EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

On plus side, 'unt is no longer secretary for health.

The new Health Secretary has IEA links. Cue arguments for selling off parts of the NHS to the US as per neoliberal doctrine. Or classical liberal doctrine, as Furunculus calls it.

[Furunculus]

The new Health Secretary has IEA links. Cue arguments for selling off parts of the NHS to the US as per neoliberal doctrine. Or classical liberal doctrine, as Furunculus calls it.

Don't utter specious foolishness.

If you want to tax more to spend more on worthy social interventions, then get YOUR side to win some elections.

Until then spending will be made to fit the tax base. And the tories are pretty certain that the electorate will remain broadly content with taxation and spending sticking to the historic trend of high thirties.

Don't be disappointed when people who disagree with you don't do the things you want. Win the argument.

[rory_20_uk]

The new Health Secretary has IEA links. Cue arguments for selling off parts of the NHS to the US as per neoliberal doctrine. Or classical liberal doctrine, as Furunculus calls it.

All GPs have always been Private. Do you know how much GPs are whining that they might be made salaried?
Most consultants do Private work. Some earn more from the private work than from the NHS. Bevan famously described as having bought the support of the consultants by “stuffing their mouths with gold.” The NHS right from the start bought off the doctors. There was no selfless sacrifice, only greed.
Many others have their hands out to receive money from Pharmaceutical companies. Some for clinical studies, others just to parrot their selling message.

Many of the buildings are PFI - which is basically privatising by the back door. But that was Labour so it's fine.

But you're right. Privatising itself is Eeeeevil and no further details are required! If it worked for British Leyland it must work for all the NHS!!!

[Montmorency]

All GPs have always been Private. Do you know how much GPs are whining that they might be made salaried?
Most consultants do Private work. Some earn more from the private work than from the NHS. Bevan famously described as having bought the support of the consultants by “stuffing their mouths with gold.” The NHS right from the start bought off the doctors. There was no selfless sacrifice, only greed.

What you notice is that radical restructuring of society or government requires stakeholders be brought on board.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/nh...ort/119803.stm

Overnight, the patchwork provision of medical services, which left millions of people with little or no reliable health care, was swept away. But the establishment of the new health service was strongly opposed by the Conservative Party and by the Doctor's professional body, the British Medical Association (BMA).

But if Bevan was to establish his health service, he needed the co-operation of the doctors. After all, the NHS could not operate without doctors.

Non co-operation

Once the Health Bill became an act in the closing months of 1946, the BMA immediately adopted a policy of non co-operation with the health service and refused to negotiate with the minister on their conditions of service.

But Bevan was determined to prevent a sectional interest derail an act of Parliament. He described the BMA as a, "small body of politically poisoned people" who had decided "to fight the Health Act itself and to stir up as much emotion as they can in the profession."

But as Bevan's stormy relationship with the BMA carried on into 1948, the minister luckily managed to strike up a working relationship with the Royal College of Physicians headed by Churchill's personal doctor Lord Moran.

'Stuffing their mouths with gold'

By allowing the consultants to work inside the health service and at the same time still treat their lucrative private patients, Bevan bought the backing of the consultants by, as he put it, "stuffing their mouths with gold."

Opposition among BMA members was now declining as well. The doctors began to realise that by refusing to treat health service patients they would lose a substantial source of income, and when Bevan promised legislation that ensured they would not become salaried civil servents, the doctors ended their resistance.

But Bevan had managed to take from them the right to buy and sell practices.

Pessimism has value, but sometimes one has to recall one's capacity to do when there exists commitment.


And an interesting factoid about the Labor Party is that, before being amended in 1995, the Party Constitution/Rule Book said this:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

It was replaced (in '95) with:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect'.

Apparently Corbyn doesn't feel like amending it further.

[rory_20_uk]

What you notice is that radical restructuring of society or government requires stakeholders be brought on board.

