Brexit

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

As I've already pointed out, anything that is put out to tender can be done by a company from ANYWHERE. Nothing new.

Except that under the terms of the trade deal the British government can be sued by American companies if our interventions or regulations impact on profits, iirc American cigarette companies sued the Australian government recently thanks to their trade deal, that's something new

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Except that under the terms of the trade deal the British government can be sued by American companies if our interventions or regulations impact on profits, iirc American cigarette companies sued the Australian government recently thanks to their trade deal, that's something new

Wasn't just the US, so nothing to do with any trade agreement.

Australia has triumphed in a major trade dispute over its tobacco plain packaging law, with World Trade Organisation judges rejecting a complaint brought by Cuba, Indonesia, Honduras and the Dominican Republic.

Originally Posted by nomadking

If one Parliament cannot bind a future one, then we could overturn all of the EU legislation quite easily.

Correct, and in theory Parliament can do that. It would, however, put us in violation of international treaties. Parliament, by convention, respects such treaties even though it is sovereign and is not obliged to. As I said last night, don’t underestimate the power of convention.

I’m not going to get into a boring internet argument over this. It’s pretty clear your grasp of the workings of the British constitution is weak. The principle that Parliament cannot bind its successors is fundamental and simply isn’t up for debate here. If that’s the point you’re trying to argue then feel free to yell at yourself in the mirror, because I’ve got better things to do.

Incidentally I’m happy to confirm “Chris” is my actual name, as several members of this forum who have met me in real life will also attest.

[ianch99]

Trump was a bit too honest today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48507244

Asked if the NHS could be included in a future trade deal, Mr Trump said "everything is on the table".

Already this is being used in the Tory leadership contest:

https://twitter.com/MattHancock/stat...09336310460419

Dear Mr President. The NHS isn’t on the table in trade talks - and never will be. Not on my watch.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Trump was a bit too honest today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48507244



Already this is being used in the Tory leadership contest:

https://twitter.com/MattHancock/stat...09336310460419

Ah yes, the man who received £32,000 in donations from a think tank that wants the NHS abolished.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Angua

Ah yes, the man who received £32,000 in donations from a think tank that wants the NHS abolished.

Think tank or lobby group? Or "think tank"?

Originally Posted by Angua

Ah yes, the man who received £32,000 in donations from a think tank that wants the NHS abolished.

tbf, it doesn’t want it abolished - it recommends the NHS should look at some of the options that Francecand Germany use (very successfully).

[denphone]

Change UK splits as six of 11 MPs become independents.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48515505

The party announced that a new party leader, Anna Soubry, had been elected.

She said she was "deeply disappointed" that Heidi Allen, Chuka Umunna, Sarah Wollaston, Angela Smith, Luciana Berger and Gavin Shuker had left.

[heero_yuy]

Just a new bit of project fear taken down hook line and sinker by some.

Change UK splits as six of 11 MPs become independents.

So the ramshackle grouping of Westminster traitors implodes. One can't but laugh.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Just a new bit of project fear taken down hook line and sinker by some.

So the ramshackle grouping of Westminster traitors implodes. One can't but laugh.

They are going through quite a bit of change at the moment.
But, please let's not use the term traitor just because you disagree with someone's viewpoint.

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:37 ----------

Farage given 24 hours by the European Parliament to explain why he did not declare Aaron Banks' funds.

Last month Channel 4 News revealed emails, invoices and documents suggesting that Banks had covered Farage’s costs for a £13,000-a-month Chelsea home in the year of the Brexit referendum, visits to the US and a chauffeur-driven car. Should Farage fail to convince the parliament of his reason for not declaring Banks’s funding, he could potentially lose the right to make a victory speech in the chamber in July as head of his parliamentary group.
None of the donations were declared to the European parliament despite the MEPs’ code of conduct stipulating that all members must declare travel, accommodation or subsistence expenses from third parties.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...on-banks-funds

Originally Posted by nomadking

As I've already pointed out, anything that is put out to tender can be done by a company from ANYWHERE. Nothing new.

As pointed out elsewhere the terms of a trade deal would likely seek to make regulation more favourable to American drug and healthcare companies. They won't seek to make the NHS disappear but they will want to protect their interests and maximise profits for the contracts they seek. There are all sorts of things they might push for, most of which I don't really understand to do with how contracts for medicines are made, but a lack of regulation in favour of private business is unlikely to benefit us as taxpayers or patients.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Wasn't just the US, so nothing to do with any trade agreement.

It's in the trade agreement, the US side have all but finished their side of it apparently and that's in it

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

As I've already pointed out, anything that is put out to tender can be done by a company from ANYWHERE. Nothing new.

Not on the tenders I've worked on. They have a host of requirements which effectively limit the geographical location where the services can be delivered from.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Damien

As pointed out elsewhere the terms of a trade deal would likely seek to make regulation more favourable to American drug and healthcare companies. They won't seek to make the NHS disappear but they will want to protect their interests and maximise profits for the contracts they seek. There are all sorts of things they might push for, most of which I don't really understand to do with how contracts for medicines are made, but a lack of regulation in favour of private business is unlikely to benefit us as taxpayers or patients.

The big sticking point during the TTIP talks was the option that private businesses had the option to sue Governments if they did things to negatively impact those businesses.

This is a huge deal in the health industry as public health initiatives can and do affect the profits of the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry who have a vested interest in people being sick

[Angua]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The big sticking point during the TTIP talks was the option that private businesses had the option to sue Governments if they did things to negatively impact those businesses.

This is a huge deal in the health industry as public health initiatives can and do affect the profits of the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry who have a vested interest in people being sick

How the US trade deal undermined Australia’s PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme).