Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Manoli on July 16, 2018, 02:53:18 am
-
They would have been more constructive protesting against Brexit
No, that would have been just as futile.
Always amused when I see the indelible footprint of the Leave side so adamantly asserting that any 'protest' is an exercise in futility.
As yet another MP and former cabinet minister, writing in The Times today, lends her support for a second referendum, it has become blindingly obvious that parliament will never reach a consensus. With the likelihood of rubber stamping any divorce agreement less and less feasible this question will, ultimately, be put to the people by way of a General Election - as it should have been from the outset.
As the FT recently reported - though Mr Corbyn himself is a closet Leaver, his Party isn't and his support base has shifted.
First, Momentum is facing an upswelling of anti-Brexit sentiment among its membership of largely younger, more urban, supporters. Its leading figures say they could force a vote among delegates at the September conference on whether there should be a “people’s vote” on the final Brexit deal.
Second, ahead of its conference this week, a poll of Unite members showed that 57 per cent supported a referendum on any divorce agreement. That desire for a second plebiscite looks set to get more formal union backing.
Third, there is the general mindset of Labour voters who are increasingly against Brexit. The latest YouGov poll tracker has those saying it is right to leave the EU on 21 per cent, and wrong to leave on 72 per cent.
In the final analysis, which way will Corbyn swing? With Downing Street the prize at the end of the tunnel, your guess should be as good as mine. What I'm not so sure about is whether Donald Trump will be as keen to hold Corbyn's hand as he is Theresa May's - either way, a Trump/Corbyn love-fest should prove 'entertaining'.
Justine Greening, july 16 2018
< Give the British people the final decision on Brexit >
I wanted the prime minister’s Chequers agreement to be a workable compromise. It is clear it is not. Leavers are right. Having read the detail, this deal is a fudge I can’t support. It’s the worst of both worlds. In places such as Rotherham, where I grew up, 68 per cent of people voted to Leave and I understand why. My friends and family were voting for long overdue change, but this deal won’t deliver that.
We’ll be dragging Remain voters out of the EU for a deal that means still complying with many EU rules, but now with no say on shaping them. It’s not what they want, and on top of that when they hear that Leave voters are unhappy, they ask, “What’s the point?” For Leavers, this deal simply does not deliver the proper break from the European Union that they wanted.
Parliament is stuck in a stalemate that risks a no-confidence vote and, worse, a Corbyn government, which would be disastrous for the economy. Yet Labour is just as divided on Brexit as the Conservative Party, because Brexit is an issue that cuts across traditional party lines.
Even with a free vote on the final deal in parliament, it still means that in every constituency — mine was mainly Remain — there will inevitably be people disenfranchised by their MP’s vote, despite Brexit shaping all our lives for decades to come. That’s unacceptable. The only solution is to take the final Brexit decision out of the hands of deadlocked politicians, away from the backroom deals, and give it back to the people.
This shouldn’t be a divisive, binary choice. Two years on, the practical Brexit options are now clear and the public should be asked to choose between the three paths facing our country: the PM’s final negotiated Brexit deal, staying in the EU, or a clean Brexit break and leaving with no deal. Crucially, the referendum should give the public a first and second preference vote, allowing a consensus finally to be found.
This is exactly how we deliver elected mayors across the country, who can command a consensus. It can work, it’s fair and it will finally deliver a clear voting majority on the way forward, a unique chance to settle the European question for a generation.
Whatever the path chosen by the British people, this great country of ours will always have the capacity to succeed, that is as much about unlocking everyone’s talents as anything else. It’s about delivering social mobility. But on Brexit, it’s clear we have a parliament in stalemate that can’t deliver a clear choice for the future. So it’s time to let the British public do it instead.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/give-the-british-people-the-final-decision-on-brexit-c35f98g89
-
There were always two fundamental problems with Brexit and the plebiscite:
1. Most of those who were in favour weren't going to have to deal with the consequences as long as most of the people who weren't in favour, and that was inherently unfair.
2. Those in favour never presented a viable plan as to how to do it, and still haven't.
All the other issues of politicians telling porkies and so on is just on top of those basic two problems which have brought us to the current, stalled non-process.
-
There are several problems with going it alone, not least that we would be tossing out our closest and largest customer. Any company doing that, or proposing to do that, would face a shareholder revolt and remove the head of its CEO in very short time.
For all the screams of Britishness etc, the reality is that the country depends on trade to pay everybody's bills, not accent.
