Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Paul Waine]

I interpreted it as Trump as good as having Leo up against a wall and telling him to get on and sort it. Leo’s face was a picture.

The Irish are far, far more subservient to the Americans than we are. They are only a tiny, tiny nation. The Americans want this trade deal and Trump thinks of money and little else. There’s no money in it for them if the Irish continue to hang tough. Trump has treated this trip as sweeping through Britain and Ireland giving everyone a “straightener”.

This border thing will only be months away from resolution, I suspect.

I got the sense that ERII had had a quiet word with DT, told him how to act diplomatically - well, at least give it a try. Maybe she said you've more chance of getting what you want if you act nicely? Who knows?

I can imagine DT getting on the phone to someone back home: "Hey, you've got a big IT company. I'm sure you can come up with something to help these Irish friends of mine manage their border. Apparently, they want something that is "not visible," nothing like a wall, perhaps you can sort out a virtual (reality) wall?"

My note: "reality" added just for Lancs. I'm sure he'll appreciate the mention.

[aggi]

Hi IT,

I know the usual question is, have you got any facts to back up that post?

Do you know anything about international patent laws and protection of intellectual property?

I suspect IT was being somewhat facetious but trying to extend copyright periods, (particularly on drugs but also in other areas) with the inevitable higher price due to the lack of competition, is a feature of American trade deals.

In the NAFTA 2.0 deal for instance they're trying to push protection on certain drugs up to 10 years (currently 8 years in Canada and 5 years in Mexico).

In the UK I imagine one area they'd be wanting to get involved in would be pricing for generic drugs which I believe is set by the NHS.

However I'm no expert on these areas (I work in IP generally rather than pharmaceuticals although we have been trying to get a foot in the door in that area for a while) so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT,

I know the usual question is, have you got any facts to back up that post?

Do you know anything about international patent laws and protection of intellectual property?

No.

But this guy does.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 19316.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RingoMcCartney]

I like this question. It's nicely phrased to give the appearance that throughout hundreds and hundreds of years of British democracy (admittedly there's a strong argument that we've only been a democracy for about 100 years but that's by the by) we've had loads of referendums that have been implemented rather than two.

I asked TWO questions.

1 Are you suggesting that, because some people believe a result of a referendum or general election would "damage the country " you should ignore the democratically expressed wishes of the voice of the British People?

Yes Or No?

2. Throughout hundreds and hundreds of years of British democracy. When has the result of a UK wide referendum or general election not been implemented?

You selectively chosen to ignore the general election part of the second question.

So, no actual answers , but a critique of my post. Omitting any mention of the first question and missing 50% of the key part of the point of the 2nd.

You could try answering both.

[RingoMcCartney]

Rings and his booklet!! https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... the-uk.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You often mention it and so I had a quick look. It’s interesting that you cling on to one sentence (on page 14) like it’s the holy gospel, yet everything else that’s in the booklet is project fear and lies.

The 1975 referendum was not legally binding but MPs agreed with the sentiment expressed by the result that it was in our best interests to join. They weren’t forced to do it against their better judgment, their judgment being the reason they are MP’s. the 2016 referendum was not legally binding and MPs disagreed with the sentiment expressed as they felt it wasn’t in our best interest. However the shrill shrieking of the minority of the population who wanted to leave, backed by the right wing media and foreign interests and their perversion of the phrase “will of the people” has led to a situation where our intellectually deficient and weak Parliament has kowtowed to their threats and bullying.

As for the Electoral Commission signing off the wording - have you got a link to that? It’s not mentioned in the booklet, google doesn’t have an answer and I can’t find it on their website. You wouldn’t have made it up would you!!

No i wouldn't. It wouldn't have been published without their approval.

So to summarise the difference in the two referenda.

The 1975 referendum was not legally binding. MPs got the result they wanted. The result was enacted.

The 2016 referendum was not legally binding. MPs did not get the result they wanted. The result is yet to be enacted. 

And like all the other remoaners who cannot , or will not, answer a simple question. I'll ask you it again.

The booklet that cost £9000,000 and was sent to every household in the country. Stated "it's your decision, the government will enact that decision"

The wording was signed off by the Electoral Commission

If the booklet had said, "it's your decision, the government will look at the result, and, as it's only an advisory referendum, we may not take a blind bit of notice of it, if we don't agree with it".

