It's not just about Brexit

[martin_p]

But you know that the pundit has a 50/50 chance of being right at this stage.

I think most people would brush that off as the pundit knows nothing credible at this stage but is merely offering a view.

The research director in that article is saying it could happen and the chief negotiator for Japan is saying it’s likely that they will achieve a positive outcome.

You take the pessimism of someone who can’t influence the outcome over the optimism of someone who can... that’s a bit bizarre to me.

So you accept that getting a deal worse than we have now is a valid viewpoint then.

[martin_p]

The idea of free trade is to benefit both sides. There has been a lot of this sort of attitude, that in every deal there is a winner and a loser. It doesn't work like that. A good deal benefits both sides. If it doesn't benefit both sides, it's not a good deal for either side.

That would be true if we weren’t already part of a trade deal with Japan that’s already agreed. Any new deal can clearly be better or worse.

[Devils_Advocate]

The idea of free trade is to benefit both sides. There has been a lot of this sort of attitude, that in every deal there is a winner and a loser. It doesn't work like that. A good deal benefits both sides. If it doesn't benefit both sides, it's not a good deal for either side.

And the idea of negotiating a free trade deal is you get the best deal possible for your country. This involves having to make concessions as both parties need to benefit but if one is in a much stronger position than the other then they will use that to their advantage.

If we had a choice between staying part of the EU deal or choosing to switch to our own deal then Japan would have to offer us something as good or better than the EU deal for it to be worth us considering to switch. Unfortunately that isn't the situation and our choice is between agreeing a new deal with Japan this year or having no deal come 2021.

This means that Japan could likely offer us a worst deal than the EU one but it will still be a better outcome than walking away without a deal. Here is when the real negotiating starts and the side who has the upper hand and less to lose is obviously going to be able to dictate the terms a lot more strongly than the other side.

I guess it comes down to where we are willing to draw our red lines and how much Japan feel they need a deal with us and its definitely possible that this could result in a decent deal but with all the historical understanding of how trade deal negotiations works and the two country's currents position in the world of trade then the odds must be in favour of us taking a deal worse than the deal we had as part of the EU

[Spijed]

Here is the full list of Conservative MP's who want to do away with free health care in the UK:

#welcometobrexit

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... Ya1yQXlU7A

[AndrewJB]

The idea of free trade is to benefit both sides. There has been a lot of this sort of attitude, that in every deal there is a winner and a loser. It doesn't work like that. A good deal benefits both sides. If it doesn't benefit both sides, it's not a good deal for either side.

Ideally every business transaction should work that way, but we don’t live in an ideal world. Neo liberalism has at its core maximisation of profit and shareholder value - this above even responsibility to society, and ethics. Both sets of negotiators will be angling for everything they can get.

[dsr]

Ideally every business transaction should work that way, but we don’t live in an ideal world. Neo liberalism has at its core maximisation of profit and shareholder value - this above even responsibility to society, and ethics. Both sets of negotiators will be angling for everything they can get.

Which is why the option of walking away without a deal is probably the best one. Why would we want to make an agreement that basically involves giving everything they ask to someone who you know is trying to screw you?

[dsr]

Here is the full list of Conservative MP's who want to do away with free health care in the UK:

#welcometobrexit

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... Ya1yQXlU7A

Not just healthcare, presumably. There is nothing in that bill that protects free-at-point-of-use schools, or public footpaths, or libraries, or litter bins, or beaches, or any of the other myriad things permitted or provided by government. Why is healthcare singled out?

I think there is a common misconception of what the NHS does and what it is there for. It is not a gravy train to protect UK businesses, and it is not a protectionist society to prevent competition. The NHS is a means of providing healthcare which is free at point of use and which does not involve specific personal insurance. That is what it does.

How it does it, is another matter. It's perfectly legit to consider that it shouldn't be allowed to have foreign business or property owners or doctors or nurses providing the services. It's legit to say the NHS must be run by British people for British people. But even every building, every administrator, every doctor and every nurse are foreign, if the NHS provides free healthcare at point of use then it is still the NHS. If your drugs come from America and your doctor comes from Pakistan, it is still the NHS. If your building is owned by a French owned PPP company and your doctor comes from Hungary, it is still the NHS. Where the money comes from and where the money goes to is an administrative detail. If your healthcare is provided free at point of use, then it is still the NHS.

If the NHS is to be abolished, it won't be by means of a trade deal with the USA.

[clarethomer]

The idea of free trade is to benefit both sides. There has been a lot of this sort of attitude, that in every deal there is a winner and a loser. It doesn't work like that. A good deal benefits both sides. If it doesn't benefit both sides, it's not a good deal for either side.

Spot on.

Whilst this is based on the EU - this isn’t the yard stick to say it’s a good/bad deal.

If it’s the same deal we can say that we are in no different position to what would have been had we remained part of it.

However whatever the deal is and the fact that people are calling out that the fact it hasn’t been signed yet - the measure of good or bad isn’t black and white.

[aggi]

Which is why the option of walking away without a deal is probably the best one. Why would we want to make an agreement that basically involves giving everything they ask to someone who you know is trying to screw you?

Because eventually we're going to have to make some trade deals and the longer the time period where we don't have a deal the more we'll need one.

In **** Brexit analogy number 5,072 it's like buying a house whilst you're paying expensive rent. You can walk away from buying a property if it's a bad deal but all the while you're paying a high rent and your deposit is being eaten up so you're getting more desperate to buy a house but also in a weaker position to negotiate.

I know you're not keen on acknowledging the disruption that is coming but a fairly overwhelming number of sources are now showing the huge costs to UK businesses, and by extension the UK economy, if we walk away.

[cblantfanclub]

dsr wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:06 am
"Why would we want to make an agreement that basically involves giving everything they ask to someone who you know is trying to screw you?

Is this America you are talking about?

[martin_p]

Which is why the option of walking away without a deal is probably the best one. Why would we want to make an agreement that basically involves giving everything they ask to someone who you know is trying to screw you?

Maybe we’d be better off trying to do deals as part of some sort of bigger group of countries, to put us in a better negotiating position.

Still, at least we have our sovereignty as a comfort blanket.

[clarethomer]

Maybe we’d be better off trying to do deals as part of some sort of bigger group of countries, to put us in a better negotiating position.

Still, at least we have our sovereignty as a comfort blanket.

You could take the view that negotiating a deal with other countries then dilutes the effectiveness of the deal for your country and the compromises that naturally take place go further as you account for more views.

The frugal 4/5 EU nations this week have seen the benefit of this ‘collective benefit’ as they have been lumbered with burdening the responsibility of poor fiscal management of other countries

But when you consider the frugal 4/5 are in the main considered more conservative in their leaning, it doesn’t surprise me the socialist used their bullying tactics to get what they want. Sounds strangely familiar

[dsr]

Because eventually we're going to have to make some trade deals and the longer the time period where we don't have a deal the more we'll need one.

In **** Brexit analogy number 5,072 it's like buying a house whilst you're paying expensive rent. You can walk away from buying a property if it's a bad deal but all the while you're paying a high rent and your deposit is being eaten up so you're getting more desperate to buy a house but also in a weaker position to negotiate.

I know you're not keen on acknowledging the disruption that is coming but a fairly overwhelming number of sources are now showing the huge costs to UK businesses, and by extension the UK economy, if we walk away.

And that is another problem with the "we're doomed" scenarios. They come up with all sorts of analogies that make no sense at all (not to say the pro-Brexiters can;t do the same, but still ...)

Trade with the EU is not like buying a house. What you are forgetting is that trade with the EU is both ways - we sell to them, they sell to us. Try your house analogy again where we are buying a house off them, they are buying a house of us, and while we're dithering both sides are paying rent. Both sides are losing out.

Obviously one way of settling it is for us to decide that the disagreement is all our fault so we will pay the price they ask to buy their house, we will sell the house to them at the price they ask, and we will pay all the expenses of the rent because it's only fair and because they're the big country who we can't afford to offend. But not everyone likes that deal and thinks it's better to buy the houses at WTO prices, draw a line under the rent, and get on with things.