Expecting to resign from the club yet retain all the perks, is like leaving the company yet expecting to retain your parking space in their lot.
As for the power in being a small, independent: the less muscle the sooner you crumble.
-
For all the screams of Britishness etc, the reality is that the country depends on trade to pay everybody's bills, not accent.
If ever a picture was worth more than a thousand words, Rob, I think the chart below makes your point.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/921/28551865977_6c0036612c.jpg)
In over 70 years of the last century, Britain has never managed such a prolonged or record period of prosperity as it has since EEC membership. The notion that we'll be 'more nimble and free to strike our own trade deals unencumbered by the shackles of the EU' is absurd.
-
Always amused when I see the indelible footprint of the Leave side so adamantly asserting that any 'protest' is an exercise in futility.
If by that you intend to imply that you know what my views on Brexit are, you simply do not know and should not presume to think that you do.
Jeremy
-
The Bexit is both a wonderful example of a country listening to its citizens and a dreadul demonstration that unfiltered democracy further encourages politicians to lie to the public to push their agenda in totally shameful ways.
The ultimate question is how we want to inspire our kids to lead tomorrow’s world.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Bexit is both a wonderful example of a country listening to its citizens and a dreadul demonstration that unfiltered democracy further encourages politicians to lie to the public to push their agenda in totally shameful ways.
The ultimate question is how we want to inspire our kids to lead tomorrow’s world.
Cheers,
Bernard
What I found odd about that entire exercise was that the approach taken by the leadership was one of partisan propaganda, as if it was just some normal election campaign. With a fundamental decision about a country's direction, I would want serious discussion from the various campaigners, not the usual sound bite nonsense. Actually, I would want access to people who did not have an axe to grind. But everything is so polarized now that the concept of national interest doesn't seem to have much meaning anymore. It's all about winning some horse race.
-
... 1. Most of those who were in favour weren't going to have to deal with the consequences as long as most of the people who weren't in favour, and that was inherently unfair...
Life is inherently unfair.
Are you suggesting that only young people should have the right to vote?
-
There never was a chance that there would be fair and even-handed discussion across the nation. There is simply no national forum to permit holding that debate; the closest would be a television programme, where the usual suspects would be invited in to provide their usual performance and repeat their customary mantras, totally predictable, and exactly why they were brought in to provide "balance".
What we have is the press, which rather than open debate pumps out propaganda, and as Mr Murdoch is so powerful in the media and readership not always too bright, you can guess where things are going to go.
Mr M lost a big newspaper through the unlawful tapping of private telephones, because the resulting fracas and enquiry ended in the paper closing down and employee heads rolling. Payback time came, I think, in the form of a reciprocal attack on the government at the first major opportunity. Guess where the papers in the M fold headed their support... Too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing, and I think the controls set up are perhaps less than rigorous in dealing with such situations. You have the same situation coming into play again in financial circles, where controls are being eased away, bit by bit, until we are slap bang ready for the next crash, just as if 2008 had never happened, it's warnings never expressed.
-
Life is inherently unfair.
Are you suggesting that only young people should have the right to vote?
Nope. You're right, that's the way of things. But that was still one of the fundamental issues.
-
As we watch season 3 of The Tunnel I wonder what happens with Brexit. Do they shut the tunnel down or endure excruciatingly long lines for passport control?
-
America's willing to help out our friends the Brits. But they'll have to be able to deal with us bilaterally. If they make a deal with the EU that disallows that, I don;t know how we could help then.
-
America's willing to help out our friends the Brits. But they'll have to be able to deal with us bilaterally. If they make a deal with the EU that disallows that, I don;t know how we could help then.
Now that's disrespectful. Why "help" when the problem is about trade, not some charity.
With the way the current US leaders conduct trade, it looks more like coercion and extortion than any sort of trade. If you don't come out on top, you throw sanctions.
Coming out on top is not what trade is supposed to be about: trade is supposed to be about mutual and fair exchanges of value. You can't ever achieve that when you prefer to use muscle over mutual exchanges of equal value. You create distortion by decree and sanctions, and not by the simple process of party A wanting to buy something from B, but party A being unable to produce anything much that B wants to buy from him in return. Hence, exchanges can be one-sided for all sorts of realistic and natural reasons. Dumping is something quite else.
The way existing agreements are being dismantled offers little sense of security any state may feel in striking a new agreement with the current version of US power.
