| Trade Bill 22:57 - Jul 20 with 2506 views | tractordownsouth |
So the Tories have voted against Parliament being able to scrutinise any future trade deals. This whole thing was never about our elected MPs taking back control was it?
Brexiters on here, I assume you're as annoyed as I am |  |
| |  |
| Trade Bill on 23:49 - Jul 21 with 349 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Trade Bill on 21:10 - Jul 21 by tractordownsouth |
The Brexit position clearly lost the party seats, but the idea that we'd have won with the same leader, same manifesto and AS accusations is for the birds. |
Not sure where I said that.... |  |
| |
| Trade Bill on 23:50 - Jul 21 with 346 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Trade Bill on 21:30 - Jul 21 by giant_stow |
Blaming people who voted remain for this brexit is bonkers, and especially coming from someone who voted leave!
You were warned this would happen. |
.....or that! | |
| |
| Trade Bill on 23:55 - Jul 21 with 341 views | Ryorry |
| Trade Bill on 12:15 - Jul 21 by tractordownsouth |
I've written to my MP about the votes last night
Dear Mr Thomas
I was concerned when I read about your voting record when the Trade Bill was raised again in Parliament on Monday 20th July. According to the House of Commons website, you chose to vote for the following;
1) Against giving parliament the ability to scrutinise future trade deals
2) Against NHS contracts being excluded from future trade deals
3) Against maintaining food standards post-Brexit
On the first point, I am confused. As a prominent Brexit campaigner in Cornwall during the 2016 referendum, you will be aware that the core Vote Leave campaign message was for our Parliament to "Take Back Control" of our trading arrangements, among other matters. Although I understand the Conservative whip instructed you to vote against the amendment, why could you not support our elected representatives having the opportunity to scrutinise and debate our future trading relationships? At best, this seems like a careless decision and at worst it is deliberately deceptive - it appears you have hoodwinked those who put their trust in the leave campaign to deliver more control to their local representatives, by voting to grant more power to the executive, which is not directly accountable.
Secondly, I am aware that hyperbole was thrown around during the election regarding the potential sale of the NHS during the 2019 General Election, however the Tories were adamant that the NHS was safe in their hands. Whilst your vote doesn't mean we will embrace a private insurance system, it does lead to the potential for companies from the US and elsewhere to gain access to these contracts add more bureaucracy to the NHS system. Despite the theory of more private involvement driving efficiency, I am aware of NHS staff who have claimed that the reforms introduced by your party have actually made the service less efficient, despite the valiant efforts of healthcare workers. As well as this being an example of misleading those who put their trust in the Tories last year, it is a million miles away from the rhetoric about doing away with bureaucracy, which featured heavily in 2016.
I find the third vote, regarding food standards, the most concerning. Although I appreciate that cutting regulation was one of Vote Leave's promises, how does opening up our markets to low-quality produce help either Britain's farmers or the environment? This is particularly damaging in the likely case of a no deal Brexit (something which you appear comfortable with, as you voted against the transition), where our farmers will struggle to sell abroad, why should we flood our domestic markets with cheap (and potentially unhealthy) produce, which will undercut the prices our agricultural workers are able to offer? I understand that the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg have argued for consumers to be able to choose, but it will not be your parliamentary colleagues who are eating chlorinated chicken, it will be many of your constituents, who may not be able to afford the alternatives. I am also aware of Tory MPs arguing that we can actually increase our standards post- Brexit, in which case, why not enshrine this commitment into law?
If you are unable to articulate why you believe this course of action to be beneficial to agricultural workers, perhaps you could raise it with Environment Secretary and Neighbouring MP George Eustice? He was quoted on a 2016 Vote Leave leaflet, saying "If we have the courage to vote leave and take back control, we would be free to think again and could achieve so much more for farmers and our environment"
https://www.nfuonline.com/nfu-online/news/vote-leave-ge/
As the MP for St Ives, a largely rural constituency, you will be aware that agriculture is one of our biggest industries. Many of those workers backed Brexit and voted for you as their local representative. Your job as an MP is to represent your constituents, not to simply toe the party line. Perhaps I am unaware of the wider economic strategy the government is pursuing, but I really struggle to see how any of these votes you cast were either honest or beneficial to those who have put their trust in you, and I would appreciate an explanation.
King Regards,
TDS |
Emailed mine too, nothing like as individual or eloqent as yours, but got what is no doubt the standard response -
"Thank you for contacting me about the Trade Bill.
The Trade Bill is an important piece of legislation which has a number of practical functions. The UK has been working to reach continuity agreements with countries who we currently trade with through EU trade deals. The Trade Bill will enable these continuity agreements to be embedded into UK law so that the agreements can be fully implemented.
