Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU? 2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union? 3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? 5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? 6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
Leavers were clear that people’s rights would be determined by their directly elected Parliament , not Brussels. They were clear that FoM would end. They were clear that payments from the EU would end and that it would be up to the U.K. what replaced them. Whether these are advantages or disadvantages perhaps depends on your individual perspective.
As we have now established beyond doubt it has been the remainers in government who have determined policy, or more accurately, the lack of policy over the last 2 years. I fear that this has been driven by weakness, ineptitude and a lack of decisiveness but just maybe May has a cunning plan. We had all better hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
A combination of huge marketing costs in the US (all those direct-to-consumer TV adverts and long lunches for doctors) and a lack of negotiating power by the insurance companies who ultimately foot the bills. Even Medicare are banned from negotiating prices, they have to pay the list price for medicines by law.
The Tories are in a real fix. Yes, Labour are cynically positioning themselves to reject whatever Theresa agrees and usher in No Deal. But when the most prominent Tory in the land - Rees-Mogg - is on the TV every day saying how desirable a No Deal is, what can they say?
As you say, though, nailing the Tories is, has to be, priority 1.
Obviously if economic chaos can be avoided that's great, but Labour are not going to not cause chaos if they have a chance to bring down the government.
Old men in a hurry no doubt but I'm not sure causing chaos is the way forward for Labour. They need to reunite their europhile and eurosceptic support bases to win the next election and that can be done if the least harmful type of Brexit can be negotiated under the Tory banner
Tories do not need any active support to cause chaos. Labour are right to stand back and mutter "I wouldn't do it like that!"
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
A combination of huge marketing costs in the US (all those direct-to-consumer TV adverts and long lunches for doctors) and a lack of negotiating power by the insurance companies who ultimately foot the bills. Even Medicare are banned from negotiating prices, they have to pay the list price for medicines by law.
Even under Medicare most US patients have to make substantial co payments for prhamaceuticals, so insurance companies are rarely directly paying. It varies a lot by State too.
There is an interesting decision of the Supreme Court today on notional election expenses and the reporting thereof. This could well have significant implications.
The Tories are in a real fix. Yes, Labour are cynically positioning themselves to reject whatever Theresa agrees and usher in No Deal. But when the most prominent Tory in the land - Rees-Mogg - is on the TV every day saying how desirable a No Deal is, what can they say?
Does Mogg take holidays? Or are they too modern an invention for him? Perhaps he just does the odd Saint's day?
Anyway, a period of silence from him would be welcome.
The Tories are in a real fix. Yes, Labour are cynically positioning themselves to reject whatever Theresa agrees and usher in No Deal. But when the most prominent Tory in the land - Rees-Mogg - is on the TV every day saying how desirable a No Deal is, what can they say?
Remainers are poisoning the well for any future "re-join" party.
When life goes on as normal after Brexit day their "chicken licken" antics will be the subject of much scorn - just as "project fear 1" was when Article 50 was triggered.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
Leavers were clear that people’s rights would be determined by their directly elected Parliament , not Brussels. They were clear that FoM would end. They were clear that payments from the EU would end and that it would be up to the U.K. what replaced them. Whether these are advantages or disadvantages perhaps depends on your individual perspective.
As we have now established beyond doubt it has been the remainers in government who have determined policy, or more accurately, the lack of policy over the last 2 years. I fear that this has been driven by weakness, ineptitude and a lack of decisiveness but just maybe May has a cunning plan. We had all better hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
When life goes on as normal after Brexit day their "chicken licken" antics will be the subject of much scorn - just as "project fear 1" was when Article 50 was triggered.
Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU? 2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union? 3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? 5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? 6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
Which is why perhaps there is a sudden push among non-headbanging Leavers to get the Norway option back on the table. It is a tried and tested plan if nothing else which the EU might accept although of course it's not as good as remaining.
I come back to near universal reporting that it’s shite.
You'll have to blame Boris and DD for that. If they choose to resign over it what's everyone else supposed to think?
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
A combination of huge marketing costs in the US (all those direct-to-consumer TV adverts and long lunches for doctors) and a lack of negotiating power by the insurance companies who ultimately foot the bills. Even Medicare are banned from negotiating prices, they have to pay the list price for medicines by law.
Even under Medicare most US patients have to make substantial co payments for prhamaceuticals, so insurance companies are rarely directly paying. It varies a lot by State too.
Which removes even more the negotiating power imbalance. It’s always the TV ads that get me whenever I go to the States, yet to Americans it’s perfectly normal to hear “Ask your physician for Xanax/Viagra/OxyContin” while watching the morning news.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
It was going to be so easy. We held all the cards. The EU27 would be climbing over each other to offer us favourable trade deals. We'd have several trade deals done and dusted. Other countries would be following us out the door.
Brexiteer delusions came so fast and loose in those days before Reality happened.
Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU? 2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union? 3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? 5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? 6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
That does not extend to the government or to those positively advocating a course of action. Leavers have failed to come up with a coherent programme, hence the mess we are currently in.
Leavers were clear that people’s rights would be determined by their directly elected Parliament , not Brussels. They were clear that FoM would end. They were clear that payments from the EU would end and that it would be up to the U.K. what replaced them. Whether these are advantages or disadvantages perhaps depends on your individual perspective.
As we have now established beyond doubt it has been the remainers in government who have determined policy, or more accurately, the lack of policy over the last 2 years. I fear that this has been driven by weakness, ineptitude and a lack of decisiveness but just maybe May has a cunning plan. We had all better hope so.
"As we have now established beyond doubt it has been the remainers in government who have determined policy, or more accurately, the lack of policy over the last 2 years"
If that's the case, it's because the likes of Davis, Gove, Fox, Johnson et al (i.e. the leavers) have done f'all over those two years. In other words, it's hardly 'beyond doubt'.
Ignoring for a moment the Europhile traitor elephant in the room, I thought that many extreme jihadis had had their UK citizenship withdrawn? Surely in those cases they couldn't be found guilty of treason.
They could be, if they had a British passport when they travelled there, according to the ruling in the trial of William Joyce.
Unpleasant as Joyce was, isn't his trial and execution pretty much viewed as a travesty nowadays? Not that that should necessarily be a hindrance in the current atmosphere.
If the Defendant were facing imprisonment, rather than execution, I think there's a good chance that a modern court would uphold the decision.
As I understand it from reading Wiki, Joyce's conviction rested on his application for and possession of a British passport for which he'd supplied false information, and the only evidence that he'd broadcast from Germany while holding this passport was the hearsay of a police inspector. I'd expect a decent defence to make hay with that.
On a grisly note from Wiki, the deep razor scar on Joyce's face burst open at his hanging due to the pressure of the noose.
In the era of "populist" politics, when loud mouths proclaim "simple, easy and Great (bigly)" solutions to every problem, there is a surprising lack of anyone promoting the simplest, easiest and best solution to the intractable difficulties of Brexit
To be fair to Gove, he's at liberty to change his mind. If you had asked me in 1996, I would have said without hesitation that we needed to get out of the EU (or more probably, 'get out of this Mafia-style cabal in the pocket of the French beef industry'). But I changed my views over time, even though I still think Franz Fischler should probably be doing jail time as he must surely have known about the vast scale of the BSE epidemics in France, Germany and Belgium yet mysteriously attacked only Britain.