Do you think as many people would have actually bothered to vote?

[RingoMcCartney]

Missed your point if you are saying they are not legally binding then I agree. Your questions to me made it sound that they should have been law which is incorrect.

You missed answering my question. (What is it with Remoaners and the inability to answer straight forward questions)

The booklet that cost £9000,000 and was sent to every household in the country. Stated "it's your decision, the government will enact that decision"

The wording was signed off by the Electoral Commission

If the booklet had said, "it's your decision, the government will look at the result, and, as it's only an advisory referendum, we may not take a blind bit of notice of it, if we don't agree with it".

Do you think as many people would have actually bothered to vote?

[RingoMcCartney]

There was a 200 post thread in which you changed the question about six times.

That one?

You came out of that one with A1 stars mate!

You just cannot do it can you! You really can't!

[RingoMcCartney]

2008 - Labour bail out the banks and saves London based bankers jobs. Costing the nation billions. 

The EU says , " that's fine."

2019 - The tories want to save thousands of steel workers jobs in the industrial north. Costing the nation millions. 

The EU says, "No can do , UK"

Like the old Real Labour MPs always said, "the EU is a bankers club."

I didn't think you could keep up your hot streak of "not making things up"

We can go through it all again if you like. I've got the quotes from specialist professors, footage of the actual minister responsible and the actual letter sent to the government from its legal advisors and point proving quotes contained within. That confirm that what I said was right, and your assertion I was " making things up " was wrong.

S'up to you. You can't always break a habit of a lifetime and just hold your hand up for once.

[nil_desperandum]

The Irish are far, far more subservient to the Americans than we are. They are only a tiny, tiny nation. The Americans want this trade deal and Trump thinks of money and little else. There’s no money in it for them if the Irish continue to hang tough. Trump has treated this trip as sweeping through Britain and Ireland giving everyone a “straightener”.

This border thing will only be months away from resolution, I suspect.

I think that you may not be as clued up about the Irish/American relationship as you appear to believe.
It's the Democrats who have the majority in Congress and they're on record as saying they will torpedo any Trump / UK trade deal if it in any way jeopardizes the Good Friday agreement. i.e. If it raises any prospect of a hard border.
The Democrats have nailed their colours firmly to the Irish position and this is an important consideration in trade talks.

[LeuvenClaret]

You missed answering my question. (What is it with Remoaners and the inability to answer straight forward questions)

The booklet that cost £9000,000 and was sent to every household in the country. Stated "it's your decision, the government will enact that decision"

The wording was signed off by the Electoral Commission

If the booklet had said, "it's your decision, the government will look at the result, and, as it's only an advisory referendum, we may not take a blind bit of notice of it, if we don't agree with it".

Do you think as many people would have actually bothered to vote?

Ringo I have actually no idea what planet you are from

[Burnley Ace]

No i wouldn't. It wouldn't have been published without their approval - so you are guessing!

So to summarise the difference in the two referenda.

The 1975 referendum was not legally binding. MPs got the result they thought was in the best interest of the country. The result was enacted.

The 2016 referendum was not legally binding. MPs did not get the result they thought was in the interest of the country. The result is yet to be enacted. 

And like all the other remoaners who cannot , or will not, answer a simple question. I'll ask you it again.

The booklet that cost £9000,000 and was sent to every household in the country. Stated "it's your decision, the government will enact that decision"

The wording was signed off by the Electoral Commission - no evidence that they had anything to do with it.

If the booklet had said, "it's your decision, the government will look at the result, and, as it's only an advisory referendum, we may not take a blind bit of notice of it, if we don't agree with it".

Do you think as many people would have actually bothered to vote?

- I would just be guessing, like you do.

To date the result of 33% of all UK wide referendums haven’t been implemented.

[Imploding Turtle]

You know what i find fascinating? Ringo is claiming that because a booklet, that was distributed outside of the EU referendum campaigning period and not part of any official campaign, says that the government will enact whatever the result is, that it means that by not pulling out of the EU with No Deal it means betraying to promise of the booklet.

However, if you show Ringo clips of Leave campaigners calling it ridiculous that we would leave the single market if we leave the EU he will claim that those opinions don't count because they were expressed outside of the EU referendum campaigning period and not part of any official campaign.

