General Election - December 12th, 2019

[kevin horlocks wand]

Just the opposite it means the U.S or whichever country/ block is negotiating it has to offer a deal that satisfys everyone. If we are negotiating on our own they only have to offer a deal that satisfys the government of the day, in other words if Johnsons happy we get stuck with whatevers offered.

no shit Sherlock. You mean countries are run by their elected govt of the day?

 

[blueparrot]

no shit Sherlock. You mean countries are run by their elected govt of the day?

What you talking about. Just pointing out a trading block is in a stronger negotiating position than an individual country, just common sense.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Well let’s consider it from this point of view.

The US pharma companies already sell us drugs. Why would there be any negotiations?

There is no reason to have it included in a trade deal, we already buy their drugs.

So frame it this way, why would the pharma companies come to the table?
You are keen to say we would not go and accept a huge increase in costs for drugs, which is a sensible point of view.
But you are not affording the same to the big pharma companies. Why would they come to the table? Do you think they are happy that we pay, generally, more than half the price that the US do for the same drugs?

They will be in a position of strength should brexit go ahead. We NEED a trade deal. The US don’t.

As for the document and the trustworthiness of the tories, there is a line within the document explaining that the govt don’t want ‘NHS’ mentioned too much because the british public are sensitive to it.

We were promised the NHS would not be part of any trade deal yet these documents suggest otherwise.

I haven't seen the document, but if there is a line it in as you suggest, they I'd say good, very sensible. People massively overreact and political opponents use it to throw stones. Why invite that?

The fact is we would not agree to any deal which is net worse for the UK, would we. Even if we agreed to pay more like US prices on the 10% of the drugs we buy from the US - and I am not saying we would for a moment - then we'd only do so for some quid pro quo which made doing so worthwhile. So overall, we'd be better off. And if the NHS's drugs bill was to go up by say 10% (a doubling of the US drug costs) then we'd have to bung the NHS more money to pay for it, which would be possible because of the better overall trade deal we had got. If the trade deal is not sufficiently better, we would not agree to it, would we.

So there is absolutely nothing to see here. It's either

(a) All complete bollocks, and represents a historical discussion not even being considered any more, and/or

(b) Perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Shit-stirring and scaremongering from a desperate Corbyn thrashing around on the rack of a -12 point polling gap.

 

[Chippy_boy]

This thread seems to have turned into a Tory boy echo chamber with half the Tory boys pretending they're lifelong traditional Labour voters.

Makes a fucking change.

 

[Metal Biker]

Just the opposite it means the U.S or whichever country/ block is negotiating it has to offer a deal that satisfys everyone. If we are negotiating on our own they only have to offer a deal that satisfys the government of the day, in other words if Johnsons happy we get stuck with whatevers offered.

Erm, that's exactly what I just said. The amount of time taken to conclude deals is due to this problem.
This isn't for this thread anyway, if you want to discuss it further go to the brexit thread.

 

[Chippy_boy]

So why lie about it all? 50000 extra nurses? Lie. 40 new hospitals? Lie. First government in history not to account for inflation when describing healthcare investment. Demand rising at over 6% and annual funding rising at 0.1% (following, on average 4% from the inception of the NHS). Why is it doing that? If I accept your argument about the deficit (I don't, obviously) then why did they not tell everyone that the consequences would be longer waiting lists, longer waits to see a GP, longer waits for cancer treatment (I think you were the one bemoaning the NHS cancer performance, whilst you are constantly advocating reducing budgets)?
Why pretend that hospitals can still meet all their target with a crash in real funding and an increase in demand? If it were your business and someone pretended it were true you'd sack them but if it is government they seem immune from telling the truth and they seem to get a free pass.
Finally, if you are to respond, please do not respond with 'Corbyn is a lying scumbag as well'. I don't care what Corbyn says because he is not part of the government, he hasn't ever been part of the government and he will never be part of the government. What he says matters about as much as what you and I say on this forum.

I'll put aside your final paragraph and overlook the fact that I am free to call the laying scumbag what on earth I like, but moving on...

Why dress things up as best as possible? Does that REALLY need answering? Because people are not too enamoured when someone says "We're going to need to make cuts and unfortunately that's going to mean waiting lists go up".

When the opponents have an infinite imaginary budget and can promise free Rolls-Royces for every man, woman and child, it's hardly surprising is it that sales people - which is ultiimately what politicians are - try to be optimistic and paint a picture of the best outcome. "Vote for us because it's going to be a bit shit" doesn't have quite the same appeal.

 

[sd92]

I haven't seen the document, but if there is a line it in as you suggest, they I'd say good, very sensible. People massively overreact and political opponents use it to throw stones. Why invite that?

The fact is we would not agree to any deal which is net worse for the UK, would we. Even if we agreed to pay more like US prices on the 10% of the drugs we buy from the US - and I am not saying we would for a moment - then we'd only do so for some quid pro quo which made doing so worthwhile. So overall, we'd be better off. And if the NHS's drugs bill was to go up by say 10% (a doubling of the US drug costs) then we'd have to bung the NHS more money to pay for it, which would be possible because of the better overall trade deal we had got. If the trade deal is not sufficiently better, we would not agree to it, would we.

So there is absolutely nothing to see here. It's either

(a) All complete bollocks, and represents a historical discussion not even being considered any more, and/or

(b) Perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Shit-stirring and scaremongering from a desperate Corbyn thrashing around on the rack of a -12 point polling gap.

There seems to be an inherent trust on your part of the tories.

Do you agree that a no deal brexit leaves the UK with virtually no strength?

Who else would we trade with? We have a no deal brexit so the EU is out the question. There is a reason that Trump is pro no deal and it’s not for our benefit.

I’ve just heard a doctor say that there are multiple countries that have negotiated with the US on healthcare and have cone back with worse terms than they went for, he mentioned Japan.

You haven’t mentioned the position that the pharma companies are coming from?
You say we wouldn’t sell ourselves down the drain, so why would they?
The difference is we have no option, they could pull their services, but we need them.

 

[Metal Biker]

What you talking about. Just pointing out a trading block is in a stronger negotiating position than an individual country, just common sense.

Not if it wants to conclude deals quickly, it's not.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

I haven't seen the document, but if there is a line it in as you suggest, they I'd say good, very sensible. People massively overreact and political opponents use it to throw stones. Why invite that?

The fact is we would not agree to any deal which is net worse for the UK, would we. Even if we agreed to pay more like US prices on the 10% of the drugs we buy from the US - and I am not saying we would for a moment - then we'd only do so for some quid pro quo which made doing so worthwhile. So overall, we'd be better off. And if the NHS's drugs bill was to go up by say 10% (a doubling of the US drug costs) then we'd have to bung the NHS more money to pay for it, which would be possible because of the better overall trade deal we had got. If the trade deal is not sufficiently better, we would not agree to it, would we.

So there is absolutely nothing to see here. It's either

(a) All complete bollocks, and represents a historical discussion not even being considered any more, and/or

(b) Perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Shit-stirring and scaremongering from a desperate Corbyn thrashing around on the rack of a -12 point polling gap.

He has found a year old trade discussion document from when the previous pm was in charge, waved it around like it’s some smoking gun and made himself look an even bigger tit than he was previously.

 

[blueparrot]

Not if it wants to conclude deals quickly, it's not.

Good deals are better than quick bad deals.