[martin_p]

You could take the view that negotiating a deal with other countries then dilutes the effectiveness of the deal for your country and the compromises that naturally take place go further as you account for more views.

The frugal 4/5 EU nations this week have seen the benefit of this ‘collective benefit’ as they have been lumbered with burdening the responsibility of poor fiscal management of other countries

But when you consider the frugal 4/5 are in the main considered more conservative in their leaning, it doesn’t surprise me the socialist used their bullying tactics to get what they want. Sounds strangely familiar

Three of the five have governments run by their countries equivalent of the Labour Party and align themselves with the socialist group in the European Parliament so I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion.

[aggi]

And that is another problem with the "we're doomed" scenarios. They come up with all sorts of analogies that make no sense at all (not to say the pro-Brexiters can;t do the same, but still ...)

Trade with the EU is not like buying a house. What you are forgetting is that trade with the EU is both ways - we sell to them, they sell to us. Try your house analogy again where we are buying a house off them, they are buying a house of us, and while we're dithering both sides are paying rent. Both sides are losing out.

Obviously one way of settling it is for us to decide that the disagreement is all our fault so we will pay the price they ask to buy their house, we will sell the house to them at the price they ask, and we will pay all the expenses of the rent because it's only fair and because they're the big country who we can't afford to offend. But not everyone likes that deal and thinks it's better to buy the houses at WTO prices, draw a line under the rent, and get on with things.

Indeed, both sides are losing out. They are not losing out anywhere near equally though.

To move away from analogies (I did say it was ****) and on to actual figures, about 45% of UK exports go to the EU. About 7% of EU countries' exports go to the UK.

To be honest I don't think there are any particularly good solutions. WTO will obviously have a huge impact on the economy due mainly, I would say, to the disruption rather than the tariffs (although they won't help either). Signing up to a bad deal will mean that we're not getting the benefits of being in or out (and obviously continue the bitching and the moaning about how mean the EU is and everything is their fault).

[clarethomer]

Three of the five have governments run by their countries equivalent of the Labour Party and align themselves with the socialist group in the European Parliament so I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion.

You are indeed correct, it was the frugal 4 and Hungary that I was referring to in my thinking with the 3 of the 5 who were prominently disagreeing with the approach to the EU recovery fund. I had been listening to something which had referenced they were mainly conservative in that group. I had not realised the 5 referred to Finland rather than Hungry.

Anyway, good to see you saw no issue with my point about EU dilution and there being the opportunity for us to get more concessions than we would like to have as part of this.

[clarethomer]

Here is the full list of Conservative MP's who want to do away with free health care in the UK:

#welcometobrexit

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... Ya1yQXlU7A

I am not his biggest fan by any means but Andrew Stephenson posted something quite apt on this topic where he had a lot of people calling him **** etc.

The move by the minority parties in parliament got what they wanted which was something to attack the government over knowing full well that they would not vote for something like this. It was there to drive hate and fear unnecessarily.

Just because it got voted down, it doesn't mean that anyone wants to do away with free health care.

There are already other things in place that would mean that any new trade treaty will be made public before its ratification, and Parliament will retain, through the process outlined in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the right to block any treaty from being ratified.

Far easier to get outraged though I guess

[tiger76]

Talks not looking promising, fisheries and competition laws amongst the sticking points. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53513612

[aggi]

I am not his biggest fan by any means but Andrew Stephenson posted something quite apt on this topic where he had a lot of people calling him **** etc.

The move by the minority parties in parliament got what they wanted which was something to attack the government over knowing full well that they would not vote for something like this. It was there to drive hate and fear unnecessarily.

Just because it got voted down, it doesn't mean that anyone wants to do away with free health care.

There are already other things in place that would mean that any new trade treaty will be made public before its ratification, and Parliament will retain, through the process outlined in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the right to block any treaty from being ratified.

Far easier to get outraged though I guess

I guess the question is why would they not vote for it? That doesn't seem to have been addressed.

