I don't disagree. Although it's not strictly true that the EU and US trade on pure WTO terms as there are several PTAs in place. But even the "best" FTA the UK could achieve with the US is only forecasted to add 0.2% to GDP per annum. The idea of a trade deal with the US etc has been sold by leavers as the great opportunity that Brexit will give us. The simple fact is that the "opportunities" will never compensate for making trade with our nearest neighbours harder. There is no sensible economic argument for Brexit.
It's probably more a political imperative rather than a clear economic one. Aren't our politicians gagging for it? One of the key arguments for leaving the EU was the ability to go and strike our own trade agreements with the big players. There's no point if we then say we didn't need to actually do that after all.
Yes, I understand that. However, a trade deal works both ways and when one nation is a lot larger than the other, other factors are considered. For example, would the U.S have to feel so protectionist when negotiating with us, as it has to be when negotiating with the EU, or the Chinese or India, when they know that Labour costs can be so much lower in the EU, China and India? I don't think so. And a trade deal only means that tariffs and barriers are removed or reduced, it doesn't mean we have to buy from our partner, and it doesn't mean we have to sell to them, either. We are not going to pay three times the current rate to buy a particular drug, are we? But if we can get drugs cheaper, where is the harm?
Not when NHS management are already busy buying lightbulbs and paper towels and bedsheets at five times the going rate.
So no possibility during the meeting with Farage he was told we can push through no deal if you throttle back on the NHS as it'll scare people off? Then tells Piers @rsehole, there are no plans for NHS in a trade deal. Hmmm... convincing, considering he signs an FTA with Mexico then decides to slap a 5% tariff on Mexican imports. So according to you, the Oracle, Farage says a Norway type deal would work, denies it and now promotes no deal because circumstances change. I didn't realise you were so willingly naive.
Some people just seem unable to understand the situation. The NHS is a purchaser. You can't say that the NHS, a purchaser, is on the trade deal table. That is a nonsense, and when Trump stupidly answered a stupidly put question he obviously blundered. Instead of avoiding answering a politically difficult question on a sensitive issue like most politicians do, he blundered in, and gave a daft answer. He changed his words, within half an hour or so, to clarify that situation. He was quite clear, the NHS is not on the table in trade agreement, as the NHS isn't trade - and most people (except you it seems) can understand it. Yes, your Mexican point is excellent. I think that if ever our citizens start swimming across the Atlantic and swarming up the American beaches, then we may have to suffer the consequences. Great point, well made, and right up to your usual standard. But hopefully, Trump will be long gone by then, anyway.
The reason we have traded successfully with the US on WTO is because of our MFN status thanks to our EU membership. With Brexit, that MFN status is under threat as our schdules have to be approved and unlikely to be as good as the terms we have now. So an FTA is the better option. Considering Trump's administration has submitted reforms on WTO to their advantage, which has been rejected by China and India - we're set for another trade war and we'll be the collateral damage as any increase in tariffs on China, will mean increase in tariffs on us - as you have to treat everyone the same on WTO. If you look at the US trade objectives with the UK - it's pretty horrifying. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Summary_of_U.S.-UK_Negotiating_Objectives.pdf Now considering the mullering the UK took in trade negotiations with the EU, and also how Trump threw his toys out when the EU stood firm during negotiations - I'd suggest the UK is not capable of negotiating from a position of strength, even on WTO. As Patrick Lamy said, trade negotiations are not sentimental, it's all about clout. A 65m (UK) market negotiating a beneficial deal with a 435m (EU), 327m (US), 1bn (China) has no clout and is unrealistic. The 'we're Great Britain, we used to have an empire once' mentality means absolutely nothing.
I think you missed the point, it has nothing to do with our citizens swarming on US beaches - he signs an international treaty then breaks that treaty - he's not a man of his word - so when he says the NHS is on the table then off the table - it's safe to assume if we Brexit - it'll be on the table - seeing as Arron Banks has alot to gain from it. But let's expand this into a semantics argument.
Actually, I'd say for a lot of countries around the world it means 'oh yeah, thanks for reminding us, all the more reason for us to turn the screw'.
Yes, if you want to read the question in the most literal of ways. You might also argue that there is no physical “table” present at this point in time, so the question is a nonsense in that way too. Alternatively, you could construe it as referring to the goods and services purchased by the NHS, which is how the media and politicians understood it. You’re the one in the minority.
I am not reading the question too literally. It is a fact that it is the trade that the NHS does that would be on the table. In fact, it already is on the table, as every purchase is put to some sort of tender process that is meant to ensure value for money. Unless you are suggesting that the US will insist on our NHS being disbanded and our taxes being reduced so that we have to buy an insurance policy, or something similar. It is the media and politicians, and some on here, that have jumped on it and suggesting that the NHS can be negotiated away in a trade deal. It can't, that isn't being too literal, it is a fact.