"Brought on board" sounds so much nicer than "bribed", doesn't it? Such realities are lost in the rosy-eyed mists of how the NHS was created and everyone did it for the goodness of all, rather than venal self interest.

So, a radical change required paying off one set of doctors and not addressing the other lot - there never has been a completely government run NHS. So when those worry about "privatisation" - which I agree is certainly not something to allow without considerable oversight - the context needs to be given which is that a large portion already is Private and was never, ever not Private.

Labour might have that in their manifesto, but their party is littered with names who have accrued all the power and privilege they can lay their hands on with scant regard for the masses.

[Montmorency]

"Brought on board" sounds so much nicer than "bribed", doesn't it? Such realities are lost in the rosy-eyed mists of how the NHS was created and everyone did it for the goodness of all, rather than venal self interest.

So, a radical change required paying off one set of doctors and not addressing the other lot - there never has been a completely government run NHS. So when those worry about "privatisation" - which I agree is certainly not something to allow without considerable oversight - the context needs to be given which is that a large portion already is Private and was never, ever not Private.

Labour might have that in their manifesto, but their party is littered with names who have accrued all the power and privilege they can lay their hands on with scant regard for the masses.

I'm sure the mid-century socialists wanted to keep expanding public oversight of these sectors, and being pragmatic knew that you can't have everything at once. It was in their party line, after all -literally. The question is then, is/was the NHS a sturdy base from which to expand?

In the second part, I was specifically calling attention to the change in wording between the 20th and 21st century Labor parties, which jells with (as noted in your aside) a more privatization-friendly party. And so making it more noteworthy that Corbyn has hesitated to offer his own amendment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, how long before "Leave" starts asserting that this year's FIFA performance is because of the leave vote generating a greater sense of British national pride?

[Pannonian]

So, how long before "Leave" starts asserting that this year's FIFA performance is because of the leave vote generating a greater sense of British national pride?

It would depend on how much the claimer knows about football. England's football so far has been ugly as heck.

1. Get the ball to the final third as quickly as possible.
2. Collapse at the slightest contact, drawing a free kick or a corner.
3. Load the box with big men.

Scientific football at its most cynical. Hugely helped by two knock out opponents who had no intention of playing football.

Oh, and Facebook have been given the maximum fine for their Cambridge shenanigans. While Aaron Banks has been meeting up with the Russian ambassador regularly, way more frequently than he's admitted to. While his business partner has been given lucrative oligarch-style business contracts. Leave was funded by Russia.

[rory_20_uk]

It wasn't the maximum fine by about £480 million or so.

They took roughly 80 million users data over years and paid 1/2 a million. Many firms would pay a lot more for that data for a single use. Facebook got a bargain.

[Husar]

Leave was funded by Russia.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Russia is using a psychological divide and conquer strategy to basically break up NATO and the EU. And the refugee stuff is helping them a lot as well, which might explain some of their actions in Syria. If they can manage to get the EU to disband itself while the US isolates itself, they will be the European hegemon more or less. They will control a lot of resources (gas), have the largest population and the strongest military. And the euro far right parties often like them anyway because they like strong, manly leaders with homophobia and xenophobia or whatever.

[rory_20_uk]

If European NATO members spent the 2% Europe would be a lot stronger given some are closer to 1 % and so would (if they wanted) almost double the offensive capacity of their military. To compare, Russia spends over 5%. That strength doesn't need the EU.

Russia is fighting to keep warm water ports for its Navy... Which the USA / UK / France and others already have - and most in safer places.

Russia's population is actually declining. Their economy is pretty bad with massive upset as the pension age is now above life expectancy (which is rather low). They have fractious Islamists along most of their south border... except for when it is China and North Korea. Lucky them.

Yes, they are a regional power, and one to be respected if not liked. Most Europeans have been happy to have the USA as their safety blanket and skimp on paying themselves. But if they are more powerful than Germany and France, that is the choice of Germany and France.

[Pannonian]

It wasn't the maximum fine by about £480 million or so.

