Project Fear- they said ...

It's about time we had an United Kingdom first policy!!!

In my opinion worrying about something which may/may not happen is pointless.

NHS buys in drugs, supplies and services from worldwide, makes economic sense that post Brexit (if it happens) to "shop around" to get the best deal available.

The NHS is not the same "animal" now as it was at its inception, nobody could have predicted the medical breakthroughs which have happened, or how much the population of the UK would increase.

Something has to change and just throwing money at it is not the solution, it will take a brave Health Secretary to commit to a total reorganisation, and I cannot see one of them appearing on the political scene at the moment.

Someone’s got at Trump! Who is now denying that the NHS is on table.

We are not fools!!

I seem to remember Trump saying at some point that "The NHS has been cheating the US for years," and vowing to stop that "cheating". By using such emotive language he sways US opinion against both the UK and the NHS - the language of commercial battles, not international diplomacy.

There is already too much ignorance and misinformation in the US against "socialised medicine". Remember Sarah Palin declaring that her disabled daughter would not have been allowed to live under the NHS? Round about the same time, someone said that Stephen Hawking would not have survived in the UK - they can't have noticed that he was in fact British, not American, or that he told told everyone that the he owed his life to the NHS.

Yes, Stephen Hawking was a very strong advocate of the NHS, thanks for reminding me.

I remember when it was the EU that was the devil's spawn on Gransnet.

When the EU was looking to do a Trade Deal with the US chlorinated chickens and the NHS were the reasons given years ago why it shouldn't happen.

What if we REMAIN in the EU and the EU eventually does a Trade Deal with the US??

Do folk think there will never be a Trade Deal between the EU and the US??

I suppose we’d use our veto POGS
Don’t all 28 (soon to be 27) have to agree?
Look at the Canada deal that took 8years because Wallonia didn’t agree.

I have read all the posts and gather that DT has said he is not after the NHS. So he changes his mind in one day? Surely that is the point, he can't be trusted?

One point I haven't seen made is that DT imposes restrictions on who his suppliers are allowed to trade with. This means that he can wake up one day and decide he doesn't like a country, say Portugal, and therefore won't trade with any country that works with Portugal. It would by much harder for him to do that with the 27 EU countries and the 70+ countries they have agreement with than to our little country.

Video evidence has emerged of Nigel Farage saying EU cash should be spent on the National Health Service after Brexit.
The Ukip leader on Friday morning denied having endorsed a pledge to spend Britain’s EU contribution on the NHS just hours after the referendum results came in.

He told ITV’s Good Morning Britain that the pledge came from others in the Leave campaign and that it was their “mistake” to loudly earmark £350 million for the health service during the campaign.

Watch more

Read more Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS' Brexit pledge
However footage from BBC Question Time on 9 June – just weeks before the referendum – shows the Ukip leader claiming the available cash was higher than £350 million and saying money should be spent on hospitals and GPs.

“Can we just get to the truth of this - £350 million a week is wrong, it’s higher than that,” he told the programme’s audience.
“FACT – absolute fact – from the official statistics cross-checked from the EU: we pay £55 million a day as a contribution. Some of that is the rebate which doesn’t go but our gross contribution is £55 million a day.”

“We should spend that money here, in our own country, on our own people,” he added.
When subsequently challenged by an audience member who said he advocated an insurance systemVideo evidence has emerged of Nigel Farage saying EU cash should be spent on the National Health Service after Brexit.
The Ukip leader on Friday morning denied having endorsed a pledge to spend Britain’s EU contribution on the NHS just hours after the referendum results came in.

He told ITV’s Good Morning Britain that the pledge came from others in the Leave campaign and that it was their “mistake” to loudly earmark £350 million for the health service during the campaign.

Watch more

Read more Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave '£350m for the NHS' Brexit pledge
However footage from BBC Question Time on 9 June – just weeks before the referendum – shows the Ukip leader claiming the available cash was higher than £350 million and saying money should be spent on hospitals and GPs.

“Can we just get to the truth of this - £350 million a week is wrong, it’s higher than that,” he told the programme’s audience.
“FACT – absolute fact – from the official statistics cross-checked from the EU: we pay £55 million a day as a contribution. Some of that is the rebate which doesn’t go but our gross contribution is £55 million a day.”