Those powers to delay (not prevent) ratification are somewhat limited though:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 5540000339

[clarethomer]

The answer to your question has already been answered.

There is already processes and protections in place for treaties to be blocked.

They either;

a - believe the existing Act is sufficient to meet what was being asked to protect

b- do not think the proposal is something they want to progress as the democratically elected government

c - both of the above

I guess that is part of living in a democracy that votes will pass and votes will fail.

Would be good if someone can tell me why its perfectly acceptable to call this move the end of free healthcare?

I will cynically callout that the failure of this vote was what was intended given the amount of social media activity calling out the end of free healthcare because of the hate and fear people stir up..

Posts like the above shows how easy it is to share something which has not truth to it. Is it really necessary?

Think about all those people that rely on the NHS. They start to worry that there is truth in this. This is more far fetched than the brexit bus..

[dsr]

I guess the question is why would they not vote for it? That doesn't seem to have been addressed.

Those powers to delay (not prevent) ratification are somewhat limited though:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 5540000339

Two main reasons why they wouldn't vote for it.

1. It's nothing but a spoiler agreement inserted by a minority party for no other reason than to stir the pot.

2. Putting that clause in would kill any chance of a trade deal with the USA.

Read it closely. Among the provisions are that the deal must no t inhibit the UK government from regulating and controlling prices of medicine and medical equipment in the UK - in other words, a blanket ban on all imports of medical products from the USA except as specifically agreed - and even more of a poison chalice, that nothing in the trade agreement would apply to the NHS.

What I don't understand is what could be put into a trade agreement that would stop the government from providing me - or anyone else - with healthcare free at point of use? Are they really going to put something in an agreement that says the government is not allowed to provide healthcare? What sort of clause does anyone have in mind?

[AndrewJB]

Although a great many Tories have called for the privatisation of the NHS, they’re not stupid enough to do this in one action. Instead they’ll increase the marketisation of procurement of goods and services, allowing more private company involvement - perhaps claiming the value of the free trade deal with the US is worth a few sacrifices here and there.

[claretonthecoast1882]

How long should it take to sell the NHS ?

10 years of trying and still not sold it, not very good are they

[Devils_Advocate]

[dsr]

For someone who claims like to like accuracy and honesty, didn't it occur to you that 10 seconds' google check would have found the evidence that none of those first three PMs said what you claim they said?

https://medium.com/@jpainio/public-co-i ... 47372c094f

[ClaretAndJew]

So whilst the quotes are wrong, the meaning behind them stood very much firm and true.

[dsr]

So whilst the quotes are wrong, the meaning behind them stood very much firm and true.

That's an interesting interpretation. So when Cameron told Parliament "bring forward the Bill [to privatise the Royal Mail] and we will support it" the meaning behind it was to oppose the sale?

[ClaretAndJew]

That's an interesting interpretation. So when Cameron told Parliament "bring forward the Bill [to privatise the Royal Mail] and we will support it" the meaning behind it was to oppose the sale?

dsr you've well and truly gazumped me. My brain is not working today.

I will leave up my errors as proof of this and offer my apologies.

We all make mistakes.

[martin_p]

For someone who claims like to like accuracy and honesty, didn't it occur to you that 10 seconds' google check would have found the evidence that none of those first three PMs said what you claim they said?

https://medium.com/@jpainio/public-co-i ... 47372c094f

Further to that, from memory, the Royal Mail privatisation was originally a Blair/Brown Labour government policy.

[Devils_Advocate]

For someone who claims like to like accuracy and honesty, didn't it occur to you that 10 seconds' google check would have found the evidence that none of those first three PMs said what you claim they said?

https://medium.com/@jpainio/public-co-i ... 47372c094f

If we are playing a fun role reversal where you care about facts and accuracy and therefore I just act all disingenuous would you please like to point me to where I made any comment on the fun picture I posted?

I didnt make any specific point so how you want to interpret my motives is your problem not mine dear

[JohnMcGreal]

That's an interesting interpretation. So when Cameron told Parliament "bring forward the Bill [to privatise the Royal Mail] and we will support it" the meaning behind it was to oppose the sale?