*Feels dirty at having defended Gove, a Leaver and a disastrous SoS for Education, runs off to wash*
When life goes on as normal after Brexit day their "chicken licken" antics will be the subject of much scorn - just as "project fear 1" was when Article 50 was triggered.
You'll be laughing all the way to the foodbank...
Doomsday cultists (like Scott) have form for this of course.
"Planes would fall out of the sky. There would be drought, famine, thousands of deaths and billions wiped off the markets. "
"None of this, however, adds up to global recession, or infrastructure collapse, or accidental nuclear war, as the most heated prophets were anticipating. The ONS has stopped its bug watch, weeks earlier than planned. Action 2000, the Government's millennium-alert agency, has been run down. They barely answer their phones now, and sound awkward when you ask what they still do. The bug has faded to an embarrassing period catchphrase."
"In 1997, he felt differently. "I do not want to seem irrational or a prophet of doom," he told the Mail on Sunday that January, "but there is a possibility of riots." He says now that the papers deliberately played up his every hypothetical: "A warning can easily be turned into a prediction_ There were people who were determined to make me into a doom-monger." But then he adds, "If I'd gone around saying, 'We'll probably get through this,' no one would have printed anything.""
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
It was going to be so easy. We held all the cards. The EU27 would be climbing over each other to offer us favourable trade deals. We'd have several trade deals done and dusted. Other countries would be following us out the door.
Brexiteer delusions came so fast and loose in those days before Reality happened.
And remainers had nothing to offer because being in the EU is sub optimal and destined to get worse, especially for countries not in the Euro. We decided. We do not want to be a small part of a European superstate. For 90% + the rest is details.
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure
Even under Medicare most US patients have to make substantial co payments for prhamaceuticals, so insurance companies are rarely directly paying. It varies a lot by State too.
Which removes even more the negotiating power imbalance. It’s always the TV ads that get me whenever I go to the States, yet to Americans it’s perfectly normal to hear “Ask your physician for Xanax/Viagra/OxyContin” while watching the morning news.
The US healthcare system is completely broken.
Indeed, the 300,000 deaths in the US from opoids in the recent decades are the human cost of that marketing of Oxycontin. There is a Republican connection.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I ay odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
Thatcurrently in.
Leavers l perspective.
As hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
It was going to be so easy. We held all the cards. The EU27 would be climbing over each other to offer us favourable trade deals. We'd have several trade deals done and dusted. Other countries would be following us out the door.
Brexiteer delusions came so fast and loose in those days before Reality happened.
And remainers had nothing to offer because being in the EU is sub optimal and destined to get worse, especially for countries not in the Euro. We decided. We do not want to be a small part of a European superstate. For 90% + the rest is details.
I for one have never assumed that the EU would be caving into every demand we made. If they did, we wouldn't be leaving.
I looked at the worst case scenario, (output being 4% lower by 2030 than would otherwise be the case) and concluded that was an acceptable level of risk.
I looked at the worst case scenario, (output being 4% lower by 2030 than would otherwise be the case) and concluded that was an acceptable level of risk.
That's very far from being the worst case scenario, and it's ironic that you present it as purely an economic trade off without considering the potential consequences of unleashing the political instability inherent in Brexit.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I ay odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
Thatcurrently in.
Leavers l perspective.
As hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
A combination of huge marketing costs in the US (all those direct-to-consumer TV adverts and long lunches for doctors) and a lack of negotiating power by the insurance companies who ultimately foot the bills. Even Medicare are banned from negotiating prices, they have to pay the list price for medicines by law.
Even under Medicare most US patients have to make substantial co payments for prhamaceuticals, so insurance companies are rarely directly paying. It varies a lot by State too.
Which removes even more the negotiating power imbalance. It’s always the TV ads that get me whenever I go to the States, yet to Americans it’s perfectly normal to hear “Ask your physician for Xanax/Viagra/OxyContin” while watching the morning news.
The US healthcare system is completely broken.
And yet most medical advances come from the United States.
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
A combination of huge marketing costs in the US (all those direct-to-consumer TV adverts and long lunches for doctors) and a lack of negotiating power by the insurance companies who ultimately foot the bills. Even Medicare are banned from negotiating prices, they have to pay the list price for medicines by law.
Even under Medicare most US patients have to make substantial co payments for prhamaceuticals, so insurance companies are rarely directly paying. It varies a lot by State too.
Which removes even more the negotiating power imbalance. It’s always the TV ads that get me whenever I go to the States, yet to Americans it’s perfectly normal to hear “Ask your physician for Xanax/Viagra/OxyContin” while watching the morning news.
The US healthcare system is completely broken.
And yet most medical advances come from the United States.
Wait - the NHS don't develop their own drugs... you mean those come from the PRIVATE sector ?!??
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
A combination of huge marketing costs in the US (all those direct-to-consumer TV adverts and long lunches for doctors) and a lack of negotiating power by the insurance companies who ultimately foot the bills. Even Medicare are banned from negotiating prices, they have to pay the list price for medicines by law.
Even under Medicare most US patients have to make substantial co payments for prhamaceuticals, so insurance companies are rarely directly paying. It varies a lot by State too.
Which removes even more the negotiating power imbalance. It’s always the TV ads that get me whenever I go to the States, yet to Americans it’s perfectly normal to hear “Ask your physician for Xanax/Viagra/OxyContin” while watching the morning news.
The US healthcare system is completely broken.
And yet most medical advances come from the United States.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
It was going to be so easy. We held all the cards. The EU27 would be climbing over each other to offer us favourable trade deals. We'd have several trade deals done and dusted. Other countries would be following us out the door.
Brexiteer delusions came so fast and loose in those days before Reality happened.
And remainers had nothing to offer because being in the EU is sub optimal and destined to get worse, especially for countries not in the Euro. We decided. We do not want to be a small part of a European superstate. For 90% + the rest is details.
I for one have never assumed that the EU would be caving into every demand we made. If they did, we wouldn't be leaving.
I looked at the worst case scenario, (output being 4% lower by 2030 than would otherwise be the case) and concluded that was an acceptable level of risk.
Yeah but they don’t want to hear that. Remainers are so clever, Leavers are so stupid and dishonest. One day they might work out how they lost but I’m not holding my breath.
Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.
And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.
Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.
Oh I'm under no illusion. Labour under Corbyn wants the hardest of Brexit. It is those Labour MPs and supporters who think that somehow Labour is a bit more Remainery who are deluding themselves. And those Tories who think that by voting down whatever deal May is able to bring back they will get some sort of ultra-Thatcherite Singapore-in-the-Channel.
Priorities, priorities. Labour want to destroy the Tories first. They can then have a pleasant old chinwag about where to take us with Brexit when they've seized the levers of power.