“We should spend that money here, in our own country, on our own people,” he added.
When subsequently challenged by an audience member who said he advocated an insurance system and did not “believe in the NHS”, he said:

6 ways Britain leaving the EU will affect you and did not “believe in the NHS”, he said:

..I don't think I can post the actual video but will try....

'What if we REMAIN in the EU and the EU eventually does a Trade Deal with the US??'

Do folk think there will never be a Trade Deal between the EU and the US??'....hang on; are you arguing that we should leave the EU because at some point, in the future, they might do a deal with the USA? Or am I missing the point here? Surely, if that happened we would have a power of veto over it [or, at least have our MEP's speaking out against chlorinated chicken; well, the non Brexit party MEP's that is [on the assumption that some of them, unlike Farage do actually turn up to represent us, that is....]

I don't think it is so much he changed his mind as that somebody briefed him strongly before he did the interview with Piers.

Earlier, nobody called him out about the "thousands of cheering supporters" or the "smallness" of the protests which he'd been carefully shielded from. Nobody corrected him when he said he'd never met Michael Gove (the first British journalist to be granted a one-to-one interview with lots of cringe-making pictures of them in 2017).

He certainly stayed safe with his scripted message, even though some of the words looked to be new to him and there were long pauses mid sentence, but he does not take kindly to being briefed for the live stuff and that's what you get.

Remember when he insisted he'd said "wouldn't" when he'd quite clearly said "would" in a live answer on Russia?

It's not so much that he can't be trusted. It's more than he can't seem to see that people are not so overawed by his wealth and power that he can say anything he likes on tape and on camera and we will all have sudden attacks of obsequious memory loss.

The only "fake" news comes from his own lips.

And sadly, he shows his true colours because he thinks the UK is desperate, which just over 50% of us clearly are at the moment.

I think all this scaremongering (and of course that is exactly what it is) is completely idiotic.

We know NOTHING about Trump's plans, and in fact he has now backtracked regarding the NHS.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe, just maybe a complete reorganisation, whatever form that may take, might be good for the NHS and us?

Why does it always have to be seen as something completely undesirable? Could it be because we are talking about Donald Trump, so therefore it has to be dismissed automatically?

No to reorganisation of the NHS The NHS is unique unrivalled the envy of the world. But it is being taken apart bit by bit privatised by stealth deceit. The NHS needs to be renationalised for the people by the people as it was intended. It worked it was cost effective before Thatcher started privatisation and Blair with PFIs causing the NHS massive debts to pay back. See the videos by Dr Bob Gill or Dr Paul Hobday Fight to save our NHS

If your roof is leaking you do not keep spending money on buying bigger buckets........you get the roof fixed.

Simple analogy, but very true of the NHS.

Laibak

"hang on; are you arguing that we should leave the EU because at some point, in the future, they might do a deal with the USA?"
---

I presume that question was directed to me.

Answer.

Nope, it was a very simple statement re the EU at one time was the devil's spawn on Gransnet because of TTIP negotiations and what if we REMAINED and the EU TTIP negotiations started again.

A sensible response has been we could use our ' veto' and the Walloons being mentioned was another good point to make.

Don't twist.my post into thinking it came down on the side of either Remain or Leave as I think there are points for both sides of the argument.

JenniferE have you heard the expression 'History is the best indicator of the future'?

Putting us in a weak bargaining position has to be bad whatever country we are negotiating with. The US would be able to insist on whatever it likes because we would not have any choice. At least the EU is significantly bigger and would have a corner to fight, we wouldn't.

Um....Nonnie - we are not JOINING the USA, nor are we joining, Japan, or China, or Australia...

We are leaving a political trading bloc, the EU.

We already trade with many countries in the world and our trade deals with the USA may become bigger and more profitable when we are able to deal globally rather than within the confines of the EU. Why see the USA as a threat? It's no bigger a threat than Brussels.

Many of us see new trade deals as an exciting opportunity rather than a scary prospect. Anyone would think we are swapping the EU and becoming incorporated into the USA. (That's what the remainer doom mongers want us to believe.)

It is quite laughable that this is the level of scaremongering.

Talk about how the WTO frightens you, because through that organisation we will trade with the USA AND other countries, including EU ones.

It is not a case of the USA becoming our new home. It's a case of leaving our Brussels base for a whole new world of trading.

Will the USA be able to supply us with the shortfall of doctors and nurses that Brexit has created?

'Talk about how the WTO frightens you'

did you watch/listen to the ex Boss of WTO? He is the one warning us, and telling us we should be afraid- and he explains very clearly why.