They took roughly 80 million users data over years and paid 1/2 a million. Many firms would pay a lot more for that data for a single use. Facebook got a bargain.

Explain.

[Husar]

If European NATO members spent the 2% Europe would be a lot stronger given some are closer to 1 % and so would (if they wanted) almost double the offensive capacity of their military.

That's not the whole story. The German military didn't even spend its entire budget in past years and was still unable to keep its machinery in operational condition. Not every problem is fixed just by throwing money at it.

And besides that, if every single nation has to maintain a big military just to keep one common enemy at bay, that's terribly inefficient. In addition you get side effects such as the military gaining more power and people thinking that since they have such a big, expensive hammer, every problem is likely a nail...
And then, before you know, it, France is not using its military to keep Russia at bay, but to stop the AfD forces from conquering the French Airbus factories so they can keep their job promises...

[Furunculus]

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Russia is using a psychological divide and conquer strategy to basically break up NATO and the EU. And the refugee stuff is helping them a lot as well, which might explain some of their actions in Syria. If they can manage to get the EU to disband itself while the US isolates itself, they will be the European hegemon more or less. They will control a lot of resources (gas), have the largest population and the strongest military. And the euro far right parties often like them anyway because they like strong, manly leaders with homophobia and xenophobia or whatever.

much of the west european populist right is very gay friendly these days, so i'm told.

the fronte nationale even have a chap called Florian Philipott!

the eastern european populist right is rather different, admittedly. in poland right now, and left or right they're grumbling about nord-stream, and less than sympathetic to the excuses of those nations with better things to do than fund collective defence.

"hello, this is what the front line looks like..."

[rory_20_uk]

That's not the whole story. The German military didn't even spend its entire budget in past years and was still unable to keep its machinery in operational condition. Not every problem is fixed just by throwing money at it.

And besides that, if every single nation has to maintain a big military just to keep one common enemy at bay, that's terribly inefficient. In addition you get side effects such as the military gaining more power and people thinking that since they have such a big, expensive hammer, every problem is likely a nail...
And then, before you know, it, France is not using its military to keep Russia at bay, but to stop the AfD forces from conquering the French Airbus factories so they can keep their job promises...

I imagine that Industry needs to be assured that they will get work every year otherwise the investment in factories etc will be wasted. No, not just money but a 5 or better 10 year plan where 2% is to be spent every year.

Every country for one country? Really, Russia is the only problem in the European sphere? I think not. And I understand that Germany has some reservations about the Military tail wagging the dog, but I think that even 2% GDP will not suddenly mean there'll be issues.

And yes, part of having the ability to have a military means ongoing expenditure since procurement is often years, so it is not possible to only have resources when they are required.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Croatia ekes out a win in overtime. Sadly, this likely means a French victory. If I could only learn to like the French....but alas, other than our Louis, I rarely can.

[Gilrandir]

Croatia ekes out a win in overtime. Sadly, this likely means a French victory. If I could only learn to like the French....but alas, other than our Louis, I rarely can.

And this news bears on Brexit because...

[Fisherking]

And this news bears on Brexit because...

It is Brexit "The World Cup"

[spmetla]

And besides that, if every single nation has to maintain a big military just to keep one common enemy at bay, that's terribly inefficient. In addition you get side effects such as the military gaining more power and people thinking that since they have such a big, expensive hammer, every problem is likely a nail...

Two percent doesn't pay for a 'large' military, most militaries cost a lot more now for a lot less soldiers and equipment than in the past. The maintenance of a minimum spending at the very least allows for a respectable skeleton force that has enough experience and personnel to expand if say a new WW3 or something was on the horizon.
The danger of the military being used for every problem isn't too common outside the context of the current 'regional hegemons' and the USA. I highly doubt we'll see the militaries in Europe exerting the type of influence like the used to in Pre-WW2 Germany and France or so bold as to do attempted coup attempts anymore like in 1961 French-Algeria.
You pointed out the problems of the budget not being spent yet the German military having too much equipment 'down', which is a problem throwing more money at won't help. It should however cause Germany for example to at the least take a look at how to correct these down times for equipment.
As a pro-NATO guy and an anglophile I do worry though about the effects that BREXIT will have on the UK and its role in NATO. If this causes Scotland and Northern Ireland to split I fear that the remaining England will only maintain a token capability for force projection and just be a territorial and coastal defense force. France would be the only credible military in Western Europe but they really only care for using their military in maintaining influence in their former African colonies and the Mediterranean periphery.