I just thought some of you might enjoy that nugget of Ringo hypocrisy as much as I do.

[Paul Waine]

No.

But this guy does.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 19316.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, it tells me where you get your "facts" from - but shows me that you don't understand the difference betwween something that is still within patent period in one country but there are generic versions of the drug available elsewhere. It's not what you posted.

The same can happen in the UK, the same can happen in the EU. It's not got anything to do with a FTA with the US, or any other country - once drups are out of patent they are out of patent and generics can be manufactured.

[Paul Waine]

You know what i find fascinating? Ringo is claiming that because a booklet, that was distributed outside of the EU referendum campaigning period and not part of any official campaign, says that the government will enact whatever the result is, that it means that by not pulling out of the EU with No Deal it means betraying to promise of the booklet.

However, if you show Ringo clips of Leave campaigners calling it ridiculous that we would leave the single market if we leave the EU he will claim that those opinions don't count because they were expressed outside of the EU referendum campaigning period and not part of any official campaign.

I just thought some of you might enjoy that nugget of Ringo hypocrisy as much as I do.

I assume th booklet you refer to is the one the government delivered to every household in the country - spending £9 million of taxpayers money on the exercise, It was just the government's "starting gun" on the referendum campaign, and outside the "referendum campaigning period" so that the government could "set the scene" and perhaps, "deliver some facts" so that we all understood what we were all being asked to vote on.

I guess we've got to assume the words they wrote in the booklet were intended to mean something. Maybe being outside the campaign period they were intended to have more "authority" than political campaigners?

Yes, it's fascinating....

[Bordeauxclaret]

Ringo I have actually no idea what planet you are from

Planet Special Brew

[Lancasterclaret]

Hi Lancs, you are a sensible fellow. I'm puzzled/confused by what everyone is getting so excited about the NHS and a FTA with the US. Can you explain - I'm happy that others contribute also - what is it that the US is planning to do? At present the UK tax payer funds the NHS. Do the US want to trade this for the US taxpayer funding the NHS? Or do the US want to buy the NHS from us - take the NHS to the US - and sell us their own insurance based "national health system?" (Of course, we know the US doesn't have a national health system - more just a system where the user pays, probably with a contribution from their health insurance).

(Not read all the other posts from where I've quoted Lancs. I'm also happy if someone can point me to the answer to my question in a subsequent post).

EDIT: I've now read thru all the other posts. I've got this feeling that there are very few, if any, on here that have an idea what they are posting about. We are all getting more and more like our politicians every day.

Sorry for the late reply Paul!

Honest answer is that I think people are worried that we end up with a US healthcare system, because that clearly has massive downsides.

My and ITBYW are still trying to work out what the current rules are now stopping US healthcare bidding for NHS contracts now. And I'm still looking at that.

Do I think the NHS is going to become like an US healthcare system?

No, but as I seem to be saying rather a lot on here at the moment, it won't start off like that so it won't be obvious from the start and I'm 100% sure that a lot of people who can afford it are perfectly happy with the idea of a health insurance scheme but that again won't help solve the problem from an overall society point of view.

[Lancasterclaret]

How gracious of them, you've convinced me Lancs, I'm in!

Cheers

Course, the fact we've had thousands of posts on here saying exactly the opposite to what I said (in that the EU stops us doing exactly that) you've not commented on is noticed.

[Lancasterclaret]

Good video on how more polarised we are all getting

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ster-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[aggi]

I asked TWO questions.

1 Are you suggesting that, because some people believe a result of a referendum or general election would "damage the country " you should ignore the democratically expressed wishes of the voice of the British People?

Yes Or No?

2. Throughout hundreds and hundreds of years of British democracy. When has the result of a UK wide referendum or general election not been implemented?

You selectively chosen to ignore the general election part of the second question.

So, no actual answers , but a critique of my post. Omitting any mention of the first question and missing 50% of the key part of the point of the 2nd.

You could try answering both.

Well I wasn't intending to answer the questions, I was just saying I liked how you phrased question 2. I can give you some answers though I guess:

1. It depends who those "some people" are. If it's the man in the street, or economics experts or business leaders or whatever, then no.