Out of the frying pan into the fire, and the grass is always greener etc keep coming to my mind, I wonder why? ? ummm.

On a lighter note, I laughed like a drain at a report on the BBC news last night, when a hero incognito sneaked in and held up some anti Brexit banners behind an oblivious news reporter! God bless him.

Steven Bray is amazing, but no longer 'ingognito' for sure

I've invited him to come for a holiday when it is all over- he deserves it... might even have a special chocolate medal made for him.

We already trade with many countries in the world and our trade deals with the USA may become bigger and more profitable when we are able to deal globally rather than within the confines of the EU.

I wonder, Day6 if you would care to explain how our trade deals will become bigger and more profitable when we are free of the EU? In what way do the EU terms restrict us in the 700+ trade deals we already have through our membership?

And how they will become bigger and more profitable when we are negotiating as a market of 65 million as opposed to being part of a market of 500+ million? Especially when just about all trade experts, such as Pascal Lamy (in the video I posted on this, or another thread), have said that being a smaller market will weaken our negotiating position.

Some real detail of how the EU apparently holds us back (with links to sources) would be really helpful.

As for the point people are trying to make about an EU trade deal with the US meaning acceptance of US low standards; the EU wouldn't countenance lowering standards of animal welfare and food production in order to obtain a 'deal'. They have sufficient market strength to be able to resist any pressure to do so.This is the advantage of being a large market. An advantage we most certainly wouldn't have on our own.

All the WTO deals with have around the world are as a member of the EU - each and everyone of them will have to be re-negotiated. As Mr Lamy has explained very well in that interview of June 2016. The UK is NOT in a position to negotiate hard for deals, in any way shape or form. It was already the case in 2016- it is much much worse now.

"when we are able to deal globally rather than within the confines of the EU" but we CAN already make deals outside the EU if we want to. We are NOT restricted to the deals that we make in concert with the rest of the EU (about 57% of our exports and 66% of our imports in 2016.) - but by acting all together we are a bigger unit than one country is when on its own, and can get a better deal with better conditions. However we have ALWAYS been able to act on our own, probably under WTO conditions, when and if we want to and if we accept that we have less clout then.

When and why did this idea catch on that while in the EU we have not been able to make separate trade deals and are tied to only trading as part of the EU? That is false!

See Fullfact on the subject

How the WTO works - fullfact.org/europe/introduction-world-trade-organisation/

The WTO has 164 members. The EU is the only organisation to be a member of the WTO. All EU member states are also individual members but they always vote as the EU bloc.
(The exception is the EU which has a block vote of 28, soon to be 27.) So as members of the EU we are a party to a possibility of having more influence on the WTO than individual countries.

Trading on WTO terms

The WTO does not have a set of minimum tariffs or rules with which each country must comply. Instead, it has two main elements.

First, it requires each country to set out a list of its tariff rates for each product and service. Each tariff set for a product and service is subject to negotiation with each other member of the WTO. Whether another member seeks to negotiate these tariffs depends upon whether they have an interest in that product.

For large trading states like the USA, China or Brazil these lists or schedules can be extremely long. The EU has a single schedule for all its members and it is quite extensive. All of these are available on the WTO website.

Second, the WTO requires states to apply their individual schedules, and non-tariff rules on packaging or licencing etc., in a non-discriminatory way.

Most-Favoured Nation and National Treatment rules

This non-discrimination breaks down into two basic rules. The first, Most-Favoured Nation, means you must give whatever your best treatment is for foreign products coming into your country to all members of the WTO. For example, if a country cut the tariff on imports of copper from 10% to 5% for exporters from one country, it would have to charge 5% to every other country as well.

The second basic rule, National Treatment, means that you must give your best internal conditions to foreign products or services. For example, if you do not require domestic products to have a warning as to sugar content in food you cannot require it of foreign products. These requirements are set out in detail in the WTO’s core treaties: GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) and TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights).

But there is a big exception. If you are in a customs union or free trade area, for instance you can treat products and services from the customs, union better than you treat other WTO members. The EU is an example of a customs union .

My understanding is that the U.S. pharmaceutical companies object to medicines being sold at a cheaper price in Europe. As part of the E.U. the NHS takes advantage of this but as a small country trying to set up trade deals with the U.S., our NHS will be at the mercy of the big U.S. pharmaceuticals.