Tl;dr:
Since Johnson has reverted to the position originally set out by Theresa May, the commitments she made on non-regression (that is, the UK commits to not lowering standards in various areas) are the minimum that they will accept as the price of access
There is a push in some quarters to extend these to dynamic alignment (the UK commits to mirroring EU rules as they are updated), particularly for State Aid and Environmental provisions
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Apropos of nothing, but this occurred to me, and I want to know if it's anything.
The reason that Labour managed to score own goals for the past three and a half years despite the Conservatives' goal being the one that's open is that Jeremy Corbyn is unwilling to capitalize. Eh? Ehhh?
The UK has failed to pass on the details of 75,000 convictions of foreign criminals to their home EU countries and concealed the scandal for fear of damaging Britain’s reputation in Europe’s capitals, the Guardian can reveal.
European trust in the UK on security issues sank to a new low on Tuesday night after details emerged of the apparent cover-up, which prompted calls for an investigation in the UK and a warning from one senior MEP that a Brussels inquiry was inevitable.
What a terrible thing to cover up. Just to not inform your allies because you don't want them to trust you less. So you keep it quiet for five years and your cover is blown by the press.
There have got to be quite a few in the EU by now who are thinking, "You know what? Fine. Just go."
Uh, yes. You haven't noticed before?
Just one example from my neck of the woods: There's a Bye Bye Britain party on the Dutch beach, where we will all wave off the UK as you sail further away from the European mainland.
There have got to be quite a few in the EU by now who are thinking, "You know what? Fine. Just go."
Uh, yes. You haven't noticed before?
Just one example from my neck of the woods: There's a Bye Bye Britain party on the Dutch beach, where we will all wave off the UK as you sail further away from the European mainland.
But we'll also play "We'll meet again" and look longingly at the British Isles... So it's not really a "good riddance" party.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
There have got to be quite a few in the EU by now who are thinking, "You know what? Fine. Just go."
Uh, yes. You haven't noticed before?
Just one example from my neck of the woods: There's a Bye Bye Britain party on the Dutch beach, where we will all wave off the UK as you sail further away from the European mainland.
But we'll also play "We'll meet again" and look longingly at the British Isles... So it's not really a "good riddance" party.
And then the third part of the play, where William III comes back from the dead and unites both countries under a single ruler again.
Tl;dr:
Since Johnson has reverted to the position originally set out by Theresa May, the commitments she made on non-regression (that is, the UK commits to not lowering standards in various areas) are the minimum that they will accept as the price of access
There is a push in some quarters to extend these to dynamic alignment (the UK commits to mirroring EU rules as they are updated), particularly for State Aid and Environmental provisions
If we BINO I will never stop laughing at Leave voters. Congrats, you've created the very problem you were angry about.
I don't think there's really any way to get around becoming a rules taker when you suddenly decide to remove your ability to have a say in the rules of your largest trading bloc.
I don't think there's really any way to get around becoming a rules taker when you suddenly decide to remove your ability to have a say in the rules of your largest trading bloc.
The EU has always been explicit that their trade policy is an instrument to influence countries outside the bloc towards governance standards and policies that align with the EU's
In many ways the depth of trade engagement is a function of that fact. The whole point is to require other countries to balance their desire to trade with the EU against their willingness to adopt generally progressive, liberal standards
+8
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited January 2020
imagine if people understood coordination problems
crazy stuff
its going to be truly incredible when everybody forgets that nothing that was promised materialises in a few years while the government refuses to talk about it.
the governments rhetorical strategy is going to be to say that "brexit" has happened - that was us leaving - and it was a get triumph over the odds, nobody said it could be done successfully. everything that happens after? purely the eu being bitter losers / entirely unrelated events / global economic slowdown we cant be blamed. the policy is still terrible, so they merely need to devise ways to keep the good bits - the story - and shed the bad bits - literally every actual consequence
I don't think there's really any way to get around becoming a rules taker when you suddenly decide to remove your ability to have a say in the rules of your largest trading bloc.
