anon84679660:
Is this the democracy that Brexiteers voted for?
No oversight over future trade deals, parliament will have no say.
They’ve just had a say. Getting Brexit Done means “no longer arguing the toss about it”. Let the government now get on with the job without any further “asking of the opposition” to be done. They are not in power for a reason.
What about NHS?
What about protecting quality of British food produced by British farmers?
MPs vote down legal bid to protect the NHS in post-Brexit trade deals
They’ve voted down any future bailout money for the NHS from the EU, since this would beholden us to the EU, and we’d end up not actually leaving at the end of this year.
Instead of worrying about “who funds the NHS” - worry about the quality of what the money gets spent on in the NHS, including and especially the money the government has already allocated.
The Government’s flagship Trade Bill legislation has now cleared the House of Commons
Parliament has voted down a legal bid to protect the NHS and publicly funded health and care services from any form of control from outside the UK as the Government seeks to broker post-Brexit trade deals.
The NHS has nothing to do with the rest of the world. Ceding this piece of the bygone golden age of Labour to the Leftist institutions of the EU - won’t and can’t work.
We’ve funded it ourselves without EU help - we’ll continue to do so. Nothing has actually been lost by the NHS here, unless you truly believe that anything made in Britain is “rubbish” with anything the EU comes up with as “The bee’s knees”.
Opposition MPs had put forward the amendment to the Government’s Trade Bill which, if approved, would have barred any deal which “undermines or restricts” a comprehensive public-funded health service, free at the point of delivery. If you have “restrictions” - it is nothing less than a Red Tape Brake on the entire NHS and our wider economy. An attempt to cede the NHS to the EU - has been thwarted here.
Moved by MPs including Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas, the also proposed banning any agreement that undermined the ability “to maintain the quality and safety of health or care services”.
The amendment would also have legally guaranteed the UK’s ability to control the pricing of medicines, and maintained the current level of protection for patient data.
We don’t want “Protectionist” medicical policy that keeps big pharma in business by excluding non-big pharma participants, and developers of cures from the free market.
Patient Data? If China has everything on your Iphone already - who gives a damn if they know that you wear a pacemaker and have type 2 diabetes as well? It is a bit late to be worrying about “Patient Confidentiality”. That, to this day - has it’s main use as “Not rendering the great and good subject to blackmail, thanks to embarassing medical details that could otherwise be released”.
But MPs voted on Monday evening by 340 votes to 251 to reject the amendment, with Government ministers insisting it was not needed as they’ve repeatedly said no element of the NHS will be up for grabs in a future trade deal, and standards will not be lowered.
The Government also managed to stave off a Tory backbench attempt to give Parliament a definitive say on post-Brexit trade deals as its flagship Trade Bill legislation cleared the Commons.
Our standards are ours to nurture and keep. There’s no need to “Become rubbish” at ANYTHING - merely because we’ve left EU regulation that charges us a commission for the UK to do UK stuff properly on it’s own behalf.
The rebellion failed to gather momentum, with an amendment moved by former minister Jonathan Djanogly being rejected by a majority of 63 after 326 MPs voted against the clause compared to 263 who backed it.
Proof that even at this late stage - the opposition are still trying to overturn the result of the last election AND the referendum.
The developments came after concerns were raised that politicians in Westminster would be unable to prevent the Government reneging on commitments to protect the NHS and maintain animal welfare and food standards under the terms of the Trade Bill. It is easier to bring balance - when you don’t have to worry about “breaking a few eggs” along the way. The NHS will be protected - but not from it’s own inefficiencies, I suggest. .Well-paid staff might be let go to save the NHS money, whereas the Opposition would demand that money-wasting layers of beurocracy must STAY and be suitably renumerated over and above the rate actual medical staff get paid. Animal Rights? Animals are already protected as much as they need to be. Already-existing laws - need to be fully enforced. There is no room for this backdoor implementation of “Enforced Vegitarianism” that both the Green lobby and Far left would like to push upon us. A malnourished public is a public eaiser to put under the cosh when the far left see themselves as being back in a more “Totalitarian” form of power, as China are able to demonstrate. You don’t see many 6’4" 20 stone ordinary Chinese folk - do you?
The Government, for its part, has stressed that UK law offers such protections and any changes would have to come before Parliament.
But shadow international trade minister Bill Esterson said a lack of scrutiny over the issues threatens to leave the health service “wide open to pharmaceutical giants” and to “undermine” farmers and consumers.