How times have changed. At least the Cameron government gave Parliament the opportunity to debate, scrutinise and vote on the sale of Royal Mail.

This Vote Leave government have consolidated that power in Number 10, meaning your local representative in Parliament will have no say on what is or isn't on the table in any future sell-offs as part of any trade deals.

Which is quite ironic, considering one of the supposed 'benefits' of leaving the EU was that our sovereign Parliament would regain control of its own trade arrangements. That didn't last long...

[Mala591]

Although a great many Tories have called for the privatisation of the NHS, they’re not stupid enough to do this in one action. Instead they’ll increase the marketisation of procurement of goods and services, allowing more private company involvement - perhaps claiming the value of the free trade deal with the US is worth a few sacrifices here and there.

GP's are private businesses and contract out their services to the NHS. Iyho should GP's be 'nationalised' and work directly for the NHS?

[aggi]

The answer to your question has already been answered.

There is already processes and protections in place for treaties to be blocked.

They either;

a - believe the existing Act is sufficient to meet what was being asked to protect

b- do not think the proposal is something they want to progress as the democratically elected government

c - both of the above

I guess that is part of living in a democracy that votes will pass and votes will fail.

Would be good if someone can tell me why its perfectly acceptable to call this move the end of free healthcare?

I will cynically callout that the failure of this vote was what was intended given the amount of social media activity calling out the end of free healthcare because of the hate and fear people stir up..

Posts like the above shows how easy it is to share something which has not truth to it. Is it really necessary?

Think about all those people that rely on the NHS. They start to worry that there is truth in this. This is more far fetched than the brexit bus..

As I said in the previous post there aren't processes and protections in place for treaties to be blocked, only delayed.

I don't disagree that it is grandstanding. That's the trouble when a Prime Minister says “Under no circumstances will this government or any Conservative government do anything to put the NHS up for negotiation in trade talks", you lay yourself very open to someone exploiting that statement and trying to hold you to it.

[dsr]

Which is quite ironic, considering one of the supposed 'benefits' of leaving the EU was that our sovereign Parliament would regain control of its own trade arrangements. That didn't last long...

Parliament doesn't have control of foreign treaties of any sort. There was never any suggestion that parliament would get control of that now - the point of Brexit is that the UK government regains control of our own trade agreements.

[JohnMcGreal]

Parliament doesn't have control of foreign treaties of any sort. There was never any suggestion that parliament would get control of that now - the point of Brexit is that the UK government regains control of our own trade agreements.

I don't recall any leave campaigner making that claim. The repeated line, over and over again, was about 'restoring sovereignty' and the UK Parliament is where our sovereignty lies (and always has, despite EU membership).

[aggi]

Two main reasons why they wouldn't vote for it.

1. It's nothing but a spoiler agreement inserted by a minority party for no other reason than to stir the pot.

2. Putting that clause in would kill any chance of a trade deal with the USA.

Read it closely. Among the provisions are that the deal must no t inhibit the UK government from regulating and controlling prices of medicine and medical equipment in the UK - in other words, a blanket ban on all imports of medical products from the USA except as specifically agreed - and even more of a poison chalice, that nothing in the trade agreement would apply to the NHS.

What I don't understand is what could be put into a trade agreement that would stop the government from providing me - or anyone else - with healthcare free at point of use? Are they really going to put something in an agreement that says the government is not allowed to provide healthcare? What sort of clause does anyone have in mind?

I'd say 1 isn't really a good reason. If there are fundamental reasons to disagree with it then fair enough but who presented it shouldn't be an issue (although sadly politics, particularly under the current regime, is largely spin over substance so it clearly will be).

I guess the question is do we want to sign a trade deal that does undermine or restrict the ability of the NHS to regulate and control the pricing and reimbursement systems for the purchase of medicines or medical devices? What would the benefit be of that?

I don't think that anyone is expecting an overnight switch to healthcare that isn't free at the point of use. I imagine that the first step would be a hugely inefficient healthcare system (the US healthcare system costs massive amounts for fairly poor outcomes) which leads to the government, bit by bit, saying that it has to find an alternative funding model.