The EU has always been explicit that their trade policy is an instrument to influence countries outside the bloc towards governance standards and policies that align with the EU's
In many ways the depth of trade engagement is a function of that fact. The whole point is to require other countries to balance their desire to trade with the EU against their willingness to adopt generally progressive, liberal standards
Yup. And by doing Brexit, the UK are removing any serious ability to influence those governance standards and policies to benefit UK interests. Instead, they're just going to have to sit there and take it, or hope they get a better deal from Trump (Ha!).
There was a scene from Yes Minister, 30 years ago, that does a cynical take for comedic purposes, but the underlying philosophy (you can only change the EU by being in the EU) is pretty spot on.
I don't think there's really any way to get around becoming a rules taker when you suddenly decide to remove your ability to have a say in the rules of your largest trading bloc.
People have been convinced that if they just leave the EU their regulations no longer apply to them. It's just that's not how it works if you actually want to trade with someone.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Yup. And by doing Brexit, the UK are removing any serious ability to influence those governance standards and policies to benefit UK interests. Instead, they're just going to have to sit there and take it, or hope they get a better deal from Trump (Ha!).]
We roughy know what deal the US will offer, a variation on the deal they offerred to the EU (TTIP) , the one that the EU rejected because of the massive damage it will do to the NHS (among other things).
Yup. And by doing Brexit, the UK are removing any serious ability to influence those governance standards and policies to benefit UK interests. Instead, they're just going to have to sit there and take it, or hope they get a better deal from Trump (Ha!).]
We roughy know what deal the US will offer, a variation on the deal they offerred to the EU (TTIP) , the one that the EU rejected because of the massive damage it will do to the NHS (among other things).
Well... that's assuming Trump doesn't realize that the UK will be in a significantly weaker position to negotiate once they Brexit, and that Trump won't put the screws to Johnson hard.
I mean, what's Johnson gonna do? Rejoin the EU?
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Yup. And by doing Brexit, the UK are removing any serious ability to influence those governance standards and policies to benefit UK interests. Instead, they're just going to have to sit there and take it, or hope they get a better deal from Trump (Ha!).]
We roughy know what deal the US will offer, a variation on the deal they offerred to the EU (TTIP) , the one that the EU rejected because of the massive damage it will do to the NHS (among other things).
Well... that's assuming Trump doesn't realize that the UK will be in a significantly weaker position to negotiate once they Brexit, and that Trump won't put the screws to Johnson hard.
I mean, what's Johnson gonna do? Rejoin the EU?
Trump's concept of dealmaking means that he'll be looking to screw over the UK regardless of whether he actually grasps the fact that the UK is in a weaker position after leaving the EU.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
It'll be difficult for Trump to screw over the UK. Like the big US thing would be "lower consumer standards!" but we can't because to get our trade deal with the EU we've basically accepted we have to uphold their standards.
It'll be difficult for Trump to screw over the UK. Like the big US thing would be "lower consumer standards!" but we can't because to get our trade deal with the EU we've basically accepted we have to uphold their standards.
I thought the big US thing was going to be dismantling the NHS and letting US insurers in.
It'll be difficult for Trump to screw over the UK. Like the big US thing would be "lower consumer standards!" but we can't because to get our trade deal with the EU we've basically accepted we have to uphold their standards.
I thought the big US thing was going to be dismantling the NHS and letting US insurers in.
I had heard that as privatizing the NHS and letting US healthcare vendors into that market. Which is a bit of a different thing and slightly less massive political suicide though still probably not a good long term thing for whoever's name ends up attached to it.
It'll be difficult for Trump to screw over the UK. Like the big US thing would be "lower consumer standards!" but we can't because to get our trade deal with the EU we've basically accepted we have to uphold their standards.
I thought the big US thing was going to be dismantling the NHS and letting US insurers in.