If those "some people" are democratically elected MPs and there are enough of them to stop the referendum result being enacted (obviously your General Election point becomes moot because the only ones who I say can overturn are the elected MPs) then yes. Like it or not that's how our parliament works. If you don't agree with it then you have the chance to vote them out and vote someone in that will enact the referendum. You've spent a lot of time complaining about how the EU is stealing our sovereignty so it's a bit rich for you to complain when that parliamentary sovereignty is put into action.

2. I did choose to ignore the General Election part as it's irrelevant, we're talking about referendums. As I said there have been two so far which have been enacted but that's a pretty small sample size.

[If it be your will]

.

[aggi]

OK, it tells me where you get your "facts" from - but shows me that you don't understand the difference betwween something that is still within patent period in one country but there are generic versions of the drug available elsewhere. It's not what you posted.

The same can happen in the UK, the same can happen in the EU. It's not got anything to do with a FTA with the US, or any other country - once drups are out of patent they are out of patent and generics can be manufactured.

But, as I pointed out above, one of the USA's clauses on a recent trade agreement was to extend those protected periods in other territories so it clearly has something to do with a FTA with the US.

[Mala591]

Peterborough by-election:

Even if The Brexit Party win and achieve their first MP what difference can that MP make to the Brexit impasse? Labour will have lost one 'remain' vote and the ERG will have gained a supporter but I can't see how Nigel's independence army will really benefit.

[Caballo]

Cheers

Course, the fact we've had thousands of posts on here saying exactly the opposite to what I said (in that the EU stops us doing exactly that) you've not commented on is noticed.

You're right Lancs. I do try not to be too partisan and I have in the past called out one or two on their untruths, though quickly realised they're so deeply wedded to the leave cause, it's futile. Ultimately though I did vote to leave and my position, whilst softened, hasn't changed.

[aggi]

Yet good old Blighty, all on it's own, without any help from the EU, using its own democracy, managed to get British workers 8 more days of holiday than the amount the EU eventually decided on. We got a minimum wage on our own, too - the EU had none of that. And massively more generous maternity rights than the EU's. All that gender equality, race equality, age equality, all without any help from the EU. We also got the right to union representation on our own. (We used to have the ultimate right to strike, too, but the Viking Line and Laval judgments put paid to that.)

Where would we be without the EU protecting workers' rights?

(I'm sure they gave us loads more that we didn't get for ourselves. What were they again?)

I didn't comment on whether it was a good or a bad thing but it was definitely something that the EU pushed through whilst the UK resisted it strongly which is what the question is.

I'm no expert so I'm not really aware generally of which rights came from the EU and which from the UK. I know that a lot of the rights for agency workers were from EU legislation (again the UK tried to block these. Interestingly Germany also tried to block them which must be a surprise for those who believe the EU is run by Germany, for Germany).

On the maternity rights, the EU was looking at improving these significantly but the proposals were voted down by, amongst others, the UK.

[Tall Paul]

Well I wasn't intending to answer the questions, I was just saying I liked how you phrased question 2. I can give you some answers though I guess:

1. It depends who those "some people" are. If it's the man in the street, or economics experts or business leaders or whatever, then no.

If those "some people" are democratically elected MPs and there are enough of them to stop the referendum result being enacted (obviously your General Election point becomes moot because the only ones who I say can overturn are the elected MPs) then yes. Like it or not that's how our parliament works. If you don't agree with it then you have the chance to vote them out and vote someone in that will enact the referendum. You've spent a lot of time complaining about how the EU is stealing our sovereignty so it's a bit rich for you to complain when that parliamentary sovereignty is put into action.

2. I did choose to ignore the General Election part as it's irrelevant, we're talking about referendums. As I said there have been two so far which have been enacted but that's a pretty small sample size.

Ringo's Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V are about to be put into action again.

[If it be your will]

.

[aggi]

I'm interested, and I hope you can fill me in. Why would the UK block better maternity rights in the EU, yet offer vastly superior rights to their own citizens? Is it just future-proofing, for when we eventually do want to cut these rights?

And when you say the UK 'voted down' or 'block', exactly how was this done, and what happened? Did they block the law at the EU Commission stage, or did the Commission put it to Parliament, where it was voted down? Or did it get proposed by the Commission, passed by Parliament, only to be vetoed at The Council?

