rules of origin are going to be important given that SK currently exports a lot of machinery and vehicles to the EU - hence a lot of trade specialists waiting to see what is actually published rather than relying on Fox’s spin.

Where is the actual benefit of leaving?

For me - personally - I don't want to live in a Federal Europe - others care more about trade, red tape, immigration, cost of membership, agricultural policy, fishing quotas...

Are you happy about the US terms for an FTA ?
I haven't seen them yet.

Thinking about it - Donald Trump's talk of a ^phenomenal' trade deal with Britain is fantastic advertising - I'm sure it will encourage other countries to sign agreements with us as well - before the US.

Many other countries are saying they need to see the terms of Brexit and the future trade deal with the EU,
before they can agree a trade deal with the UK on its own

ContinuityError
I don't remember the government's leaflet at the time - but I did read the papers and listen to the scaremongering.

clavinova We know the US requirements for a trade deal,
because they have published them and because the US has been quite open before about its demands

Do you agree with these terms ?

If sovereignty is important to you, then a US trade deal would take away far more than the EU required

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/uk-has-much-fear-us-trade-agreement

American Ambassador Woody Johnson’s comment to <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/02/us-wants-access-to-nhs-in-post-brexit-deal-ambassador-to-uk-says" target="_blank">Andrew Marrr*r on Sunday that healthcare would need to be on the table in any future trade talks
only served to make agreeing a fully-fledged deal all the more difficult.

That the US will drive a hard bargain in any future negotiation with the UK should come as no surprise.

Only the EU, and perhaps China, have the economic heft to negotiate on near-level terms with the Americans,
< hence why Trump & US oligarchs want to seperate the individual countries of the EU
.....
The US’s objectives for its negotiation with the UK were published in <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Summary_of_U.S.-UK_Negotiating_Objectives.pdf" target="_blank">February
....
For example:
alongside normal talk of tariff and quota removal,

the UK must jettison food hygiene rules that currently restrict US exports of beef, pork, chicken and dairy;

rules stipulating which products qualify for tariff-free treatment under the agreements must specifically incentivise production on US territory;

and the agreement should include a mechanism allowing for the US to take appropriate action if the UK negotiates an agreement with a “non-market economy” (see: China).
....
US demands regarding reimbursement regimes for pharmaceuticals and medical devices give greater cause for thought.

The US has long taken issuee* with the fact that the NHS’s approach to drug procurement

• where it makes its own assessment as to the fair value of the drugs it buys - pulls down prices worldwide. ..... due to the NHS’s global significance and market power, the incentives for the US to push the UK harder are more pronounced.

Do you seriously believe this "phenomenons trade deal" will be phenomenal for the UK rather than for the US?

Phenomenal can also mean a message of "rich pickings because these suckers are desperate ".

And you didn't read the government leaflet? Really? Did you not bother? Did you prefer second hand spin?

clavinova but Leadsom was saying that voters were told of these risks before the referendum

• that surely means she is saying they were NOT scare-mongering

Otherwise, why bother to quote these warnings when asked if the people knew the consequences of voting for Brexit ?

Otherwise, why bother to quote these warnings when asked if the people knew the consequences of voting for Brexit?

I watched George Osborne giving press conferences - does that count?

One of his speeches;
"Chancellor George Osborne said during a "town hall" speech to JP Morgan's hub in Bournemouth:"Our analysis shows that in the services sector alone 400,000 jobs could be at risk."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36445346

Clavinova
A lot has happened in over 3 years since that BBC 'news' item was published. You would have thought that if leaving the EU was such a brilliant plan there would be celebrations all round.

We have not left yet !

Hence most of the warnings haven't happened

We wouldn't have had these A50 extensions, at such high political cost to the Tories,
if they weren't worried that leaving with No Deal would bring even worse political fallout later

We wouldn't have all this fuss about renegotiating the WA if it didn't matter so much if we just left without a deal.

The Brexiters own economist, prof Patrick Minford, stated that Brexit would mean the end of UK mass manufacturing and agricultural / farming industry
(employing 8% of Uk workers)

He just said that the advantages to the financial & services sector would be worth it