I had heard that as privatizing the NHS and letting US healthcare vendors into that market. Which is a bit of a different thing and slightly less massive political suicide though still probably not a good long term thing for whoever's name ends up attached to it.
In the uk you have no concept of how shitty US health insurance is. Literally people have lived with this garbage for so long that that have begun to think that it is good. If you are a super rich person with concierge medicine, or, if you are lucky enough to be with one of the few companies which are just "like the NHS, but private" (as in, those companies handle every aspect of your care, it can work well, but other than that it is atrocious bey ok and belief. The average cost of having a baby in the US, with insurance is around 5000 out of pocket. Like, they will send you a bill for infinity batrillion bucks, and then your insurer will negotiate a 99% discount and pay 95% of that pice, and you are left paying $5k for the baby.
I feel like dismantling the NHS would be a harder political lift than making a regulatory carve out somwhere to import shitty chicken.
It's quite easy depoending on how strictly you define "dismantling the NHS".
They tried to pull something here with the TPP where, if iirc, the if we signed it the period for pharmaceutical patents would increase from 5 years to 10 (sorry if this isn't 100% correct, it's been two years and I'm not going to look up the exact details since that's not really my point)
Which would have increased the cost of running our healthcare system substantially. It wouldn't have shut it down overnight or privatized it completely. But it is a relatively small change in the respect that it's just modifying an already existing relationship.
I feel like dismantling the NHS would be a harder political lift than making a regulatory carve out somwhere to import shitty chicken.
It’ll be shock doctrine all the way. Dismantle what’s there, let the U.S. providers in, and then start pumping out the “It’s too late now! Reform will be impossible” rhetoric in the right wing media.
The TV and newspaper crowd will get decent coverage through their employers, and the sufferers will be made silent through lack of attention and fudged government numbers.
That's why dismantling the NHS will be done by small degrees - opening to 'competition' to provide services, chronic underfunding, breaking it into smaller and small bits that quietly get dropped or palmed off to private companies entirely. Nobody complains because 1. the press aren't interested in criticising the tories in any way and 2. it's never outright abolishing the NHS. In a world where sensationalism rules, anything short of coming out and saying "we're selling the NHS" will be ignored, or easily deflected.
The endgame is to make the NHS optional - that is either pay national insurance or opt for a "private alternative" (or nothing). At that point the NHS is effectively dead.
Dismantling the NHS isn't going to look like people think it's going to look
The key changes and the respective arguments that will be trotted out as their justifications are going to be:
- mandating open market commissioning (in the name of competition and innovation)
- ending collective negotiation on drug prices (same)
- fucking with the costing methodology of NICE or nullifying its influence in some way (offering greater choice)
- moving to a US style model for drug patents (innovation)
The end game will be when they start hiving off segments of the service as being in some way non core, and/or defunding or removing the mandate for public health initiatives
That's the tipping point at which many people will start deciding they need supplementary health insurance and it becomes normalised through marketing
Christ, the Tory messaging on IndyRef is absolutely tedious
"Day Job"
"Nicola"
"Get on With"
Repeated ad nauseum.
I don;t know what fovcus group testing has shown that using her first name is a hit but it is jolly grating.
The first name thing seems to be a general small-c-conservative party thing everywhere the last few years. Canadian conservatives have been making a point of first-naming the other party leaders, Trump's utterly fixated on only referring to other world leaders who aren't Putin that way, etc. It's basically standardized petty, hamfisted "I'm the boss and you guys aren't real participants worthy of any kind of respect" fuckery.