I've often wondered why the EU don't have better workers' rights. Why don't the Commission propose a minimum wage, if only to shut lexiters like me (and Corbyn, and Melenchon, and...) up? There's nothing in the treaties to prevent the Commission doing this, and surely it would pass in Parliament. Is it just corporate interests lobbying the EU, because they actively want to to take advantage of cheap, badly protected labour in the East? The reality is the base-case minimum workers' rights in the EU are frankly pathetic.

The maternity rights that the UK blocked were significantly better than what we currently have in terms of pay. I think the period was similar to what the UK gives but it was at full pay rather than statutory (which is considerably lower).

I can't remember in terms of what happened with the maternity pay one. I know that Chris Grayling was involved with lobbying against the proposal (so I'm somewhat surprised we did manage to block it) and Farage was also involved but I don't know by what mechanism it didn't happen.

In terms of the minimum holiday one, the UK filed a case at the European Court of Justice to block that (which they lost).

Personally I'd say you can't have an EU wide minimum wage without far greater integration of EU countries as a whole (which many obviously don't want). For instance you couldn't have a universal minimum wage without a unified tax code across the EU.

[If it be your will]

.

[Imploding Turtle]

OK, it tells me where you get your "facts" from - but shows me that you don't understand the difference between something that is still within patent period in one country but there are generic versions of the drug available elsewhere. It's not what you posted.

The same can happen in the UK, the same can happen in the EU. It's not got anything to do with a FTA with the US, or any other country - once drups are out of patent they are out of patent and generics can be manufactured.

I don't underst... what the ****? It was literally the ******* point i was raising.

And what's wrong with where i get my facts? I got them directly from the mouth of the CEO whose drug it is that costs $1780 where it has patent protection, and $8 where it doesn't. His explanation for why that price difference exists is the ******* patent protection.

[Lancasterclaret]

You're right Lancs. I do try not to be too partisan and I have in the past called out one or two on their untruths, though quickly realised they're so deeply wedded to the leave cause, it's futile. Ultimately though I did vote to leave and my position, whilst softened, hasn't changed.

No, I get that and I apologise for my far too arsey reply.

Probably a daft question, but what would need to happen for you to change your vote?

[AndyClaret]

I don't underst... what the ****? It was literally the ******* point i was raising.

And what's wrong with where i get my facts? I got them directly from the mouth of the CEO whose drug it is that costs $1780 where it has patent protection, and $8 where it doesn't. His explanation for why that price difference exists is the ******* patent protection.

He's getting rattled! !!

[AndrewJB]

I can only face spending 2 minutes answering this, so the answers will be a bit glib. This is because I've already answered them, at length, with lots of examples and directly to you, and provided lots of links from primary sources to that effect. Only for you to repeat the same questions to someone else. It's like arguing with Ringo. But just off the top of my head...

"...like arguing with Ringo." - ouch. I'm sorry you think that. I appreciate you've provided a lot of information, however my disagreement with you is in the area of interpretation of the rules, and that there are ways in which a Corbyn economic plan could be executed without infringing them. It might be for example that an industry (such as rail) remains open to competition, however the current subsidies paid out are stopped, or the rules are changed regarding franchise compensation for not delivering on timetable promises, etc. I've worked for a long time in IT sales, and I've seen how what seem like strict procurement rules in public enterprises can be adhered to but broken in spirit. This isn't about inventing technology that doesn't currently exist, but saying "our objective is A, B, and C. How, under the current regulations can we achieve this?" Even within our heavily privatised economy there is sufficient public investment and interest that Corbyn's reforms can't be instituted in one way or another while we remain in the EU. I've posted a couple of links below.

Lastly though you agreed earlier that Britain was probably a driver in pushing the neo-liberal agenda within the EU - which suggests we could also be a driver in reversing the worst of this. The EU isn't a neo-liberal beast, but a lot more complex than that, and throughout Europe there are a lot of parties who would view the reform of its neo-liberal edges with favour. I think Britain should stay in and work toward this.

https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-c ... st-eu-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-anal ... ct-checked" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tiger76]

Bercow quite rightly won't allow parliament to be prorogued and a no-deal brexit to happen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48541352

My best guess is we request another extension,Michael Gove has hinted at this option already in his leadership campaign,what the basis of any such extension would involve is the tricky question,unless the UK government can demonstrate an obvious path forward,then any extension would be futile.