If Brexit isn't decided by the time of the next election (it won't be) or if there is No Deal a Labour government won't have time for any pleasant old chinwags. They will be consumed by Brexit just as much as the current government. And there likely won't be any or enough money for what they would like to do.
So not only will all those Remainers be pissed off that Labour won't take them back in, in any form, but all those students and others who thought they'd get no tuition fees and find that there is no money left and all those people earning well under £85K paying higher taxes will find that a Labour government won't be able to fulfil all the promises they made.
Getting to 29 March next year is barely the start of the process: Brexit and its aftermath will consume a very large part of any British government's energy for the foreseeable future, whether Labour, Tory or any other variety.
Brexit and its aftermath will consume a very large part of any British government's energy for the foreseeable future, whether Labour, Tory or any other variety.
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
A combination of huge marketing costs in the US (all those direct-to-consumer TV adverts and long lunches for doctors) and a lack of negotiating power by the insurance companies who ultimately foot the bills. Even Medicare are banned from negotiating prices, they have to pay the list price for medicines by law.
Even under Medicare most US patients have to make substantial co payments for prhamaceuticals, so insurance companies are rarely directly paying. It varies a lot by State too.
Which removes even more the negotiating power imbalance. It’s always the TV ads that get me whenever I go to the States, yet to Americans it’s perfectly normal to hear “Ask your physician for Xanax/Viagra/OxyContin” while watching the morning news.
The US healthcare system is completely broken.
And yet most medical advances come from the United States.
If you want to go over to the USA, may I suggest that you take out plenty of insurance. If you are in a car accident, get shot, even make your wife pregnant, the first thing you will be asked for even before you get in the ambulance, will be for your insurance details.. ..
I looked at the worst case scenario, (output being 4% lower by 2030 than would otherwise be the case) and concluded that was an acceptable level of risk.
That's very far from being the worst case scenario, and it's ironic that you present it as purely an economic trade off without considering the potential consequences of unleashing the political instability inherent in Brexit.
The argument on the part of Remainers was conducted largely in economic terms. So, I examined their claims, and concluded that that was an acceptable risk.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
It was going to be so easy. We held all the cards. The EU27 would be climbing over each other to offer us favourable trade deals. We'd have several trade deals done and dusted. Other countries would be following us out the door.
Brexiteer delusions came so fast and loose in those days before Reality happened.
And remainers had nothing to offer because being in the EU is sub optimal and destined to get worse, especially for countries not in the Euro. We decided. We do not want to be a small part of a European superstate. For 90% + the rest is details.
I for one have never assumed that the EU would be caving into every demand we made. If they did, we wouldn't be leaving.
I looked at the worst case scenario, (output being 4% lower by 2030 than would otherwise be the case) and concluded that was an acceptable level of risk.
Yeah but they don’t want to hear that. Remainers are so clever, Leavers are so stupid and dishonest. One day they might work out how they lost but I’m not holding my breath.
More than anything else, the leaders of the Leave campaign were profoundly lazy. They never bothered to learn about any of the issues they held forth on. One of the many reasons why our departure is so chaotic is because so many on our side of the negotiating table have had to undergo a very steep learning curve. It turns out that much of what they though they knew was totally wrong.
Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.
And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.
Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.
Oh I'm under no illusion. Labour under Corbyn wants the hardest of Brexit. It is those Labour MPs and supporters who think that somehow Labour is a bit more Remainery who are deluding themselves. And those Tories who think that by voting down whatever deal May is able to bring back they will get some sort of ultra-Thatcherite Singapore-in-the-Channel.
Priorities, priorities. Labour want to destroy the Tories first. They can then have a pleasant old chinwag about where to take us with Brexit when they've seized the levers of power.
It worked for Albania didn’t it? And, the odd famine apart, it works in NK. Maybe you are being too harsh on Mr Corbyn?
What it actually shows, once again, is his hostility to the EU and it’s rulebook. Which shows even more clearly that Starmer is playing dishonest games.
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
The newer insulins do have better pharmacodynamics, and are more expensive, but probably the economics favour them as long term complications of poor control are expensive.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
A combination of huge marketing costs in the US (all those direct-to-consumer TV adverts and long lunches for doctors) and a lack of negotiating power by the insurance companies who ultimately foot the bills. Even Medicare are banned from negotiating prices, they have to pay the list price for medicines by law.
Even under Medicare most US patients have to make substantial co payments for prhamaceuticals, so insurance companies are rarely directly paying. It varies a lot by State too.
Which removes even more the negotiating power imbalance. It’s always the TV ads that get me whenever I go to the States, yet to Americans it’s perfectly normal to hear “Ask your physician for Xanax/Viagra/OxyContin” while watching the morning news.
The US healthcare system is completely broken.
And yet most medical advances come from the United States.
If you want to go over to the USA, may I suggest that you take out plenty of insurance. If you are in a car accident, get shot, even make your wife pregnant, the first thing you will be asked for even before you get in the ambulance, will be for your insurance details.. ..
I have now got this image in my head of an American woman at the moment of conception asking for the man's insurance details.
In the era of "populist" politics, when loud mouths proclaim "simple, easy and Great (bigly)" solutions to every problem, there is a surprising lack of anyone promoting the simplest, easiest and best solution to the intractable difficulties of Brexit
The problem is that there would be far too many civilian casualties if we fired nuclear warheads at Brussels.
In the era of "populist" politics, when loud mouths proclaim "simple, easy and Great (bigly)" solutions to every problem, there is a surprising lack of anyone promoting the simplest, easiest and best solution to the intractable difficulties of Brexit
The problem is that there would be far too many civilian casualties if we fired nuclear warheads at Brussels.
Lots of Muslims in Brussels, so that's another argument in favour for the UKIP-minded.
In the era of "populist" politics, when loud mouths proclaim "simple, easy and Great (bigly)" solutions to every problem, there is a surprising lack of anyone promoting the simplest, easiest and best solution to the intractable difficulties of Brexit
The problem is that there would be far too many civilian casualties if we fired nuclear warheads at Brussels.
Nah, Leavers wouldn't suggest that. They would point out a missile would bounce off Juncker's complacency rendering the exercise pointless.
They're more likely to suggest a shorting raid on Deutsche Bank or something.
One day they might work out how they lost but I’m not holding my breath.
Leavers will eventually realise they lost.
But as JRM says, maybe not in our lifetimes, right?
That does seem to limit the betting opportunities Scott. Have you been keeping an eye on the hearing in the Supreme Court today? One of my friends was texting me to say that Keen v The Scottish government has some similarities to France against Raith Rovers reserves. It’s just embarrassing.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I ay odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
Thatcurrently in.
Leavers l perspective.
As hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.
One day they might work out how they lost but I’m not holding my breath.
Leavers will eventually realise they lost.
But as JRM says, maybe not in our lifetimes, right?
That does seem to limit the betting opportunities Scott. Have you been keeping an eye on the hearing in the Supreme Court today? One of my friends was texting me to say that Keen v The Scottish government has some similarities to France against Raith Rovers reserves. It’s just embarrassing.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I ay odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
Thatcurrently in.
Leavers l perspective.
As hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
So oppressive that you didn't even realise what it did, how it acted, or to what degree it had its foot on your neck.
