As Ive discussed, since on January 1 the UK is no longer covered by the EU's WTO schedules, what that means is that a specific exemption which allowed the exception of "public utilities" which is understood to mean services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority within the European Union. The default understandig of what can be a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority is qite different. The EU claims that GATS does not require the privatization of public services, but that is a bit like saying it does not require the privatization of services that dont need to be privatized. Which is all that cant be public, by WTO law.

Lets look especially at the fact that the UK has committed financial services. Such as health insurance and other kinds of insurance.

What is a service? Almost everything that isnt a public service, that category is so small as to be almost nothing, it seems.

The scope of the GATS is very broad. In principle, it covers any measure, taken by any government, at any level, which affects the supply of a service.1

The GATS contains no broad exclusion for public services, for public service systems or their regulation, or for non-profit service providers or delivery
Except for Article I:3, the agreement contains no exclusion for public services, for public service delivery, or to protect governmental regulatory authority associated with public service systems.2 It also treats public and private service providers and delivery as "like".3 Similarly, the GATS treats private non-profit and private for-profit service providers and delivery identically.4
(see GATS and Public Service Systems, which I would like you all to read and discuss here, now. Thats youre not doing so is strange.

The GATS preamble provides little substantive protection
The preamble provides little substantial protection for governments' regulatory authority. In the preamble, Members have noted their recognition of "the right of Members to regulate, and to introduce new regulations, on the supply of services within their territories in order to meet national policy objectives..." However, this general, preambular language is non-binding and subordinate to the more specific, binding obligations that are contained in the text of the agreement itself.

GATS general exclusions are few and, except in one instance, limited
There are few general exceptions or exclusions to the agreement's broad coverage.

Among these are:

an exemption to protect "essential security interests" (Article XIVbis), which, uniquely, is self-defining and very broad,
other exceptions, each of which are subject to strict limitations. These include, for example, exemptions to "maintain public order" and to "protect human, animal or plant life or health" (Article XIV),
an exclusion for services that are supplied "in the exercise of governmental authority" (Article I:3).

The United Kingdom is one of the world's largest suppliers of financial services like insurance, including health insurance. It is not a free public service in the UK. UK's wealthy pay dearly for it.

This means that in the UK health insurance is supplied on a commercial basis. There are multiple competitors to the NHS, which was created in the immediate wake of World War II when the UK's ruling class was concerned of social unrest, as soldiers, many with serious injuries were returning home. The situation is much different now, 20 years after a treaty framework was created restricting countries from subsidizing services of general economic interest.. (commercial services as well as services requiring services guarantees, which are quite limited now due to WTO) . Its quite different than in Canada, and the difference is all important. Health insurance is only illegal in Canada because it was in 1995. Thats an awful lot of business lost for the financial services industry. Several hundred thousands of dollars per person in profits lost in Canada. The last figure I saw was more than $350000 per male and $400000 per female lost profits in Canada..

Once we joined the WTO in 1995, it became impossible for us to create something like Medicare in Canada. Since we forever promised (source: USTR) to have commercial health insurance here, unless we withdraw the relevant sector like we did with online gambling services in the past. In response to our loss in the WTO suit by Antigua-Barbuda against us. The terms we agreed to are still unknown. I think.

The WTO had awarded Antigua a right to ignore the US's IP law and sell patented ortrademarked products if they could - in the case of IP laike anti cancer medications significant technical barriers faced Antigua-Barbuda in manufacturing them, similar barriers would apply to COVID vaccines..

The United states is a large supplier of health insurance services. Its almost certainly our trade position that the UK has put obstacles in the way of our provision of healthcare services, by providing government subsidized healthcare, almost certainly. It makes no difference tht its saving the lives of Britons to have a free NHS National Health Service, we dont and hundreds of people die here in the US each day because poor people have such terrifyingly high costs and so many cannot afford healthcare. It has the effect of a genocide on the poor, these excess deaths amenable to health care. The other rich countries dont have all these deaths. Thats the term doctor friends of mine use "genocide".

As of the 1st the exemption due to the EU exemption for public utilities, has most certainly expired. What do they do now? I don't know but its going to have to be something thats consistent with the rules.

These jobs which are supposed to be shared equally among countries will mean that developing countries demand it.

So, expect something.

I recently saw their new proposal and I have been trying to trace/parse it out, bit by bit.

Its entitled
INF/SDR/2
26 November 2021
(21-8948)

JOINT INITIATIVE ON SERVICES DOMESTIC REGULATION
REFERENCE PAPER ON SERVICES DOMESTIC REGULATION

its on the WTO site.

Everybody here thinks nothing. But there is no way they can go on supplying free healthcare services legally under the GATS. For the same reason that we can't here. They signed a treaty promising not to.

In fact they wrote the rule that requires this. I was informed by a source in the know.

So it will be "interesting" to see what happens. Maybe the UK will apply to the WTO for a "carve-out" that includes the NHS and withdraws its very wide, sector commitments under the EU. That would be the thing to do but financial services in the UK and healthcare being such a large and costly sector, especially due to the war having ended in 1945, leading to a copulation boom by all accounts and a sudden surge in human reproduction. This means that withdrawing the relavant services will lead to a huge demand for compensation from countries who claim that they are being demied of jobs they are entitled to. They claim that countries like the UK and the US are putting red tape barriers in the way of their companies. The foreign countries claimed that the rich countries were using laws to put barriers in the way of their temporary service workers. Cheating them out of billions of dollars they were entitled to because of our GATS commitments..

This is the real reason for the staffing propaganda boom. To cover up the fact that we are intentionally giving away millions of currently well paid, important jobs.

Now do you see how they work?