Dismantling the NHS isn't going to look like people think it's going to look
The key changes and the respective arguments that will be trotted out as their justifications are going to be:
- mandating open market commissioning (in the name of competition and innovation)
- ending collective negotiation on drug prices (same)
- fucking with the costing methodology of NICE or nullifying its influence in some way (offering greater choice)
- moving to a US style model for drug patents (innovation)
The end game will be when they start hiving off segments of the service as being in some way non core, and/or defunding or removing the mandate for public health initiatives
That's the tipping point at which many people will start deciding they need supplementary health insurance and it becomes normalised through marketing
I am 44 years old, and I know three people my age or younger who died because they could not afford medical treatment. You will at least have the historical memory that things were better and the influence of Europe to help you fight back.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any shit deal that Trump wanted have to get buy in from the democrats in the case and possibly even the ones in the senate (cause I do believe they can filibuster trade deals). So dismantling NHS is probably off the table as long as he democrats control the house. I just see a ton of interest in the power to force the UK to adopt our shitty and unpopular healthcare setup within the democratic party. Passing such a turd of trade deal would also be viewed as an endorsement of a shit system that is not well received by democratic voters.
If I were Johnson I'd probably be shitty my pants because he probably isn't going to get a quick trade deal. Trump will likely want something that democrats are willing to sign off on.
Also regardless of when a trade deal is hammered out, I'm pretty economics and geography are going to force Britain to be rather reliant on trade with Europe to keep prices reasonable. I mean technology does mean you could in theory rely on a country halfway around the world for all your basic needs, but you're going to be paying a premium for that. Pretty sure there are a fair number of goods that Britain could get from the US instead of Britain, but it's going to come with a higher price tag because more resources would be required to move it form the US in a useable form, than would be needed to get from Europe.
Look Boris and Trump aren't going to get a shit trade deal that fucks brits out of healthcare because there is no gain for the democrats to do so. It's not likely they really lose any votes if they tell our insurance industry to get fucked because it's pretty reviled here in the states. There is however the prospect that fucking over brits on healthcare will cost them votes because it telegraphs the concept that they're more or less okay with our rat fuckign insurance industry fucking people over for greater profits. It's just not something they're going to spend political capital on. Hell, I'd argue they'd probably have more incentive to run the clock out or force Trump and Boris to come up with a passable trade deal where the worst of it wil be that you have to buy shitty chicken and enforce shitty IP laws.
I wouldn't count on the Democrats to protect people in other countries from US economic interests
The Democrats are divided on the issue, and their big fix last time they were in power was a system of plans where people pay up to $1,000 a month to private companies for insurance with a $5,000-$8,000 deductible (i.e. that's how much you have to pay before it kicks in for major medical expenses).
Look Boris and Trump aren't going to get a shit trade deal that fucks brits out of healthcare because there is no gain for the democrats to do so. It's not likely they really lose any votes if they tell our insurance industry to get fucked because it's pretty reviled here in the states. There is however the prospect that fucking over brits on healthcare will cost them votes because it telegraphs the concept that they're more or less okay with our rat fuckign insurance industry fucking people over for greater profits. It's just not something they're going to spend political capital on. Hell, I'd argue they'd probably have more incentive to run the clock out or force Trump and Boris to come up with a passable trade deal where the worst of it wil be that you have to buy shitty chicken and enforce shitty IP laws.
Oh there will be so much chicken to buy. Ha, and I hope you like corn syrup and hate cane sugar, because boy do we have corn syrup to sell you.
I wouldn't count on the Democrats to protect people in other countries from US economic interests
Aye. The Democrats are likely to apply way less pressure to fuck up the NHS or the like in trade deals, but there's always industry pushing it's agenda in these things and there's like no chance of them reversing any gains if Trump gets them pushed through before he leaves office.
Yeah, I forgot about all the shitty corn based products. Let's also not forget the abomination that is passed off as "American Cheese," when I think they finally got people to admit is a cheese product and IMO calling it a cheese product is stretching things. So yeah, I'd be less worried about a shit carve out for US insurance companies (like serious expect healthcare to be a big thing in the US elections and giving our shit insurance industry a hand in undermining British healthcare, not only kneecap that argument, but it also passes up on the opportunity of campaign on telling both Trump and the US health insurance industry to get fucked). You should be more worried about Boris agreeing to shitty IP laws and your local grocery being flooded with shitty chicken, corn based products and the garbage called American cheese (not to be confused with actual cheese of various quality made in the US, it's literally billed as a type of cheese and it is not.
