Interesting article if you follow the Nissan-Sunderland Brexit case study.
I didn’t know 70% of the vehicles made at the factory are exported to the EU. Seems like they feel they can offset any export tariffs in the short term through Corp tax cuts, government subsidies and better domestic sales whilst they hold out for a FTA down the line
THAT IS NOT TRUE YOU EUROPEAN SWINE
Eesa on da drink der, ye island folk.
Expect an extension to the Transition Period if the virus worsens across Europe. Number 10 are currently working out how to spin it. Brexit may have started, but it’s far from done.
On the face of it I read this tweet and think what the fuck? But does anyone have any context as to why this would be rejected?
I think the government normally votes against anything that’s important and not proposed by them.
Sounds like the NHS and other services will be on the table in future trade talks.
That’s what I thought but having not followed this closely in months didn’t want to just assume and call them cunts.
Please do now. Never gets old and always sounds good.
This bill is stupid, the government has put in to law the continuous funding of the nhs and other provisions; any government stupid enough to use the nhs as part of any trade is looking not to be in government for very long. Secondly the tories did a smart thing by not agreeing to this, due to the fact it would make the Labour Party look good when all they are doing is looking for political point scoring.
Oh right, well that makes it ok then
I updated my post.
But to your point it is ok to push back on a nothing bill that makes you guilty of something you have no intentions of doing.
Legislative agenda is set by the Party who has the mandate not the opposition.
The language of that clause is extremely broad to the public health and care sector and essentially counter productive to trade negotiations, it’s decent spin for the opposition though.
Would you mind elaborating a bit here please, unless you want parts of the public health and care sectors to possibly be included in trade deals in what respect would it be detrimental to trade deals? Very surface level comment, but I’d have thought that it only harms trade deals if you’re trying to trade in those areas.
I ask this genuinely and not as some sort of partisan challenge, because I’ve not read the bill and I know that you tend to post from an informed position, so you probably understand the bill quite well.
The opposition wants to “protect” the NHS and the care industry by essentially removing it from the table in any trade deal discussion, of course you don’t need to write that in to law to prevent that, it’s up to the prerogative of the government. By doing so it’s a form of negative protectionism, that doesn’t lead to better outcomes for the government or public.
We all agree here free and fair trade is good thing right? There are certain element of Health and care industry that would benefit directly from such agreements, equipment and drugs are often citied as the most important. To let the opposition bind your hand makes no sense
On the same hand there are elements of the health and care sector that need robust protections, data/information or research etc that you can specifically protect in legislation and you might find cross party support with that. To block of the whole sector is a counter productive I think
Thank you.
You write quite persuasively I must say haha
I presume its because they want to give out contract to private companies sometimes, for example Richard Branson bought a contract for community nursing in our area, which my partner was part of when it happened? And it needed to happen.
We seem to forget the nhs sells contracts to private companies to operate within it also.