-
The Electoral Commission has now confirmed that there was cheating by the Leave campaign & have handed the matter over to the police - criminal prosecutions could ensue (fingers crossed). It seems that those refusing a second referendum have to now decide whether they are on the side not of Leave or Remain, but democracy or not.
-
I still don't understand that such an important decision as leaving the EU could be made with 50% + 1 vote...
It should have been 66.66 % in favor to let it go through.
The almost 50-50 is part of the problems the UK is going through at the moment, whie Nigel farage is content that he produced chaos.
The only thing he can produce it seems.
I am afraid the UK will hurt itself badly.
-
As we watch season 3 of The Tunnel I wonder what happens with Brexit. Do they shut the tunnel down or endure excruciatingly long lines for passport control?
Such a good show and season 3 is a cracker!
-
I still don't understand that such an important decision as leaving the EU could be made with 50% + 1 vote...
It should have been 66.66 % in favor to let it go through.
The thing is, UK referenda are advisory only. The wording of the Bill is quite clear - Parliament cannot be bound by a referendum because Parliament is sovereign. Unfortunately, our PM at the time was particularly weak & incompetent & in hock to the right-wing xenophobes in his party (so no change there then) and promised that he would enact the 'will of the people' and honour the result, come what may. A bloody silly and irresponsible thing to do, but then he was a bloody silly & irresponsible man.
-
To make it worse, the lady has accepted four further dilutions of the "new proposals" for harmonious Brexit in order to keep her lunatic right silent or, at best, from unseating her.
My natural party-of-emotion embarrasses me these days.
A difficult time to be British.
:-(
-
I still don't understand that such an important decision as leaving the EU could be made with 50% + 1 vote...
It should have been 66.66 % in favor to let it go through.
The almost 50-50 is part of the problems the UK is going through at the moment, whie Nigel farage is content that he produced chaos.
The only thing he can produce it seems.
I am afraid the UK will hurt itself badly.
To hear those who want to leave tell it, the 16 million voters who wanted that are made out to appear as a 16 million majority above those who preferred the status quo, not as a total number. All in the telling...
-
A difficult time to be British.
Understandable, Rob. And being American ain't easy either. I'm damned embarrassed.
-
Now that's disrespectful. Why "help" when the problem is about trade, not some charity.
With the way the current US leaders conduct trade, it looks more like coercion and extortion than any sort of trade. If you don't come out on top, you throw sanctions.
Coming out on top is not what trade is supposed to be about: trade is supposed to be about mutual and fair exchanges of value. You can't ever achieve that when you prefer to use muscle over mutual exchanges of equal value. You create distortion by decree and sanctions, and not by the simple process of party A wanting to buy something from B, but party A being unable to produce anything much that B wants to buy from him in return. Hence, exchanges can be one-sided for all sorts of realistic and natural reasons. Dumping is something quite else.
The way existing agreements are being dismantled offers little sense of security any state may feel in striking a new agreement with the current version of US power.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful. Brexit was a British decision, not American.
Once out of the EU, you have to set up trade with all countries in the world including the US. We want to help. If you lower your tariffs to meet America's previous tariffs or we can make a deal to eliminate tariffs altogether between our two countries, you'll be more competitive than other European nations. You'll export more of your stuff to us and other countries in the world. We'll be able to export more to you as well. Overall trade between our two countries will increase, a positive relationship. That will help you be independent and successful after you leave the EU.
If you make a deal with the EU when you break off that prevents you from doing that, or decide to keep tariffs where they are now, Britain will just be hurting itself. We'll keep our tariffs higher to match yours. Of course the EU will try to squeeze you so you don;t lower your tariffs. They'll tell you you can;t export to other European countries unless you keep your tariffs the same as theirs on American and other countries's products. Of course, they want to sell their stuff to you as well. But if you keep your tariffs on our products, America will keep our tariffs on British products. It's your call.
Finally, we are not adding sanctions on you or others, only tariffs to match those that have been placed on America exports to you and others. For you to argue it's Ok for Britain to keep tariffs and we can't do the same is more burdensome to America. How is that "mutual and fair exchange" as you said we should have?
-
Once out of the EU, you have to set up trade with all countries in the world including the US. We want to help. If you lower your tariffs to meet America's previous tariffs or we can make a deal to eliminate tariffs altogether between our two countries, you'll be more competitive than other European nations. You'll export more of your stuff to us and other countries in the world. We'll be able to export more to you as well. Overall trade between our two countries will increase, a positive relationship. That will help you be independent and successful after you leave the EU.