In addition, in leaving the EU, the UK will be acceding to the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) in its own right. The Bill’s provisions will make sure the UK can implement procurement obligations under the Agreement, ensuring continued access to £1.3 trillion per year of global procurement opportunities for UK businesses.
The Bill will also facilitate the creation of a new Trade Remedies Authority (TRA), to deliver a new UK trade remedies framework, which among other things will include protections for UK businesses from unfair trade practices or unforeseen import surges.
With regard to New Clause 4, I appreciate the importance of effective Parliamentary scrutiny. However, I do not believe that the provisions outlined in New Clause 4 are necessary.
At its core, the Trade Bill is a continuity Bill. It cannot be used to implement new free trade agreements with countries such as the US. Instead it can only be used to transition the free trade agreements that the UK has been party to through EU membership. All these agreements have already been subject to scrutiny as underlying EU agreements, through the European Scrutiny Committee process or equivalent.
Regarding future trade agreements, public consultations have and will continue to be held prior to negotiations to inform the Government's approach. Ministers have also published their negotiating objectives prior to the start of trade talks and held open briefings for MPs and Peers, for example at the launch of talks with the US and Japan.
Regular updates are provided to Parliament on the progress of negotiations too and my Ministerial colleagues at the Department for International Trade will also be engaging closely with the International Trade Committee and the Lords International Agreements Committee as negotiations progress.
The Government has also made repeatedly clear that where necessary it will bring forward primary legislation to implement new free trade agreements, which will be debated and scrutinised by Parliament in the usual way.
Overall, I believe this approach strikes an appropriate balance. It respects the UK constitution, ensuring that the Government can negotiate in the best interests of the UK, while making sure that Parliament has the information it needs to effectively scrutinise and lend its expertise to trade policy.
The NHS is already protected by specific carve outs, exceptions and reservations in EU trade agreements and my Ministerial colleagues have no intention of lowering standards as these trade agreements are transitioned. The very purpose of these transitioned agreements is to replicate as close as possible the effects of existing commitments in EU agreements. None of the 20 continuity agreements signed have resulted in standards being lowered. The NHS will also be protected in any future trade agreement. The price the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table, and nor will the services the NHS provides.
With regard to food standards, the EU Withdrawal Act will transfer all existing EU food safety provisions onto the UK statute book. This includes current import requirements, which for example ban the use of artificial growth hormones in domestic and imported products, and stipulate that no products besides potable water are approved to decontaminate poultry carcases.
I hope this response has provided a measure of clarity and reassurance.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Julian Smith
Rt Hon Julian Smith CBE | Member of Parliament for Skipton and Ripon " |  |
| |
| Trade Bill on 00:32 - Jul 22 with 317 views | jeera |
| Trade Bill on 19:15 - Jul 21 by BanksterDebtSlave |
You think so....in a country that came within a gnats piss of a green/left/liberal alliance 2 elections ago....if the so called left intelligentsia had devoted a fraction of the energy arguing for such (i.e...a left leave option) as they did trying to rerun the referendum then who knows!!
But Jeremy Corbyn doesn't cut it with me! |
What would a 'left' option have looked like?
And what do you mean trying to rerun the election?
Corbyn didn't want to rerun the election, he conceded it may the only realistic way forwards as to appease the remainers in his party and those elsewhere who had made noises about changing their stance. |  |
| |
| Trade Bill on 06:54 - Jul 22 with 280 views | solomon |
| Trade Bill on 09:17 - Jul 21 by Swansea_Blue |
It was always about slashing regulation and not having to be accountable for the dodgy deals they wanted to do.
You won't get any Brexiteers now banging on about sovereignty, because they haven't been told to. There won't be a single mention on the front pages today of this move to circumvent much needed parliamentary scrutiny. |
With the 29 cabinet members being worth a combined £70 million it should come as no surprise that these people couldn’t care less.
It’s the same with the pandemic and it’s financial fall out, they won’t be affected in the same way as the rest of us so it’s not a problem for them.
In all truth , has it ever been any different? |  | | |
| Trade Bill on 07:44 - Jul 22 with 266 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Trade Bill on 00:32 - Jul 22 by jeera |
What would a 'left' option have looked like?
And what do you mean trying to rerun the election?
Corbyn didn't want to rerun the election, he conceded it may the only realistic way forwards as to appease the remainers in his party and those elsewhere who had made noises about changing their stance. |
I mean that in the years preceding the 2 elections the Labour Party should have been clearly committed to leaving rather than the middle class Starmer wing pushing for a rerun and deflecting from a positive message of matching environmental standards etc while maintaining its traditional Internationalist stance by supporting Varoufakis type efforts for fundamental reform of the EU. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