What a happy, carefree, or, alternatively, fearful, suspicious, unhappy life you must lead.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
It was going to be so easy. We held all the cards. The EU27 would be climbing over each other to offer us favourable trade deals. We'd have several trade deals done and dusted. Other countries would be following us out the door.
Brexiteer delusions came so fast and loose in those days before Reality happened.
And remainers had nothing to offer because being in the EU is sub optimal and destined to get worse, especially for countries not in the Euro. We decided. We do not want to be a small part of a European superstate. For 90% + the rest is details.
I for one have never assumed that the EU would be caving into every demand we made. If they did, we wouldn't be leaving.
I looked at the worst case scenario, (output being 4% lower by 2030 than would otherwise be the case) and concluded that was an acceptable level of risk.
I think that is perfectly fair. You voted to make the country poorer and deemed that foregone 4% was a price worth paying. If only all Leavers were so honest.
Slightly puts to bed the whole "Brexit Dividend" thing but at least there is no arguing with your position.
As I have long said, the likely outcome is a diminution of wealth that people, especially people who have a great amount of it, are unlikely to notice and hence are happy to forego.
Whenever the boss of Ryanair makes another pronouncement about Brexit, look behind the curtain to see what he is trying to distract you from seeing.....
I read the Chequers Plan white paper in Canada (in almost total isolation from the U.K. media) and found it an acceptable compromise. My views being similar to Gove in that regard: not ideal but the right strategic balance for the UK.
I come back to near universal reporting that it’s shite.
Don't worry. We have non-specific assurances from Robotory that food supplies after Freedom Day will be "sufficient" so Brexit is going very well.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I ay odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
Thatcurrently in.
Leavers l perspective.
As hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.
There is no such thing as frictionless EU supply-chains. VAT and different currencies add in friction.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.
And a structural trade deficit worth nearly 4% of GDP a year, Joff. Not in 2030 but now and every year. It may not be the EU’s fault that we have failed to gain from the SM, it may be our own failures in education, management, infrastructure, saving ratios, whatever but it just isn’t working for us and it is not working on an unsustainable scale.
IANAL, but what are the odds on the Scottish government prevailing in whole or in part?
The sense I get is that the SCUK will be passing up the opportunity of a lifetime to get their revenge on Brexiteers if they don't give this bill the nod.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I ay odious.
Leavers l perspective.
As hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.
There is no such thing as frictionless EU supply-chains. VAT and different currencies add in friction.
Hush! You'll be saying there's a currency, VAT, Duty & Corporation Tax border on the island of Ireland next!
If a deal is on the table then Labour face an exquisite set of choices. The Corbynista wing will want to bring down the government at all costs but if they succeed and it is seen as opportunistic and threatening a crash-out then it will have a devastating effect at the polls for them in the ensuing election. If the EU refuse May's deal then Labour must then choose between a full on Brexit or a remainer programme (defacto or dejure remain ) either may split the PLP but will certainly lose seats due to differential distribution of remain and leave votes across Labour constituences. A second referendum position? It depends and the Tories might have taken that but will in any case be in a position to play the external enemy patriotic card due to the EU being unreasonable.
As soon as Labour are in the spotlight for key votes or a GE their splits will be as obvious as those of the Tories. If May can get to the decision point for her plan then one cannot be confident that either of the main parties will be in a clear winning position but I think that Labour supporters smelling victory at the next GE are getting al litttle carried away.
It seems quite absurd in Britain, but if you look at the hashtag #insulin4all it does give some perspective on what life is like in the USA for those with pre existing conditions such as diabetes. That said, I do wonder if her MD should have prescribed an older generic insulin.
The price of insulin seems to have increased hugely over recent years, by several hundred percent in most cases. Is this just another example of how the US health system doesn’t work or has the NHS seen similar increases?
Part of it seems to be “improved” insulin that you need to take less often but which is multiples of the price of the older generic. What does the NHS use?
The same insulin is ten times the price in the USA. I cannot explain why.
No collective purchasing power like NICE, I guess?
There is an element of that, (NICE is not a purchasing body though), but the same pharmaceuticals are also cheaper in Mexico and other EU countries.
There may be an element of liability insurance but mostly US drug costs are profiteering. In the USA medicine is a business, not a social service. The point of a business is to extract as much profit as sustainably possible, and US medicine succeeds very well on that measure.
A combination of huge marketing costs in the US (all those direct-to-consumer TV adverts and long lunches for doctors) and a lack of negotiating power by the insurance companies who ultimately foot the bills. Even Medicare are banned from negotiating prices, they have to pay the list price for medicines by law.
Even under Medicare most US patients have to make substantial co payments for prhamaceuticals, so insurance companies are rarely directly paying. It varies a lot by State too.
Which removes even more the negotiating power imbalance. It’s always the TV ads that get me whenever I go to the States, yet to Americans it’s perfectly normal to hear “Ask your physician for Xanax/Viagra/OxyContin” while watching the morning news.
The US healthcare system is completely broken.
And yet most medical advances come from the United States.
Because that is where the profits are! As I pointed out, USA medicine is very good at extracting money, rather less good at keeping people alive once they are skint.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
It was going to be so easy. We held all the cards. The EU27 would be climbing over each other to offer us favourable trade deals. We'd have several trade deals done and dusted. Other countries would be following us out the door.
Brexiteer delusions came so fast and loose in those days before Reality happened.
And remainers had nothing to offer because being in the EU is sub optimal and destined to get worse, especially for countries not in the Euro. We decided. We do not want to be a small part of a European superstate. For 90% + the rest is details.
I for one have never assumed that the EU would be caving into every demand we made. If they did, we wouldn't be leaving.
I looked at the worst case scenario, (output being 4% lower by 2030 than would otherwise be the case) and concluded that was an acceptable level of risk.
I think that is perfectly fair. You voted to make the country poorer and deemed that foregone 4% was a price worth paying. If only all Leavers were so honest.
Slightly puts to bed the whole "Brexit Dividend" thing but at least there is no arguing with your position.
As I have long said, the likely outcome is a diminution of wealth that people, especially people who have a great amount of it, are unlikely to notice and hence are happy to forego.
If there is a diminution of wealth then it is not the fault of Brexit, this is just an event that changes the parameters the Govt has to work under. The whole success/failure is dependent on how the government/politicians react to it. If they can exploit the new opps then there is a path in the future where we will be wealthier in the future. This is what the pro-EU side is worried about, does being in the EU mean the country is wealthier or does it in fact constrict the ability for the economy to expand?
Their problems from last winter haven't gone away, they're going to have exactly the same problems of pilots' hours and staff retention this winter too. No-one wants to work for them, and those that do work there are desparate to leave as soon as they can find a job somewhere else.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
It was going to be so easy. We held all the cards. The EU27 would be climbing over each other to offer us favourable trade deals. We'd have several trade deals done and dusted. Other countries would be following us out the door.
Brexiteer delusions came so fast and loose in those days before Reality happened.