What significant products does the US import from the UK vs what we import from the rest of the EU? Jaguar cars, Scottish plaids, some artisan food stuff but what else? UK has much more to lose in terms of screwing up their relationship with the EU than they do with setting up some kind of bilateral trade relationship with the US. the multi-national Brit-based companies are the ones in trouble if they have significant UK based manufacturing. I don't know whether Rolls Royce jet engines are made in the UK these days but if they are they might decide to shift manufacturing elsewhere.
-
I'm not trying to be disrespectful. Brexit was a British decision, not American.
Once out of the EU, you have to set up trade with all countries in the world including the US. We want to help. If you lower your tariffs to meet America's previous tariffs or we can make a deal to eliminate tariffs altogether between our two countries, you'll be more competitive than other European nations. You'll export more of your stuff to us and other countries in the world. We'll be able to export more to you as well. Overall trade between our two countries will increase, a positive relationship. That will help you be independent and successful after you leave the EU.
If you make a deal with the EU when you break off that prevents you from doing that, or decide to keep tariffs where they are now, Britain will just be hurting itself. We'll keep our tariffs higher to match yours. Of course the EU will try to squeeze you so you don;t lower your tariffs. They'll tell you you can;t export to other European countries unless you keep your tariffs the same as theirs on American and other countries's products. Of course, they want to sell their stuff to you as well. But if you keep your tariffs on our products, America will keep our tariffs on British products. It's your call.
Finally, we are not adding sanctions on you or others, only tariffs to match those that have been placed on America exports to you and others. For you to argue it's Ok for Britain to keep tariffs and we can't do the same is more burdensome to America. How is that "mutual and fair exchange" as you said we should have?
Re. your last paragraph: Europe is currently hitting back at the US for its unilateral decision (via Trump) to hit with sanctions all nations that do not agree with its decision to quit the Iranian Nuclear Agreement, and wish to continue trading and safeguarding the billions those lands have invested in Iran since the signing of the deal. Is that because Mr T is angry he hadn't had as much luck there? Does he feel he is entitled to break any agreement he feels like, and compel the rest of us to join him in his hissy-fit?
Putting media pressure on the UK to pursue the suicidal Brexit action, on top of that, smacks not a lot of friendly interest. That is apart from being most undiplomatic, and apologising later does not change anything; he reveals his lack of diplomatic savoir faire all the time. If not that, then he is an unapologetic, undisguised bully. He can't poke his nose where he had no right to poke it, and then think that kissing something better fixes it, and makes his push for headlines acceptable behaviour. The guy is your liability, like that fact or not. Yesterday's results with Mr Putin, the remarks about the respective security services, comes pretty close to treason, in my book.
-
What significant products does the US import from the UK vs what we import from the rest of the EU? Jaguar cars, Scottish plaids, some artisan food stuff but what else? UK has much more to lose in terms of screwing up their relationship with the EU than they do with setting up some kind of bilateral trade relationship with the US. the multi-national Brit-based companies are the ones in trouble if they have significant UK based manufacturing. I don't know whether Rolls Royce jet engines are made in the UK these days but if they are they might decide to shift manufacturing elsewhere.
More than fair comment!
Regarding the engines, they were when I served my time with them!
The car business, however, is something very else. Jaguar, I think, is still Indian-owned; Ford is US-owned and the major Japanese presence is there because of the straightforward customs freedoms we currently enjoy for those products, during and post-assembly, to travel. Remove those goodies and why remain, when most other European countries also share a heritage of auto-manufacturing expertise and possibly lower wages?
One strong incentive for maintaining a U.K. presence is the relative steadiness of its financial and legal regulations, relative distance between laws and government interference (RIP US Supreme Court! And in Turkey, too!) and the long-established access to worldwide finance through London.
Yet, the financial services industry is but another, vital one that is being hung out to dry by the Brexit nonsense.
-
What significant products does the US import from the UK vs what we import from the rest of the EU? Jaguar cars, Scottish plaids, some artisan food stuff but what else? UK has much more to lose in terms of screwing up their relationship with the EU than they do with setting up some kind of bilateral trade relationship with the US. the multi-national Brit-based companies are the ones in trouble if they have significant UK based manufacturing. I don't know whether Rolls Royce jet engines are made in the UK these days but if they are they might decide to shift manufacturing elsewhere.