But one thing is clear the HOC won't allow a no-deal brexit under any circumstances,whoever is in the PM'S hotseat,so somehow a compromise has to be reached.

Rory Stewart's interview on Peston last night was revealing,he to my knowledge is the only leadership contender who is trying to build cross-party support,and he still seems to be backing the WA negotiated by Theresa May,yes i know this deal is disliked by many MP'S.but ATM it's the only available option,unless the EU reopens talks,which is unlikely,at least in the short to medium term,hence why an extension is the only viable outcome.

[dsr]

Bercow quite rightly won't allow parliament to be prorogued and a no-deal brexit to happen.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48541352

My best guess is we request another extension,Michael Gove has hinted at this option already in his leadership campaign,what the basis of any such extension would involve is the tricky question,unless the UK government can demonstrate an obvious path forward,then any extension would be futile.

But one thing is clear the HOC won't allow a no-deal brexit under any circumstances,whoever is in the PM'S hotseat,so somehow a compromise has to be reached.

Rory Stewart's interview on Peston last night was revealing,he to my knowledge is the only leadership contender who is trying to build cross-party support,and he still seems to be backing the WA negotiated by Theresa May,yes i know this deal is disliked by many MP'S.but ATM it's the only available option,unless the EU reopens talks,which is unlikely,at least in the short to medium term,hence why an extension is the only viable outcome.

Would the EU allow an extension? They say no, but on the other hand they don't want a no-deal Brexit either - not when they have almost got such vast concessions from the UK.

As for parliament, they probably can't vote to stop a no-deal Brexit. They need to actively vote for something else. A No-confidence vote would be one way, but they would need to do it in time to get a general election in before 31st October or parliament will "self-prorogue". Or they could positively vote to order the PM to ignore the Brexit vote, or to accept May's rotten deal. But if the PM has nailed his colours to the mast about leaving the EU, then any of those would probably force a general election.

And the Tories have just won 9% in a nationwide election based on their current EU policy. How many Tory MPs will risk a general election on a continuation of that policy? Not so many. I would have thought. So if the DUP stay onside, then what will parliament do?

[nil_desperandum]

There won't be a General Election with the opinion polls looking so bad for both the main parties, but that doesnt mean that Parliamentary arithmetic can't change and bring about a change of PM and executive.
Quite possible (for example) that Raab or Johnson would become Tory leader and immediately lose their parliamentary majority.
Parliament could then take charge and form a coalition government of national unity and choose a compromise candidate as PM.
This is where someone like Rory Stewart would put themselves forward, and if a new coalition were to be formed then that would give both Parliament and the EU the excuse they both need to agree a further extension.

[dsr]

There won't be a General Election with the opinion polls looking so bad for both the main parties, but that doesnt mean that Parliamentary arithmetic can't change and bring about a change of PM and executive.
Quite possible (for example) that Raab or Johnson would become Tory leader and immediately lose their parliamentary majority.
Parliament could then take charge and form a coalition government of national unity and choose a compromise candidate as PM.
This is where someone like Rory Stewart would put themselves forward, and if a new coalition were to be formed then that would give both Parliament and the EU the excuse they both need to agree a further extension.

But in the absence of Sinn Fein, 321 makes a majority. So a coalition of everyone else - Labour, LibDem, SNP, PC, DUP, Change UK, Green, and the 16 independents - beats the Tories by 15 at present (328 to 313); Peterborough by-election result to come. It's a pretty fragile coalition, and they are unlikely to find many Tories to join it. It couldn't last beyond voting to ask for an extension, I wouldn't have thought, and then we're back to the general election.

[Caballo]

No, I get that and I apologise for my far too arsey reply.

Probably a daft question, but what would need to happen for you to change your vote?

A tricky one that, I don't think the EU can become what I'd like it to be, largely because of the direction the people it's actually working for want to take it.
The most likely thing to sway me at the moment is the ineptitude of our politicians, I genuinely wonder whether they are capable enough to steer our path in the world without the EU having a hand on the tiller.

[nil_desperandum]

But in the absence of Sinn Fein, 321 makes a majority. So a coalition of everyone else - Labour, LibDem, SNP, PC, DUP, Change UK, Green, and the 16 independents - beats the Tories by 15 at present (328 to 313); Peterborough by-election result to come. It's a pretty fragile coalition, and they are unlikely to find many Tories to join it. It couldn't last beyond voting to ask for an extension, I wouldn't have thought, and then we're back to the general election.

I'm not sure you're picking up all the signals, or if you are, you're choosing to ignore them. If Raab gets elected on a promise to perogue Parliament in order to deliver a no deal brexit, (or someone with similar views), you won't just get a handful of Tories resigning the whip, it'll split the Tory Parliamentary party down the middle.
They won't vote for a GE, but they could make a Grand Alliance of similar minded MPs from all parties.
Corbyn wouldn't go for it, so it would divide Labour too, so overall not a bad option for One Nation Conservatives who would hope to have got Brexit sorted by the 2022 GE.

[Paul Waine]

I don't underst... what the ****? It was literally the ******* point i was raising.

And what's wrong with where i get my facts? I got them directly from the mouth of the CEO whose drug it is that costs $1780 where it has patent protection, and $8 where it doesn't. His explanation for why that price difference exists is the ******* patent protection.

Take a look at the patent protection laws. These exist in the UK and in EU. 20 years patent protection from the time a drug is invented/discovered. I believe the USA is similar.

Why do drug companies need patent protection - it's all the research and testing and providing that the drug will do what they expect the drug to do - and not cause harm to the patients using the drugs. Think of how many scientists and other staff that need to be employed to progress all the research, including all the research that ends up with no useful drug discoveries.

That's where the costs come from. That's why pharma companies get 20 years patent protection (this period includes any period of proving the drug will work and is approved for use, often 10 years from start of the 20 years).

So, it's not the simple manufacturing cost that makes up the price. Generally - but not always for NHS (which is an scandal - from drafting weak laws) - once a drug is out of patent and generic versions are being manufactured the price will fall.

Why is the period of patent protection part of FTA between USA, Canada and Mexico? My first guess - but I haven't researched - is that Canada and Mexico have shorter patent protection periods. If that is the reason for NAFTA, then it won't be an issue for USA-UK (and wasn't for USA-EU) because patent protection are same periods.

Does that help?

[Imploding Turtle]

Take a look at the patent protection laws. These exist in the UK and in EU. 20 years patent protection from the time a drug is invented/discovered. I believe the USA is similar.

Why do drug companies need patent protection - it's all the research and testing and providing that the drug will do what they expect the drug to do - and not cause harm to the patients using the drugs. Think of how many scientists and other staff that need to be employed to progress all the research, including all the research that ends up with no useful drug discoveries.

That's where the costs come from. That's why pharma companies get 20 years patent protection (this period includes any period of proving the drug will work and is approved for use, often 10 years from start of the 20 years).

So, it's not the simple manufacturing cost that makes up the price. Generally - but not always for NHS (which is an scandal - from drafting weak laws) - once a drug is out of patent and generic versions are being manufactured the price will fall.

Why is the period of patent protection part of FTA between USA, Canada and Mexico? My first guess - but I haven't researched - is that Canada and Mexico have shorter patent protection periods. If that is the reason for NAFTA, then it won't be an issue for USA-UK (and wasn't for USA-EU) because patent protection are same periods.

Does that help?

You don't seem to be grasping it. I'll spell it out. again.

The drug is eight ******* dollars in Australia. I don't give a **** if it's not protected by a patent over there but is in America. The fact is the drug is selling for eight ******* dollars and turning a profit. But because they have exclusivity in the US they are allowed, thanks to the ultra-capitalists arseholes who want to bleed every cent out of HIV sufferers, they get to place what is effectively a ransom on their lives by charging over $1700 for what they can sell for eight ******* dollars and still make a profit.

What. Aren't. You. Understanding?

[AndyClaret]

You don't seem to be grasping it. I'll spell it out. again.

The drug is eight ******* dollars in Australia. I don't give a **** if it's not protected by a patent over there but is in America. The fact is the drug is selling for eight ******* dollars and turning a profit. But because they have exclusivity in the US they are allowed, thanks to the ultra-capitalists arseholes who want to bleed every cent out of HIV sufferers, they get to place what is effectively a ransom on their lives by charging over $1700 for what they can sell for eight ******* dollars and still make a profit.