And remainers had nothing to offer because being in the EU is sub optimal and destined to get worse, especially for countries not in the Euro. We decided. We do not want to be a small part of a European superstate. For 90% + the rest is details.
I for one have never assumed that the EU would be caving into every demand we made. If they did, we wouldn't be leaving.
I looked at the worst case scenario, (output being 4% lower by 2030 than would otherwise be the case) and concluded that was an acceptable level of risk.
I think that is perfectly fair. You voted to make the country poorer and deemed that foregone 4% was a price worth paying. If only all Leavers were so honest.
Slightly puts to bed the whole "Brexit Dividend" thing but at least there is no arguing with your position.
As I have long said, the likely outcome is a diminution of wealth that people, especially people who have a great amount of it, are unlikely to notice and hence are happy to forego.
If there is a diminution of wealth then it is not the fault of Brexit
blather snipped
Um, no. A diminution of wealth would be as a direct consequence of Brexit vs the status quo ante.
Keir Starmer has set a number of "tests" for Labour to support any deal.
1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU? 2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union? 3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? 5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? 6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
As currently proposed, Chequers meets (arguably) 0/6 of those tests.
And, practically, it gives Labour room to reject any deal that's not full EEA+CU.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I am fed up with this dishonesty. If people want to argue we should have voted remain fair enough, they are of course entitled to their opinion. But setting criteria by which Brexit must fail whilst pretending to accept the result is dishonest and morally odious.
Except that (Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the EU, including the Single Market and Customs Union?)was the main, if implicit, promise of the Leave campaign. I agree, Leave was dishonest and morally odious.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I ay odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
Thatcurrently in.
Leavers l perspective.
As hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.
There is no such thing as frictionless EU supply-chains. VAT and different currencies add in friction.
These are all manageable and managed. What will not be manageable or managed are the customs hold-ups and additional red tape coming next year.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.
And a structural trade deficit worth nearly 4% of GDP a year, Joff. Not in 2030 but now and every year. It may not be the EU’s fault that we have failed to gain from the SM, it may be our own failures in education, management, infrastructure, saving ratios, whatever but it just isn’t working for us and it is not working on an unsustainable scale.
Completely stupid. The second is simply not achievable or compatible with Brexit or even, on a moments thought, even rational.
I ay odious.
I don't recall any Leave campaigner spelling out disadvantages of Brexit, or even accepting that there were any.
One of the privileges of opposition is that one does not need to be coherent. All one needs to do is oppose.
Thatcurrently in.
Leavers l perspective.
As hope so.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.
There is no such thing as frictionless EU supply-chains. VAT and different currencies add in friction.
These are all manageable and managed. What will not be manageable or managed are the customs hold-ups and additional red tape coming next year.
In your view. I disagree, they are easily managed.
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would not get the same benefits as the SM/CU provide?
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
Yes. It was expected that we would have a FTA but no one claimed that was the same as membership of the SM.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
Yep, I guess you see frictionless, EU-wide supply chains as barbed hooks that enable tyranny, while I see them as business tools that bring in high amounts of tax revenue and create good jobs.
And a structural trade deficit worth nearly 4% of GDP a year, Joff. Not in 2030 but now and every year. It may not be the EU’s fault that we have failed to gain from the SM, it may be our own failures in education, management, infrastructure, saving ratios, whatever but it just isn’t working for us and it is not working on an unsustainable scale.
And when we leave it will be worse. That is the problem. Leaving solves none of our problems. That's why I voted Remain. For some notional sovereignty gains we inflict a whole heap of economic and financial difficulties on ourselves. I just do not see the practical benefits.
It's boring when they just go up and don't come back down again!
There is a landing scheduled, choppy seas and high wind shear tho !
Looks like they nailed it, on the roughest conditions they've ever managed a landing in.
One minor thing is slightly annoying me: they're calling thee rockets the final Block V version, but they don't have the new pressurised COPV helium bottles in yet. Since the failure of one of these caused their last failure, it's a rather vital part not to have finalised...
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
So oppressive that you didn't even realise what it did, how it acted, or to what degree it had its foot on your neck.
What a happy, carefree, or, alternatively, fearful, suspicious, unhappy life you must lead.
Actually I have been involved in a fair few court cases involving EU law as well as passing professional exams in it. I had a better idea than most. It was one of the reasons I wondered if it was worth it, if it was worth running the risk of losing Cameron and Osborne when the horrific damage inflicted by Brown on our economy had not been fixed. I genuinely swithered about which way to vote and did absolutely nothing to help the Leave campaigns other than the odd comment on here which is nothing at all. Even on here I distinctly remember printing a list of reasons to remain as a challenge.
But I find the refusal to accept the outcome every bit as morally reprehensible as the SNP scum who want a once in a generation vote held again after 4 years. I think it is important that we follow through on this. Of course in 20-30 years people may have different views. That’s democracy.
Test number 2 would require staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, surely? Or Remain, in effect.
And is anyway inconsistent with what Corbyn said yesterday about the benefits of Brexit.
Be under no illusion, Labour will vote against any deal May brings back. in whatsoever form it takes. The six tests aren't a statement of what Labour really wants from the EU, more an apology for stabbing May in the front.
Oh I'm under no illusion. Labour under Corbyn wants the hardest of Brexit. It is those Labour MPs and supporters who think that somehow Labour is a bit more Remainery who are deluding themselves. And those Tories who think that by voting down whatever deal May is able to bring back they will get some sort of ultra-Thatcherite Singapore-in-the-Channel.
Priorities, priorities. Labour want to destroy the Tories first. They can then have a pleasant old chinwag about where to take us with Brexit when they've seized the levers of power.
If Brexit isn't decided by the time of the next election (it won't be) or if there is No Deal a Labour government won't have time for any pleasant old chinwags. They will be consumed by Brexit just as much as the current government. And there likely won't be any or enough money for what they would like to do.
So not only will all those Remainers be pissed off that Labour won't take them back in, in any form, but all those students and others who thought they'd get no tuition fees and find that there is no money left and all those people earning well under £85K paying higher taxes will find that a Labour government won't be able to fulfil all the promises they made.
Getting to 29 March next year is barely the start of the process: Brexit and its aftermath will consume a very large part of any British government's energy for the foreseeable future, whether Labour, Tory or any other variety.
I'd say that the prospect of a March ending is the only reason Brexit still has any attention from the public. Nothing can defy the gravity and be front and centre of the national mindset forever. Not Diana, not Iraq, not 9/11, nor Brexit.
Any remainer with the idea that the current (2 year long) frenzy will be maintained is "optimistic" .
That's how I see it, too. Starmer's tests are just a temporary lick of paint, to disguise the huge cracks in Labour's EU position: the leadership is pro-Hard Brexit, the MPs, activists, members and Labour voters are largely pro-Remain, some of them passionately so.
The party is as split as the Tory party on this issue, indeed they are exact mirror images: Tories have a Remainery leadership, but a Brexity party base, and Brexity voters.
But I find the refusal to accept the outcome every bit as morally reprehensible as the SNP scum who want a once in a generation vote held again after 4 years.
You seem a little overheated. Or is that one of your Brexitty 'jokes'?