Quite the opposite. Only the market in PEOPLE will be affected beyond the government’s control. Low-paid Europeans are still there to be hired and fired, but some forthcoming taxes upon overly-large companies who’s first concerns are “poltical” before even “financial” might discourage Big Pharma from even staying involved in the UK. Are they going to pull out - or not? If they are NOT then there’s no economic damage - right? If they DO - then there’s no Big Pharma controls - right?
He told the Commons: “Chemical washes of chicken, hormones in beef, ractopamine in pork and GM crops are banned in the UK – what’s wrong with keeping it that way?
There was never any obligation for the UK to buy goods of a quality standard below our own. We can be as fussy as we like. The EU will no doubt want to maintain UK-EU export quality at the highest standard -IF they want any UK-EU trade at ALL of course. If you see “Chlorinated Chicken - Half Price” - are you going to buy it? EDUCATION and HONESTY is all we need by way of “Regulation”.
“If the Government is saying we’re going to do it anyway, what’s the objection to putting it all in primary legislation?” The Primary Legislation route - opens the door to kicking Brexit past 31st December 2020 - that’s why. It is a backdoor extension opportunity, simply because two-thirds of the Lords are Remainers, and our majority Get-Brexit-Done Government - knows this.
Mr Djanogly meanwhile said his new clause four would have ensured the executive still negotiated free trade agreements (FTAs) but Parliament would have a “yes/no vote” on the negotiating objectives and the final draft agreement. Like so much else with regards to Brexit - Brexit is a binary issue for the most part. We can either have it A way or B way. There’s no compromise on things like “Could we agree on slightly toxic food, or a gentler death in hospices, or less taxes for those who work for the government on high pay…” ALL or NONE is the answer to a great many problems at this time. Absolutes - work.
He said: “Not only has this not ended up in the Bill, but the Government’s position has seemingly reverted to having less scrutiny than we did as a member of the EU.
We never wanted EU scrutiny in the FIRST place. It pulls barrels across our path for getting most useful things done, whilst maintaining ranks and files of otherwise useless office workers in place, which Dominic Cummings might be on the verge of destroying completely as we speak “#Lockdown Conspiracy”
“For the last 40 years the EU has been negotiating our trade deals and as part of the EU scrutiny process, a yes/no vote would be taken by the EU Parliament on the draft FTA prior to signature.”
If they don’t now sign it - THEY have effectively signed off “No Deal”.
Neil Parish, Conservative chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, added that it was “somewhat confusing” that ministers would not accept the amendment as the scrutiny would ensure they follow through on commitments to welfare standards. You don’t need “regulation” to do the right thing, merely regulation to define what bad things happen if you don’t comply. There’s no point staying in ANY regulations that do not spell out those “punishments to be had”. Regulation - has long since become an excuse for wasting time and money, taking our courts away form the more urgent business of “Law and Order” handling.
Mr Djanogly agreed, adding: “As things stand, there is no longer a parliamentary veto and no formal scrutiny committee relationship yet established despite US negotiations having started.
Yes, there IS a risk here. If Trump loses in November, Brexit can still be turned over. Let’s hope the Americans are on the side of the UK majority Brexiteers and Conservative voters then!
“The important point of a parliamentary veto is not that it is often used – rather, as is seen in other parliaments, it encourages the executive to seek consensus on its negotiating mandate and keep legislators in touch during negotiations through regular discourse and discussion. The veto is often mis-used to give opposition rather too much power in a legislative body they were supposed to have lost power OVER. “Finishing Second” in an election - should be like “finishing second in a game of Chess” - vs Putin at that!
“A wise executive will naturally wish to avoid an unnecessary bust-up just before signing an FTA.” Bust-up with whom though? Among Cabinet ranks? Who gives a toss if our official opposition is about to be sidelined totally… It has no Brexit Party in it, who would have represented Balance and Checks upon this govermnent with regards to getting Brexit done - but no. The Tories don’t have the Opposition they want, and Brexiteers don’t neither. The EU would have preferred that our parliament were a six-way split that could get NOTHING done - even at the price of having a large bank of Brexit Party within that “alternative reality” parliament that we didn’t get in December 2019 in the end.
Tory former environment secretary Theresa Villiers had earlier called on the Government to confirm it will keep the import ban on chlorine-washed chicken.
Small beer. We, the British public - won’t be buying it, so it is folly to even talk of “cutting our restrictions” on such unwanted food imports. Hardly worth parliamentary time even debating the issue any further. It won’t be happening that we’re forced to buy food that we don’t want, let alone “need” in this country.
Ms Villiers said she hoped the Government “will consider seriously whether changes can be made to strengthen parliamentary oversight” through amendments from MPs or in the House of Lords.