What. Aren't. You. Understanding?

He's getting cross now. ... you don't get extra points for swearing.

[Imploding Turtle]

He's getting cross now. ... you don't get extra points for swearing.

Intelligent people can understand when a swear word is being used for emphasis and not to demonstrate anger. For obvious reasons you don't understand this.

[AndyClaret]

Intelligent people can understand when a swear word is being used for emphasis and not to demonstrate anger. For obvious reasons you don't understand this.

It obvious to everyone that you are swearing because you've lost the argument my friend.

[Imploding Turtle]

It obvious to everyone that you are swearing because you've lost the argument my friend.

It isn't an argument. I've not even tried to counter anything he's said, which if you had a few brain cells to rub together you'd have understood when you read the posts. I'm making the point that privatised healthcare sees a drug in the privatised healthcare country priced at over $1700 and in the socialised medicine country at eight ******* dollars. And i'm pointing that out as a reason not to privatise our health care. He, because addressing the point I make isn't something he's interested in doing, is going on about why it's because of patent law, as if that in any way refutes the point I made.

Do you understand now? Would you like me to fetch the crayons and explain it more simply?

[dsr]

It obvious to everyone that you are swearing because you've lost the argument my friend.

It's equally obvious why Turtle swears twenty times as often as anyone else on the board. Because he believes his opinions are twenty times more valuable and twenty times more worth emphasising.

[AndyClaret]

It isn't an argument. I've not even tried to counter anything he's said, which if you had a few brain cells to rub together you'd have understood when you read the posts. I'm making the point that privatised healthcare sees a drug in the privatised healthcare country priced at over $1700 and in the socialised medicine country at eight ******* dollars. And i'm pointing that out as a reason not to privatise our health care. He, because addressing the point I make isn't something he's interested in doing, is going on about why it's because of patent law, as if that in any way refutes the point I made.

Do you understand now? Would you like me to fetch the crayons and explain it more simply?

Me thinks that the lady doth protest too much. .

[aggi]

Take a look at the patent protection laws. These exist in the UK and in EU. 20 years patent protection from the time a drug is invented/discovered. I believe the USA is similar.

Why do drug companies need patent protection - it's all the research and testing and providing that the drug will do what they expect the drug to do - and not cause harm to the patients using the drugs. Think of how many scientists and other staff that need to be employed to progress all the research, including all the research that ends up with no useful drug discoveries.

That's where the costs come from. That's why pharma companies get 20 years patent protection (this period includes any period of proving the drug will work and is approved for use, often 10 years from start of the 20 years).

So, it's not the simple manufacturing cost that makes up the price. Generally - but not always for NHS (which is an scandal - from drafting weak laws) - once a drug is out of patent and generic versions are being manufactured the price will fall.

Why is the period of patent protection part of FTA between USA, Canada and Mexico? My first guess - but I haven't researched - is that Canada and Mexico have shorter patent protection periods. If that is the reason for NAFTA, then it won't be an issue for USA-UK (and wasn't for USA-EU) because patent protection are same periods.

Does that help?

I'm a bit curious as to why you keep ignoring my responses on this.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo I have actually no idea what planet you are from

My fellow fellow Brexiteer travellers and I come from Planet Democracy.







I see that to you, democracy is an alien concept.

[RingoMcCartney]

- I would just be guessing, like you do.

To date the result of 33% of all UK wide referendums haven’t been implemented.

To date , the only UK wide referendum that has not been implemented is the one that produced a result that the Establishment disagreed with.

[Paul Waine]

I'm a bit curious as to why you keep ignoring my responses on this.

Hi aggi, sorry, I wasn't deliberating passing over your response. I only had time for one quick response earlier today - and felt, in some ways, you might see I was including an indirect response to your post while also more directly addressing IT's statements.

If - and I haven't researched this - USA wanted to renegotiate drug patent periods with Canada and Mexico, I imagine it is because they have shorter periods than USA. As I've posted above, I understand the UK, EU and USA all have the same 20 year period - from the point of discovery.

I'm happy to be corrected/learning a little more if someone has the info.