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and living under Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
So oppressive that you didn't even realise what it did, how it acted, or to what degree it had its foot on your neck.
What a happy, carefree, or, alternatively, fearful, suspicious, unhappy life you must lead.
Actually I have been involved in a fair few court cases involving EU law as well as passing professional exams in it. I had a better idea than most. It was one of the reasons I wondered if it was worth it, if it was worth running the risk of losing Cameron and Osborne when the horrific damage inflicted by Brown on our economy had not been fixed. I genuinely swithered about which way to vote and did absolutely nothing to help the Leave campaigns other than the odd comment on here which is nothing at all. Even on here I distinctly remember printing a list of reasons to remain as a challenge.
But I find the refusal to accept the outcome every bit as morally reprehensible as the SNP scum who want a once in a generation vote held again after 4 years. I think it is important that we follow through on this. Of course in 20-30 years people may have different views. That’s democracy.
+100000000 We are a democracy, leave won so leave must happen. (And I voted remain)
Which is why perhaps there is a sudden push among non-headbanging Leavers to get the Norway option back on the table. It is a tried and tested plan if nothing else which the EU might accept although of course it's not as good as remaining.
There's a lot of talking at cross-purposes about Brexit which is why discussions about it, on here and elsewhere, are distinctly tiresome (and I fear accounts for some excellent posters going into hibernation while the neverendum continues). The phrase not as good as remaining is very telling of one of the most fundamental differences in perspective.
Remainers tend to see membership of the EU as a deal, and happen to think it's a good one. A looser arrangement would be a less good deal.
Leavers tend to see the EU as a project, in which they do not wish to participate e.g. because they foresee a divergence between the goals and interests of Britain and those of the other members.
There are some exceptions either way - for example the small band of British eurofederalists who see "the project" as an inherently good thing and welcome the idea of Britain being a part of it. Or a professor of economics at Oxford whose diehard leavery is fuelled by his assessment that the EU economic "deal" for the UK is actually a poor one.* But I think overall the paradigm shift of "deal" vs "project" helps explain the poor heat-light ratio on Brexit discussions.
-------------------
* For those interested, to paraphrase his argument, the econometric evidence suggested that any single market for services existing on paper didn't seem to be translating into growth of closer service trade between EU states, while he felt the smaller manufacturing sector would actually do okay outside the EU - supply chains do cross in and out of the EU already so this might not be as big a difficulty as people fear, whereas in the short run customs would be a problem and in the long run rules of origin in trade deals would be a challenge. But obviously this was his own assessment and a majority of academic arguments are more skeptical of Britain's future outside the EU.
One of the things that is absolutely consistent across Brexiteers is a refusal to take responsibility for their actions.
Is everyone who voted for Tony Blair responsible for the dodgy dossier and the invasion of Iraq ?
Did we have a referendum on invading iraq?
In both a GE and a referendum the voter is asked for a preference - not to take ownership and responsibility for the decisions made based on the votes.
When it comes to a vote, will Labour MPs really refuse a deal (if we are offered one) on the basis of Starmer's bullet points, as written by Seamus Milne, and then hurl us towards No Deal? I don't buy it. Most of these Labour MPs would be voting for significant hardship for their own constituencies, and they also know 70% of Labour voters are for Remain, or, failing that Soft Brexit. When it comes down to it, the PLP will mutiny, en masse and they will vote for any deal that TMay can get (if the alternative is No Deal).
If they aren't prepared to bring down a Conservative government then what's the point of being a Labour MP?
It's not the electorate's job to bail out Parliament.
We elected Parliament a year ago with a clear mandate. 90% of the seats, NINETY WHOLE FUCKING PERCENT, went to parties elected on a mandate to leave the EU and ensure frictionless trade with the EU.
There is no excuse for Parliament to be this dysfunctional, and absolutely no need for us to help them out of their self made hole.
When it comes to a vote, will Labour MPs really refuse a deal (if we are offered one) on the basis of Starmer's bullet points, as written by Seamus Milne, and then hurl us towards No Deal? I don't buy it. Most of these Labour MPs would be voting for significant hardship for their own constituencies, and they also know 70% of Labour voters are for Remain, or, failing that Soft Brexit. When it comes down to it, the PLP will mutiny, en masse and they will vote for any deal that TMay can get (if the alternative is No Deal).
If they aren't prepared to bring down a Conservative government then what's the point of being a Labour MP?
I don't see how it would bring down the government. TFPA. We'd have No Deal, but the Tories would still be in power. For another 3 years.
The truth is that the leave side had absolutely no idea about any of it: no idea how the EU works, no idea how integrated the UK is into European structures and institutions, no idea about just in time, EU-wide supply chains, no idea about the Irish border and no idea about how FTAs are done. No, they just knew they were oppressed and livinunder Brussels' cruel tyranny - and that there were no downsides to leaving and that the UK held all the negotiating cards. They just knew that. Bless them.
It’s true that the hooks that the EU had in our laws, our trade and our policies were deeper and more barbed than even the wildest ravings speculated beforehand, ravings that were laughed at and sneered by our pro EU establishment, the very same people who claim now it is all terribly difficult.
So oppressive that you didn't even realise what it did, how it acted, or to what degree it had its foot on your neck.
What a happy, carefree, or, alternatively, fearful, suspicious, unhappy life you must lead.
Actually I have been involved in a fair few court cases involving EU law as well as passing professional exams in it. I had a better idea than most. It was one of the reasons I wondered if it was worth it, if it was worth running the risk of losing Cameron and Osborne when the horrific damage inflicted by Brown on our economy had not been fixed. I genuinely swithered about which way to vote and did absolutely nothing to help the Leave campaigns other than the odd comment on here which is nothing at all. Even on here I distinctly remember printing a list of reasons to remain as a challenge.
But I find the refusal to accept the outcome every bit as morally reprehensible as the SNP scum who want a once in a generation vote held again after 4 years. I think it is important that we follow through on this. Of course in 20-30 years people may have different views. That’s democracy.
So then people, such as yourself with exams and all, did know about how deep the EU hooks were. Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying they didn't know and those hooks went deeper than their wildest ravings?
If the former, then the Leave campaign were liars. If the latter, then I come back to my earlier point: the position that the EU was so oppressive that no one knew what it was doing, ie that the EU is horrible just that I don't know exactly how, is, in my view, tenuous not to say a bit bonkers.
When it comes to a vote, will Labour MPs really refuse a deal (if we are offered one) on the basis of Starmer's bullet points, as written by Seamus Milne, and then hurl us towards No Deal? I don't buy it. Most of these Labour MPs would be voting for significant hardship for their own constituencies, and they also know 70% of Labour voters are for Remain, or, failing that Soft Brexit. When it comes down to it, the PLP will mutiny, en masse and they will vote for any deal that TMay can get (if the alternative is No Deal).
If they aren't prepared to bring down a Conservative government then what's the point of being a Labour MP?
I don't see how it would bring down the government. TFPA. We'd have No Deal, but the Tories would still be in power. For another 3 years.
Owning the mess they'd made.
It'd be Corbyn's dream outcome.