Is anyone saying the NHS is going to be negotiated away? I’m certainly not. What we are saying is that a trade deal with the US has the potential to be problematic for the NHS because it could significantly increase its costs.
I think the other fear is that the health insurance lobby, both here and in the US, would love to change the way the NHS is funded and it's traditional position of free at the point of use. There are plenty of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who will more than willing to push for that "competitive" opportunity for "consumer choice" as part of any trade deal.
Really, is that your logic? If someone changes his mind on one thing, you assume he will always change his mind on anything else remotely related?
Well I don't trust him, but I think if you are going to discuss the issue seriously, then you have to come up with better logic than that. For a start, he could impose a 5% on trade with a any country at any time, there doesn't need to be a trade deal in place.
Nearly 10,000 lies since his inauguration. Is that logical enough for you? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...k-lies-claims-first-year-office-a8849661.html
Because US pharmaceuticals are more expensive. So if part of the deal is allowing US pharma companies greater access to the NHS, costs go up.
But where does it say that we would have to buy them? A Trade Deal clarifies the terms, conditions and the tariffs, if any, of trade. A trade deal doesn't dictate that we must buy off them! If the US is too expensive, we buy elsewhere.
So you don’t think that Trump could insist, as a condition of concluding any such deal, that a particular US industrial sector, such as pharma, should get privileged access to the UK market? “You can have a deal, provided you guys buy your medicines from us”.
No, I couldn't perceive that condition. It would instantly mean less patient care, would be completely against free market principles and would be politically impossible to carry through the house, even over there. Even Trump isn't daft enough to expect that.
There was an interview with an ex-trade negotiator David Henig on R4 Today this morning. Interview from about 2h 33.24. He talked about how US Pharmaceuticals would like to get the NHS to pay more for drugs. Currently (and so much for its alleged terrible inefficiencies) it pays only about 30% of the cost to the US health providers. Even more importantly for US companies NHS prices are a benchmark for about a quarter of the drug prices paid across the World. So the potential for these companies is fuc.kton huge squared should they be able to agree a more favourable pricing structure with the NHS under the guise of a more ‘transparent’ model that ‘reflects’ their ‘costs’ (i.e. the profits they wish to make, says me). Not only would the cost of NHS drug procurement go up if they nuance this correctly, but if this is then reflected across the globe the profit potential is obvious. I would also add the following? Why should any UK Government agree to such a course of action so obviously against our interests? Well tell me the following hasn’t worked in the past. A. Ideology. Lots of ‘free’ marketeers think this is just how it should be. B. Those same people are set to gain through their investments. C. Lobbying and how. A million dollars for your vanity scheme to save the humble dunnock or fund the keeping of some old master’s improbable rendering of 17th century bazoomers? Why certainly. D. As a price for our access to sell Land Rover Discoverys or tons of shortbread with a picture of Windsor Castle on, tariff free. E. Because this is now the go to measure of Brexit success.
In answer to a question about whether Brexit would be bad for Ireland, Trump said: I think it should be good. The big thing is going to be your border, and hopefully that’s going to work out, and I think it will work out. There are a lot of good minds thinking about how to do it. And it’s going to be just fine. I think ultimately it could even by very, very good for Ireland. But the border will work out. The man is just a ******* idiot. And for this reason, idiots love him.
To save all of you busy people from having to read all of this, it can be summarised as: Any future US/UK trade deal will be done on President Trump's terms. Is that something we didn't know?
I'm no Trump supporter but what should he have said? He's not good with going off script and tends to keep chucking nonsensical words out whilst he's thinking but tbh he's given a positive spin on it, suggested that there's good people working hard to sort it out. The alternative is to say I've no idea it doesn't concern me, don't give a toss. Or lots of people have said it's going to be a nightmare. Neither really helps the situation. In the main he is an idiot though, agreed. Not for his bumbling words, but for his actions and beliefs.
He should know this stuff before he visits a country. He has no excuses. Either he is not being briefed or he is not bothering to read/listened to them. I suspect the latter. The worst bit was when he compared the Irish border with the US/Mexico border.The Taoiseach had to point out that the process was trying to prevent the border not build a wall!
He’s an idiot. He’s quite nasty with it. I’m more concerned about the behaviour of British people. People need to grow up and behave like adults.
I would think a properly-briefed and engaged President would want to know what the media are going to ask him about and what the hot button issues are in the place he's visiting. Then add whatever the official US foreign policy take is to that (if it has one) and what he definitely shouldn't say to avoid causing offence/embarrassment to his hosts and he has his answer. Probably just needed a recognition of the work that went into the Good Friday agreement, including from the US, and to express his hope that all sides are able to work out a solution that suits everyone.