American Cheese is cheese. Its a mix of cheddar and colby(and sometimes other cheese). If additional milk products are added at its a "cheese food". But its just cheese and cream.
American Cheese is cheese. Its a mix of cheddar and colby(and sometimes other cheese). If additional milk products are added at its a "cheese food". But its just cheese and cream.
Posts
Tl;dr:
Since Johnson has reverted to the position originally set out by Theresa May, the commitments she made on non-regression (that is, the UK commits to not lowering standards in various areas) are the minimum that they will accept as the price of access
There is a push in some quarters to extend these to dynamic alignment (the UK commits to mirroring EU rules as they are updated), particularly for State Aid and Environmental provisions
The reason that Labour managed to score own goals for the past three and a half years despite the Conservatives' goal being the one that's open is that Jeremy Corbyn is unwilling to capitalize. Eh? Ehhh?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/14/revealed-uk-concealed-failure-to-alert-eu-over-75000-criminal-convictions
What a terrible thing to cover up. Just to not inform your allies because you don't want them to trust you less. So you keep it quiet for five years and your cover is blown by the press.
Uh, yes. You haven't noticed before?
Just one example from my neck of the woods: There's a Bye Bye Britain party on the Dutch beach, where we will all wave off the UK as you sail further away from the European mainland.
But we'll also play "We'll meet again" and look longingly at the British Isles... So it's not really a "good riddance" party.
And then the third part of the play, where William III comes back from the dead and unites both countries under a single ruler again.
"Day Job"
"Nicola"
"Get on With"
Repeated ad nauseum.
I don;t know what fovcus group testing has shown that using her first name is a hit but it is jolly grating.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
If we BINO I will never stop laughing at Leave voters. Congrats, you've created the very problem you were angry about.
We'd be rule takers
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
The EU has always been explicit that their trade policy is an instrument to influence countries outside the bloc towards governance standards and policies that align with the EU's
In many ways the depth of trade engagement is a function of that fact. The whole point is to require other countries to balance their desire to trade with the EU against their willingness to adopt generally progressive, liberal standards
crazy stuff
its going to be truly incredible when everybody forgets that nothing that was promised materialises in a few years while the government refuses to talk about it.
the governments rhetorical strategy is going to be to say that "brexit" has happened - that was us leaving - and it was a get triumph over the odds, nobody said it could be done successfully. everything that happens after? purely the eu being bitter losers / entirely unrelated events / global economic slowdown we cant be blamed. the policy is still terrible, so they merely need to devise ways to keep the good bits - the story - and shed the bad bits - literally every actual consequence
Yup. And by doing Brexit, the UK are removing any serious ability to influence those governance standards and policies to benefit UK interests. Instead, they're just going to have to sit there and take it, or hope they get a better deal from Trump (Ha!).
There was a scene from Yes Minister, 30 years ago, that does a cynical take for comedic purposes, but the underlying philosophy (you can only change the EU by being in the EU) is pretty spot on.
Steam | XBL
People have been convinced that if they just leave the EU their regulations no longer apply to them. It's just that's not how it works if you actually want to trade with someone.
We roughy know what deal the US will offer, a variation on the deal they offerred to the EU (TTIP) , the one that the EU rejected because of the massive damage it will do to the NHS (among other things).
Well... that's assuming Trump doesn't realize that the UK will be in a significantly weaker position to negotiate once they Brexit, and that Trump won't put the screws to Johnson hard.
I mean, what's Johnson gonna do? Rejoin the EU?
Trump's concept of dealmaking means that he'll be looking to screw over the UK regardless of whether he actually grasps the fact that the UK is in a weaker position after leaving the EU.
Who knows? (Yes)
I thought the big US thing was going to be dismantling the NHS and letting US insurers in.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I had heard that as privatizing the NHS and letting US healthcare vendors into that market. Which is a bit of a different thing and slightly less massive political suicide though still probably not a good long term thing for whoever's name ends up attached to it.