But not the dream outcome of soft-Brexit/remain backing MPs behind him.
You really think Chuka Umunma (sp?) will march down the no lobby knowing it will result in three years of hard Brexit before the next election? I don't see it.
"Also note that the whistleblowers have provably lied — so much that the Observer has been forced to delete many of their original allegations from their website and forced Carole to delete many of her tweets and the Observer has coughed up substantial legal fees (not mine, I have not hired any lawyers or threatened any hacks with lawyers).
The normal pattern is for people to say ‘Cummings is bluffing’. When people say this it always turns out I wasn’t. Remember last year when I said the EC had written to VL saying we could make donations? Carole and @Jolyon said I was lying/bluffing for a year. What happened? The documents were produced in the High Court as part of the judicial review: I wasn’t lying and I wasn’t bluffing, though much of the media has not realised this fact and still reports fake news. I don’t bluff when my bluff will obviously be called.
If the EC confirms they have not referred me to the police — which logically they cannot have done given they have never investigated me (unless they are lying which surely is extremely improbable?) — and MPs get in touch to fix a date I will be more than happy to answer every question any of them have.
I will blog further about this weird affair this week."
It's not the electorate's job to bail out Parliament.
We elected Parliament a year ago with a clear mandate. 90% of the seats, NINETY WHOLE FUCKING PERCENT, went to parties elected on a mandate to leave the EU and ensure frictionless trade with the EU.
There is no excuse for Parliament to be this dysfunctional, and absolutely no need for us to help them out of their self made hole.
The problem is that 40% of that 90% won't work at all with the 50% of the 90%. And some of the 50% won't work with the rest of the 50%.
That's how I see it, too. Starmer's tests are just a temporary lick of paint, to disguise the huge cracks in Labour's EU position: the leadership is pro-Hard Brexit, the MPs, activists, members and Labour voters are largely pro-Remain, some of them passionately so.
The party is as split as the Tory party on this issue, indeed they are exact mirror images: Tories have a Remainery leadership, but a Brexity party base, and Brexity voters.
When it comes to a vote, will Labour MPs really refuse a deal (if we are offered one) on the basis of Starmer's bullet points, as written by Seamus Milne, and then hurl us towards No Deal? I don't buy it. Most of these Labour MPs would be voting for significant hardship for their own constituencies, and they also know 70% of Labour voters are for Remain, or, failing that Soft Brexit. When it comes down to it, the PLP will mutiny, en masse and they will vote for any deal that TMay can get (if the alternative is No Deal).
For that reason I expect TMay would be able to pass any deal, she will also likely have support from the SNP. The ERG and Corbynite core are not enough to stop her.
Incidentally, I have several Labour friends who have officially said they will no longer vote Labour, following Corbyn's recent "benefits of Brexit" speech. They really did believe he was secretly Remainer, only now are they realising. Bless.
The Labour Remainers really aren't going to save Theresa and keep the Tories in power over some grotty deal that Rees-Mogg has f*cked around with anyway. Their thinking will be to destroy the Tories then get back around the table with the EU once Labour are re-elected and the madness has passed. Of course, Corbyn might put his foot down and insist that hard Brexit stays, but better hard Brexit under Corbyn than under Boris.
"Don't worry. We have non-specific assurances from Robotory that food supplies after Freedom Day will be "sufficient" so Brexit is going very well."
Is the Chicken Little party still worrying about mass starvation? Some people just love inventing disasters. if it's not the Daily Express with house prices and the weather, it's anything a vivid imagination came come up with.
Even reasonable worries usually fade away. The BSE outbreak for instance and the Y2K bug.
As for the Y2K bug that came to nothing. "Oh, that's because of all the government action," say the gullible. That reminds me of the door-to-salesman arrested in Leeds for trying to sell white powder.
"What this white powder for?" "It keeps elephants away from your garden. They can do a lot of damage once they get in." "But there's no elephants in Yorkshire." "There, that shows you how effective it is."
At least the BSE threat had scientific backing. Do you remember the BSE crisis? By now, we should all be dribbling and wetting our pants. OK, there are a few Remainers on here exhibiting symptoms, but there's no sign of the mass epidemic predicted,
I expect we have to give thanks to the government for travelling back into time for 25 years, and removing the dodgy feed from the food chain.
Man-up and treat this starvation nonsense with the respect it deserves.
Comments
Were they clear that if we voted Leave, we would face watering down our rights and regulations in order to gain a USA/UK free trade deal?
Were they clear that Brexit would put the Northern Irish border arrangements at risk?
On the contrary, we were reassured that these things *would not happen* because we are so important as a trade partner.
Brexit is a pack of lies.
It's one of those amazing compromises that pleases nobody, none of the time.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0091-judgment.pdf
Please note the reporting restrictions around this case.
Anyway, a period of silence from him would be welcome.
When life goes on as normal after Brexit day their "chicken licken" antics will be the subject of much scorn - just as "project fear 1" was when Article 50 was triggered.
They were clear that new trade treaties would be negotiated. The details of these are yet to be determined.
I don’t think anyone or either side thought that the EU would be so ridiculous about NI but did anyone seriously think that leaving the CU and the SM would have no effect on administrative arrangements ?
The US healthcare system is completely broken.
Brexiteer delusions came so fast and loose in those days before Reality happened.
If that's the case, it's because the likes of Davis, Gove, Fox, Johnson et al (i.e. the leavers) have done f'all over those two years. In other words, it's hardly 'beyond doubt'.
On a grisly note from Wiki, the deep razor scar on Joyce's face burst open at his hanging due to the pressure of the noose.
To be fair to Gove, he's at liberty to change his mind. If you had asked me in 1996, I would have said without hesitation that we needed to get out of the EU (or more probably, 'get out of this Mafia-style cabal in the pocket of the French beef industry'). But I changed my views over time, even though I still think Franz Fischler should probably be doing jail time as he must surely have known about the vast scale of the BSE epidemics in France, Germany and Belgium yet mysteriously attacked only Britain.
*Feels dirty at having defended Gove, a Leaver and a disastrous SoS for Education, runs off to wash*
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/apr/24/y2k.g2
"Planes would fall out of the sky. There would be drought, famine, thousands of deaths and billions wiped off the markets. "
"None of this, however, adds up to global recession, or infrastructure collapse, or accidental nuclear war, as the most heated prophets were anticipating. The ONS has stopped its bug watch, weeks earlier than planned. Action 2000, the Government's millennium-alert agency, has been run down. They barely answer their phones now, and sound awkward when you ask what they still do. The bug has faded to an embarrassing period catchphrase."
"In 1997, he felt differently. "I do not want to seem irrational or a prophet of doom," he told the Mail on Sunday that January, "but there is a possibility of riots." He says now that the papers deliberately played up his every hypothetical: "A warning can easily be turned into a prediction_ There were people who were determined to make me into a doom-monger." But then he adds, "If I'd gone around saying, 'We'll probably get through this,' no one would have printed anything.""
I looked at the worst case scenario, (output being 4% lower by 2030 than would otherwise be the case) and concluded that was an acceptable level of risk.