For perspective here's some historical NATO spending by percentage:
Military Expenditure Trends for 1960–2014 and
What They Reveal
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...758-5899.12328


The above shows at the least that Trumps four percent goal wasn't even attained by most NATO countries during the Cold War after the various colonial wars ended.

[Pannonian]

As a pro-NATO guy and an anglophile I do worry though about the effects that BREXIT will have on the UK and its role in NATO. If this causes Scotland and Northern Ireland to split I fear that the remaining England will only maintain a token capability for force projection and just be a territorial and coastal defense force. France would be the only credible military in Western Europe but they really only care for using their military in maintaining influence in their former African colonies and the Mediterranean periphery.

Russia has got excellent value for the money it's spent on Leave. And Leave supporters won't even admit Russia's part in their cause.

[Fragony]

Office topic but kinda on, why is that guy called Juncker, shouldn't it be Druncker? Manmanman that guy..... completily wasted at the Nato-summit. Backproblem, but of course...

Shamefull..... A perfect fit voor the EU, a senile old alcoholic

[Pannonian]

Office topic but kinda on, why is that guy called Juncker, shouldn't it be Druncker? Manmanman that guy..... completily wasted at the Nato-summit. Backproblem, but of course...

Shamefull..... A perfect fit voor the EU, a senile old alcoholic

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

[Furunculus]

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

In this hypothetical situation; how incapacitating was his sciatica at the time he gave this advice?
n.b. my answer will likely be calibrated to your response.

[Pannonian]

In this hypothetical situation; how incapacitating was his sciatica at the time he gave this advice?
n.b. my answer will likely be calibrated to your response.

Isn't it in a recent interview?

In other news, in addition to the Sun giving Trump a platform to say the above on a visit to the UK, the Telegraph is now accusing May of treason. Do Leavers want another Jo Cox on their hands?

[Furunculus]

In other news, in addition to the Sun giving Trump a platform to say the above on a visit to the UK, the Telegraph is now accusing May of treason. Do Leavers want another Jo Cox on their hands?

Jo Cox is not on 'Leavers' hands.

Thoughts on the White Paper:

Excellent: "In keeping with the spirit of Article 50, and both sides’ commitment to the principle that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, the Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship are inextricably linked-concluded together"

Suspected as much: "These arrangements, which could take the form of an [Association Agreement], would ensure the new settlement is sustainable – working for the citizens of the UK and the EU now and in the future."

Tee-hee, what's the phrase - nothing is agreed until... "Europe’s security has been and will remain the UK’s security, which is why the Government has made an unconditional commitment to maintain it." ... everything is agreed!

Clever - given the progressivist nature of EU social democracy, they will diverge from us rather than us from them: "reciprocal commitments to maintain current high standards through non-regression provisions in other areas, such as environmental and employment."

So, they don't collect, we just deduct from remittances sent on to the EU? "tariff revenue formula, taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU. However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border"

Two bites at the cherry? I presume we'd also have individual membership at the likes of UNECE: "UK would also seek participation – as an active participant, albeit without voting rights–in EU technical committees that have a role in designing and implementing rules"

Careful, you could get Corbyn! "The UK has an excellent record on compliance, and has been among the lowest granters of state aid as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the EU. In 2016 the UK gave 0.3% of GDP as state aid, half the EU average of 0.7%."

ROFL, virtually nothing flies over Ireland that hasn't already flown over the UK, geddit? "the UK’s geographical position in the network is key, with around 80 per cent of all North Atlantic traffic passing through UK or Irish controlled airspace."