She told MPs: “All I’m asking is that we don’t sell ourselves short in this country. The UK is the third-biggest market for groceries in the world – even conditional access to that market is a valuable prize.
The obvious deal would be between Britain and France there for say, Electricity and Britain/Holland for trading relationships. There’s no need for us to involve the entire EU over our future local agreements, - one of the mainstays we get from Leaving. If the EU want to continue accessing on a limited scale SOME of our fishing waters and grocery markets - then they’ve got to put some stuff WE want on the table in exchange. NOT “Staying in the EU forever” or other legislative claptrap/regulation/extra bureaucratic layers…
“Just because we would like a trade deal with the US doesn’t mean that we should give them everything they want. There is so much we can offer our trading partners in the US and other countries, and is it so unreasonable to say that when it comes to food, there are limits to liberalisation?” One minute - the arugment was being forced to buy crap from America. I understand it that America wants access to UK produced future “smaller” Pharma, whilst American-produced vehicles - could nicely take over from the overpriced tanks being fostered upon us by Germany in particular.
Would you buy a Humvee or American-produce SUV if the prices became competetive? FORD UK - is a good example of what our motoring and it’s surrouding industries would become in this country - with closer ties to America, distanced from European models.
But Tory former minister Steve Brine said: “Ultimately, won’t the consumer decide?
Yes, the same way they decided Brexit. Snap-off decision. Any varience in such a decision - will be made when we see price fluctuations that since make it a no-brainer.
If you can buy a US-produced SUV for half the price of a basic Mercedes tank - then people WILL buy it. Not for the “name”, but because they can afford the American model, with the USD likely to weaken in the longer term - compared to the EU produced model, priced in extortionate Euros that will either be higher still following Brexit OR will be gone altogether becomes of Europe-wide economic collapse. Britain has cast it’s lot with the West rather than the East. The biggest risk we’re talking we Brexiteers - is that Trump can hold onto the Whitehouse.
“Just recently we heard Waitrose make it very, very clear that they wouldn’t be selling any product that was imported to a lower standard than we currently enjoy in this country, and their new boss actually quoted chlorine-washed chicken. I just wonder whether the public might be ahead of us on this one already.” Waitrose are a cursed industry now, and will have to reform their business models pronto - if they want to survive.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/john-lewis-waitrose-stores-closing-profit-warning-a8418941.html
John Lewis unveils first-ever half-year loss | John Lewis | The Guardian
Does John Lewis warning of closures mean department stores are doomed? | Retail industry | The Guardian
This has got nothing to do with the lockdown, but they are even mismanaging THAT - so the Waitrose/John Lewis “Partnership” is a couple of convicts tied together by ball and chain, waiting for the inevitable heave-ho over the quayside by the wider more flexible markets waiting to snap up their “posher” end of the food business. Posher prices maybe, better store locations maybe - but when you put some food into your mouth and munch down - it is the same food, but just for more money… British Airways have already retired their ENTIRE 747 fleet as announced this week - trying to get back ahead of that curve that "Post-Lockdown, people will be tightening their belts, and the need for “Luxury” is the first “need” to go in the bin - long term.
Opening the debate, international trade minister Greg Hands said the Government was “committed to transparency” regarding scrutiny of international agreements.
He said: “International agreements themselves cannot alter domestic law and any changes to UK legislation would need to be scrutinised by Parliament in the normal way.
We have to trust our elected officials to get things done, and worry less about how they get it done.
Watch the cabinet office instead of Dominic Cummings, I’d suggest.
“We are strongly committed to transparency, as demonstrated by the steps we have taken to provide comprehensive information to the public and Parliament.”
MPs approved the Trade Bill at third reading by 335 votes to 243 - a majority of 92. It will undergo further scrutiny in the Lords at a later date.
standard.co.uk/news/politic … 04631.html
Brexit would have been SO much easier - had the opposition totally capitulated to it following the referendum result.
At the next election, Brexit done or not - it is time to replace the SNP number of seats held with something with Farage in it.
The SNP have been in parliament for some years now - have gotten nothing done for Scotland much, not even Independence or “Remaining” don’t forget.
Now it seems that the Scottish Referendum in 2014 was being strongly influenced by Russia rather than the Brexit Referendum two years later…
Go figure! Just how useless, ineffective, and now totally redundant - are the SNP?
We can’t replace them with the “British” National Party, as it is considered Extremist. How about an English National Party though? Who could object to THAT when all the other nations of the UK already have their own in parliament?