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1022036072476364800
The NHS doesn't even allow Xanax in UK on prescription. Deemed too addictive.
Just like Brexit. oh, wait...
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1022073480098009088
So not only will all those Remainers be pissed off that Labour won't take them back in, in any form, but all those students and others who thought they'd get no tuition fees and find that there is no money left and all those people earning well under £85K paying higher taxes will find that a Labour government won't be able to fulfil all the promises they made.
Getting to 29 March next year is barely the start of the process: Brexit and its aftermath will consume a very large part of any British government's energy for the foreseeable future, whether Labour, Tory or any other variety.
But as JRM says, maybe not in our lifetimes, right?
For example I usually plead with my GP for a few diazepams before I go for a long haul flight.
You can also get zolpidem/zopiclone from gray market online pharmacies if you're in the mood for some drug roulette.
What it actually shows, once again, is his hostility to the EU and it’s rulebook. Which shows even more clearly that Starmer is playing dishonest games.
It is a strange image...
They're more likely to suggest a shorting raid on Deutsche Bank or something.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1022079453244022784
What a happy, carefree, or, alternatively, fearful, suspicious, unhappy life you must lead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsDknmK30C0
https://twitter.com/lsebrexitvote/status/1022080920159969280
Slightly puts to bed the whole "Brexit Dividend" thing but at least there is no arguing with your position.
As I have long said, the likely outcome is a diminution of wealth that people, especially people who have a great amount of it, are unlikely to notice and hence are happy to forego.
The sense I get is that the SCUK will be passing up the opportunity of a lifetime to get their revenge on Brexiteers if they don't give this bill the nod.
As soon as Labour are in the spotlight for key votes or a GE their splits will be as obvious as those of the Tories. If May can get to the decision point for her plan then one cannot be confident that either of the main parties will be in a clear winning position but I think that Labour supporters smelling victory at the next GE are getting al litttle carried away.
Edit: they are going to land it back.
The rest of your post is blather.
Of course, governments are going to be blaming *everything* that goes wrong for the next 20 years on Brexit.
- A brexiteer
Awww, it's just like the olden days.
When a brexiteer insists something will be easy, that's normally a good sign to run for the nearest fucking exit.
One minor thing is slightly annoying me: they're calling thee rockets the final Block V version, but they don't have the new pressurised COPV helium bottles in yet. Since the failure of one of these caused their last failure, it's a rather vital part not to have finalised...
But I find the refusal to accept the outcome every bit as morally reprehensible as the SNP scum who want a once in a generation vote held again after 4 years. I think it is important that we follow through on this. Of course in 20-30 years people may have different views. That’s democracy.
Any remainer with the idea that the current (2 year long) frenzy will be maintained is "optimistic" .
Or is that one of your Brexitty 'jokes'?
Remainers tend to see membership of the EU as a deal, and happen to think it's a good one. A looser arrangement would be a less good deal.
Leavers tend to see the EU as a project, in which they do not wish to participate e.g. because they foresee a divergence between the goals and interests of Britain and those of the other members.
There are some exceptions either way - for example the small band of British eurofederalists who see "the project" as an inherently good thing and welcome the idea of Britain being a part of it. Or a professor of economics at Oxford whose diehard leavery is fuelled by his assessment that the EU economic "deal" for the UK is actually a poor one.* But I think overall the paradigm shift of "deal" vs "project" helps explain the poor heat-light ratio on Brexit discussions.
-------------------
* For those interested, to paraphrase his argument, the econometric evidence suggested that any single market for services existing on paper didn't seem to be translating into growth of closer service trade between EU states, while he felt the smaller manufacturing sector would actually do okay outside the EU - supply chains do cross in and out of the EU already so this might not be as big a difficulty as people fear, whereas in the short run customs would be a problem and in the long run rules of origin in trade deals would be a challenge. But obviously this was his own assessment and a majority of academic arguments are more skeptical of Britain's future outside the EU.
In both a GE and a referendum the voter is asked for a preference - not to take ownership and responsibility for the decisions made based on the votes.
Remainers after vote - we refuse to debate and will only act like children all day long.
We elected Parliament a year ago with a clear mandate. 90% of the seats, NINETY WHOLE FUCKING PERCENT, went to parties elected on a mandate to leave the EU and ensure frictionless trade with the EU.
There is no excuse for Parliament to be this dysfunctional, and absolutely no need for us to help them out of their self made hole.
It'd be Corbyn's dream outcome.
If the former, then the Leave campaign were liars. If the latter, then I come back to my earlier point: the position that the EU was so oppressive that no one knew what it was doing, ie that the EU is horrible just that I don't know exactly how, is, in my view, tenuous not to say a bit bonkers.
You really think Chuka Umunma (sp?) will march down the no lobby knowing it will result in three years of hard Brexit before the next election? I don't see it.
https://dominiccummings.com/2018/07/22/on-the-referendum-24k-observer-fake-news-and-a-suggestion-me-and-the-mps-discuss-this-with-all-of-us-under-oath/
"Also note that the whistleblowers have provably lied — so much that the Observer has been forced to delete many of their original allegations from their website and forced Carole to delete many of her tweets and the Observer has coughed up substantial legal fees (not mine, I have not hired any lawyers or threatened any hacks with lawyers).
The normal pattern is for people to say ‘Cummings is bluffing’. When people say this it always turns out I wasn’t. Remember last year when I said the EC had written to VL saying we could make donations? Carole and @Jolyon said I was lying/bluffing for a year. What happened? The documents were produced in the High Court as part of the judicial review: I wasn’t lying and I wasn’t bluffing, though much of the media has not realised this fact and still reports fake news. I don’t bluff when my bluff will obviously be called.
If the EC confirms they have not referred me to the police — which logically they cannot have done given they have never investigated me (unless they are lying which surely is extremely improbable?) — and MPs get in touch to fix a date I will be more than happy to answer every question any of them have.
I will blog further about this weird affair this week."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/0/2643743
"Don't worry. We have non-specific assurances from Robotory that food supplies after Freedom Day will be "sufficient" so Brexit is going very well."
Is the Chicken Little party still worrying about mass starvation? Some people just love inventing disasters. if it's not the Daily Express with house prices and the weather, it's anything a vivid imagination came come up with.
Even reasonable worries usually fade away. The BSE outbreak for instance and the Y2K bug.
As for the Y2K bug that came to nothing. "Oh, that's because of all the government action," say the gullible. That reminds me of the door-to-salesman arrested in Leeds for trying to sell white powder.
"What this white powder for?"
"It keeps elephants away from your garden. They can do a lot of damage once they get in."
"But there's no elephants in Yorkshire."
"There, that shows you how effective it is."
At least the BSE threat had scientific backing. Do you remember the BSE crisis? By now, we should all be dribbling and wetting our pants. OK, there are a few Remainers on here exhibiting symptoms, but there's no sign of the mass epidemic predicted,
I expect we have to give thanks to the government for travelling back into time for 25 years, and removing the dodgy feed from the food chain.
Man-up and treat this starvation nonsense with the respect it deserves.