Don't lose sight of the fact that the UK is a security exporter! "UK created over 1.4 million alerts on SIS II. UK authorities registered almost 10,000 hits against alerts put on the system by other countries,many of which were related to people linked to terrorism"

This exposes why regulatory sovereignty on services is necessary, it's a foreign policy WMD: "Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act provides for national powers to impose sanctions. These powers will enable the UK to act in support of foreign policy objectives."

Galileo and Trumpian sympathy for accepting the security but rejecting the invoice: "The EU has put forward proposals which have the effect of ending UK participation. UK and the EU must work through issues relating to access to security-related elements urgently"

Rejecting the Swiss guillotine: "Joint Committee should consider the possibility to recognise equivalence of legislation. Where there was no agreement over these measures, or they were not possible, the relevant part of the future relationship could be suspended."

Trying to dodge the CJEU's penchant for judicial activism in pursuit of ever-closer-union? "The CJEU would only have a role in relation to the interpretation of those EU rules to which the UK had agreed to adhere as a matter of international law."

This is relevant to all areas covered by the common rulebook, but what about many of the many areas that are not? Efta... "The UK recognises that only the CJEU can bind the EU on the interpretation of EU law, and therefore in these instances"

Efta again...? "However, there may be times where unexpected events mean that the parties need to respond quickly, and with provisions that would otherwise be in breach of the agreements. Any measures would be subject to challenge through independent arbitration."

Seems perfectly acceptable, but let's see what it looks like out the other end of the sausage machine. Perhaps hopeful that May seems to have sewn up a deal with Merkel, but Merkel has already screwed up once, with cameron in the renegotiation in January 2016!

[Pannonian]

In this hypothetical situation; how incapacitating was his sciatica at the time he gave this advice?
n.b. my answer will likely be calibrated to your response.

BBC interviewed the Sun reporter who said Sanders tried to end the interview but Trump “swatted her away” and “kept on talking” well beyond the allotted 10 min

His final impression: “He is unchallenged in his own organization, it’s like being in the court of a medieval emperor”

It doesn't seem that hypothetical to me. Even the Sun reporter getting a headliner thought Trump was going beyond the pale. I'd like to know how you thought his sciatica was affecting what he was saying though.

[Furunculus]

It doesn't seem that hypothetical to me. Even the Sun reporter getting a headliner thought Trump was going beyond the pale. I'd like to know how you thought his sciatica was affecting what he was saying though.

i was taking the mickey out of all the #FPBE twitterbots excusing Junkcers NATO performance as 'sciatica', rather than the result of being completely hammered.

[Fragony]

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

Did he

[Pannonian]

Did he

Yeah he did. Even the tabloid reporter interviewing him was appalled and tried to end the interview. I don't know what Juncker did and I don't care either if it doesn't affect Britain. But what do you think of Trump telling us that we should do Brexit differently, and that someone else would make for a better PM? IIRC you've talked before about being dictated to by the EU. Does this count as being dictated to by the US?

Also, what do you think of our pro-Brexit media accusing judges, MPs and the PM of treason for not being as pro-hard Brexit as they'd like? All of that after one of our MPs was murdered for campaigning for Remain.

[Furunculus]

Does this count as being dictated to by the US?

Also, what do you think of our pro-Brexit media accusing judges, MPs and the PM of treason for not being as pro-hard Brexit as they'd like? All of that after one of our MPs was murdered for campaigning for Remain.

If we felt like we had to abide by his views, yes. Otherwise, he's just another blow-hard.

The same as I think of lefty's screaming "FASCIST!" at everything with a pulse. If we were being run by a fascist I'd feel justified at taking a pop, under the principle of lawful rebellion, but unfortunately for me I consider it an obligation to weigh judgment on what other people say before I rush to act, you know; like we expect of any adult of sound mind. and as such I'd conclude that these words are not merited and nor too would any consequent action be. Free to act, obliged to live with the consequences of [my] actions.