The first step could be brought about by things such as agreeing to the extended copyright periods for medicines that the US is pushing for, ISDS cases with private firms suing the government for lost earnings (we've already seen a precursor of this with Virgin) and then getting involved in running the NHS at a high cost, etc

[Rowls]

Does overiegnty lie in a very specific place? Does it move about like a feral cat? How big is it - It is tiny like a marble or big like an inflatable bouncey castle? What shape is our sovereignty.

Is it in Downing Street one day, then Parliament the next? To it hang around like an ether at cabinet meetings? Has it ever been lodged in the Queen's intestines?

[dsr]

I don't recall any leave campaigner making that claim. The repeated line, over and over again, was about 'restoring sovereignty' and the UK Parliament is where our sovereignty lies (and always has, despite EU membership).

Parliament can remove the government if it doesn't want them to sign a treaty, but it has never had the right of scrutiny or negotiation of any treaty and has seldom had the right of approval.

[JohnMcGreal]

Parliament can remove the government if it doesn't want them to sign a treaty, but it has never had the right of scrutiny or negotiation of any treaty and has seldom had the right of approval.

That isn't true. The Withdrawal Agreement is a binding treaty which Parliament scrutinised and voted on, several times before finally being approved. Although, the government did try and stop Parliament from doing any of that, until they were dragged through the courts and forced to implement the parliamentary sovereignty they craved so much.

[RingoMcCartney]

Stop.



During the 72 years of its existence, the NHS has been under the control of the Conservative Party for 45 of those 72.


Carry on .

[dsr]

That isn't true. The Withdrawal Agreement is a binding treaty which Parliament scrutinised and voted on, several times before finally being approved. Although, the government did try and stop Parliament from doing any of that, until they were dragged through the courts and forced to implement the parliamentary sovereignty they craved so much.

True, but all they could do was say yes or no. As soon as Parliament altered one single word, the treaty would be null and void and the government had to get agreement again from the EU. The problem with Parliament arranging treaties is that Parliament can't negotiate with foreign governments. It never has been able to.

[JohnMcGreal]

Which is why a sensible and pragmatic government would seek some sort of consensus from Parliament before embarking on something so radical and wide-reaching; so that the government has a clear negotiating mandate.

In a hung parliament or supply-and-demand minority government, that would have meant working together across parties and involving the devolved nations, but if the EU can function that way, finding a consensus across 27 separate states, there’s no reason why the UK and its 4 nations couldn’t have done the same.

However, in this case the government has an 80 seat majority, so even if it wanted to exclude the opposition parties and the devolved administrations, it should still be able to get its stuff through Parliament quite easily. The fact that they don't even trust their own MP's to scrutinise and vote on their deals, with such a sizeable majority, makes me wonder just how unpalatable these deals will be.

[clarethomer]

So they didn’t sign it because they don’t trust their own MPs.

They didn’t agree to it because they clearly think it won’t help them run the country in the way they have promised they would.

They did it because there are processes in place to scrutinise these things.

If we want to start talking about the NHS and private companies becoming involved - look at Blair and Brown for that.. they are the ones that fuelled the fire in this area with their PFI agreements.

I only raise this as a point to show that if anyone is worried about privatisation of the NHS, it was only through Labour causing an explosion of private companies getting involved in the NHS that this is now seen in the way of opportunity for profit for these companies.

Personally I don’t see the issue with having this approach btw but it just shows the complexities of these situations. The ability to make a fire was the tories, Labour poured gasoline on and threw the match at it and we are now dealing with that. Rather than admit their part in it which has financially crippled some hospital trusts for years, they play the ‘we’re here to protect the NHS and save it” card.

In reality they are grandstanding and if they haven’t learnt, it’s not going to help them come election time.