In the uk you have no concept of how shitty US health insurance is. Literally people have lived with this garbage for so long that that have begun to think that it is good. If you are a super rich person with concierge medicine, or, if you are lucky enough to be with one of the few companies which are just "like the NHS, but private" (as in, those companies handle every aspect of your care, it can work well, but other than that it is atrocious bey ok and belief. The average cost of having a baby in the US, with insurance is around 5000 out of pocket. Like, they will send you a bill for infinity batrillion bucks, and then your insurer will negotiate a 99% discount and pay 95% of that pice, and you are left paying $5k for the baby.
It's quite easy depoending on how strictly you define "dismantling the NHS".
They tried to pull something here with the TPP where, if iirc, the if we signed it the period for pharmaceutical patents would increase from 5 years to 10 (sorry if this isn't 100% correct, it's been two years and I'm not going to look up the exact details since that's not really my point)
Which would have increased the cost of running our healthcare system substantially. It wouldn't have shut it down overnight or privatized it completely. But it is a relatively small change in the respect that it's just modifying an already existing relationship.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
It’ll be shock doctrine all the way. Dismantle what’s there, let the U.S. providers in, and then start pumping out the “It’s too late now! Reform will be impossible” rhetoric in the right wing media.
The TV and newspaper crowd will get decent coverage through their employers, and the sufferers will be made silent through lack of attention and fudged government numbers.
The endgame is to make the NHS optional - that is either pay national insurance or opt for a "private alternative" (or nothing). At that point the NHS is effectively dead.
The key changes and the respective arguments that will be trotted out as their justifications are going to be:
- mandating open market commissioning (in the name of competition and innovation)
- ending collective negotiation on drug prices (same)
- fucking with the costing methodology of NICE or nullifying its influence in some way (offering greater choice)
- moving to a US style model for drug patents (innovation)
The end game will be when they start hiving off segments of the service as being in some way non core, and/or defunding or removing the mandate for public health initiatives
That's the tipping point at which many people will start deciding they need supplementary health insurance and it becomes normalised through marketing
The first name thing seems to be a general small-c-conservative party thing everywhere the last few years. Canadian conservatives have been making a point of first-naming the other party leaders, Trump's utterly fixated on only referring to other world leaders who aren't Putin that way, etc. It's basically standardized petty, hamfisted "I'm the boss and you guys aren't real participants worthy of any kind of respect" fuckery.
I am 44 years old, and I know three people my age or younger who died because they could not afford medical treatment. You will at least have the historical memory that things were better and the influence of Europe to help you fight back.
If I were Johnson I'd probably be shitty my pants because he probably isn't going to get a quick trade deal. Trump will likely want something that democrats are willing to sign off on.
Also regardless of when a trade deal is hammered out, I'm pretty economics and geography are going to force Britain to be rather reliant on trade with Europe to keep prices reasonable. I mean technology does mean you could in theory rely on a country halfway around the world for all your basic needs, but you're going to be paying a premium for that. Pretty sure there are a fair number of goods that Britain could get from the US instead of Britain, but it's going to come with a higher price tag because more resources would be required to move it form the US in a useable form, than would be needed to get from Europe.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The Democrats are divided on the issue, and their big fix last time they were in power was a system of plans where people pay up to $1,000 a month to private companies for insurance with a $5,000-$8,000 deductible (i.e. that's how much you have to pay before it kicks in for major medical expenses).
Oh there will be so much chicken to buy. Ha, and I hope you like corn syrup and hate cane sugar, because boy do we have corn syrup to sell you.
Aye. The Democrats are likely to apply way less pressure to fuck up the NHS or the like in trade deals, but there's always industry pushing it's agenda in these things and there's like no chance of them reversing any gains if Trump gets them pushed through before he leaves office.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
It's also amazing for melting.