[bfcmik]

IDS.jpg (102.54 KiB) Viewed 1788 times

"Meanwhile, in other news of breathtaking hypocrisy and intellectual vacuity, Duncan Smith is whining about the withdrawal agreement being bad for the UK. This is the agreement that he and his party unanimously voted for just months ago. This is the agreement that he and his party were so confident about that he and they voted to reduce the time available for parliamentary debate to just three days, thereby ensuring that neither he nor anyone else has actually read it. This is the agreement that led to those who opposed it or who asked for time for proper scrutiny being thrown out of the party. This is the agreement which Johnson himself signed with obscene swagger at “getting Brexit done.” This is the agreement that our dribbling press fêted as some sort of triumph of International Statesmanship. This is the agreement that we were told was oven ready. This is the agreement on which the landslide victory of the 2019 General Election was built.

This agreement represents the “best” of this shallow, ignorant, incompetent, lying regime to which we have inexplicably handed unassailable power to damage the country for the next four and a half years.

No, I am not getting over it.

Brexiteers have created a totally unnecessary catastrophe. Until they own it, we cannot move on." (from a friend)

[tiger76]

IDS.jpg"Meanwhile, in other news of breathtaking hypocrisy and intellectual vacuity, Duncan Smith is whining about the withdrawal agreement being bad for the UK. This is the agreement that he and his party unanimously voted for just months ago. This is the agreement that he and his party were so confident about that he and they voted to reduce the time available for parliamentary debate to just three days, thereby ensuring that neither he nor anyone else has actually read it. This is the agreement that led to those who opposed it or who asked for time for proper scrutiny being thrown out of the party. This is the agreement which Johnson himself signed with obscene swagger at “getting Brexit done.” This is the agreement that our dribbling press fêted as some sort of triumph of International Statesmanship. This is the agreement that we were told was oven ready. This is the agreement on which the landslide victory of the 2019 General Election was built.

This agreement represents the “best” of this shallow, ignorant, incompetent, lying regime to which we have inexplicably handed unassailable power to damage the country for the next four and a half years.

No, I am not getting over it.

Brexiteers have created a totally unnecessary catastrophe. Until they own it, we cannot move on." (from a friend)

So it's took 9 months for IDS to discover this fine print, maybe he and his colleagues should have read the WA before signing it off just a thought.

Now it's also just possible that if parliament had been given the chance to thoroughly scrutinise this legislation instead of it being railroaded thorough the HOC in a matter of hours, then somebody may have highlighted this fact.

Now the cynic in me may suspect IDS is bringing this up now to create excuses for when the talks break down, but as far as i'm aware even if the trade discussion doesn't bear fruit then the WA is still legally binding come what may.

I'm confused by this government do they want us to leave the EU or not, and if they didn't agree with what was in the WA why did they laud it to parliament and the country, it's no wonder the EU is losing patience with the UK government.

I'm a brexiteer and i am losing patience with them, the reality is they'll have to be some form of compromise to allow us and the EU to agree a deal that pleases both parties, and once both sides realise this then we'll have a much greater chance of sensible dialogue happening, and progress being made.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... Uo2db8wAYc

It’s not just about Brexit. Chair of the Brexit Party shows he’s an idiot on other issues too.

[Paul Waine]

Further to that, from memory, the Royal Mail privatisation was originally a Blair/Brown Labour government policy.

I think it was Vince Cable that led the privatisation of Royal Mail. So, this sounds to have been a "cross-party" policy.

[TheFamilyCat]

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-st ... Uo2db8wAYc

It’s not just about Brexit. Chair of the Brexit Party shows he’s an idiot on other issues too.

I didn't even realise that The Brexit Party was still a thing.

[NewClaret]

That's an interesting interpretation. So when Cameron told Parliament "bring forward the Bill [to privatise the Royal Mail] and we will support it" the meaning behind it was to oppose the sale?

Dsr, it’s only important for Tories not to lie or mislead.

[aggi]

This is going to be awkward and the kind of thing that we are going to see repeatedly

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ns-at-risk

Some posters on here like to simplify trade deals down to free trade/tariffs and that's it but it was always going to be things such as equivalence of qualifications, dispute resolution jurisdictions and mechanisms, etc that would be the real problem.