If Britain continues to impose tariffs on our products like the rest of Europe, then we will continue to impose tariffs on British as well as EU goods. It Britain's call. That's what Trump said in the end. The quicker the EU decides to drop their tariffs, the quicker this whole issue will be behind us and overall trade will expand.
-
Re. your last paragraph: Europe is currently hitting back at the US for its unilateral decision (via Trump) to hit with sanctions all nations that do not agree with its decision to quit the Iranian Nuclear Agreement, and wish to continue trading and safeguarding the billions those lands have invested in Iran since the signing of the deal. Is that because Mr T is angry he hadn't had as much luck there? Does he feel he is entitled to break any agreement he feels like, and compel the rest of us to join him in his hissy-fit?
Putting media pressure on the UK to pursue the suicidal Brexit action, on top of that, smacks not a lot of friendly interest. That is apart from being most undiplomatic, and apologising later does not change anything; he reveals his lack of diplomatic savoir faire all the time. If not that, then he is an unapologetic, undisguised bully. He can't poke his nose where he had no right to poke it, and then think that kissing something better fixes it, and makes his push for headlines acceptable behaviour. The guy is your liability, like that fact or not. Yesterday's results with Mr Putin, the remarks about the respective security services, comes pretty close to treason, in my book.
I agree Trump is boorish. However, he's defending American interests, something past Presidents failed at doing much of the time. If you look at the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, I don't think they were in American or the world's interest. He's trying to make peace with NK and Russia. That would be good for you as well as us. Would you prefer war? Also, I don't appreciate you calling our president "treasonous." You talk about Trump being impolite and then use a term like that because you don't like Trump or his policies.
Regarding Iran, Trump isn't having a hissy fit. The people who voted him into office didn't like the Iran deal. He ran on pulling out. So he followed through with his campaign promise. That's how democracy works. Elections have consequences. It's like the people arguing that Brexit isn't right. It's just sour grapes. You lost.
Obama never got American consensus on the Iran deal. He unilaterally did it without Senate approval which is required by our Constitution. Had the Senate approved it as a treaty, Trump could not unilaterally pull out of the deal. All European companies care about is money. They expected Hillary to win. She would have kept the Iran deal. So they calculated wrong and now have to suffer the consequences. They made bad business decisions. But sanctions on Iran and companies that do business with them have nothing to do with tariffs. It's a separate issue.
-
If Britain continues to impose tariffs on our products like the rest of Europe, then we will continue to impose tariffs on British as well as EU goods. It Britain's call. That's what Trump said in the end. The quicker the EU decides to drop their tariffs, the quicker this whole issue will be behind us and overall trade will expand.
I think you forget it is the US that started imposing tariffs , against the WTO rules, and the reactions of all the nations involved were just to impose the same amount back.
That's what Trump said in the end.
is there an end coming to this Trump nonsense ! great!
-
I think you forget it is the US that started imposing tariffs , against the WTO rules, and the reactions of all the nations involved were just to impose the same amount back...
Excuse me. You have the facts wrong. The EU charges 10% on American cars while we charge a tariff of 2 1/2%. That's only one example. We are just raising our tariffs to meet yours. Frankly, Trump doesn't want any tariffs at all. All sides should just drop them. Then we all can have free and fair trade. Why are you against free and fair trade?
-
The EU charges 10% on American cars while we charge a tariff of 2 1/2%.
The United States imposes a 25 percent tariff on imports of light trucks.
-
The United States imposes a 25 percent tariff on imports of light trucks.
Let's drop all tariffs including those and have complete fair and free trade. Would you agree to that?
-
What significant products does the US import from the UK ...some artisan food stuff...
There is any food stuff worth importing from the UK!? Now, that would be the utmost sacrifice, but anything for our friends ;)
-
The United States imposes a 25 percent tariff on imports of light trucks.
And what is the European tariff on light trucks? And ratio of car trade vs. light truck trade?
-
If Britain continues to impose tariffs on our products like the rest of Europe, then we will continue to impose tariffs on British as well as EU goods. It Britain's call. That's what Trump said in the end. The quicker the EU decides to drop their tariffs, the quicker this whole issue will be behind us and overall trade will expand.
The US continues to employ unfair trade practices that benefit certain US products. Until we start dropping things such as sugar quotas that prop up an unprofitable industry we should not cast aspersions on other countries practices.
-
There is any food stuff worth importing from the UK!? Now, that would be the utmost sacrifice, but anything for our friends ;)
Thanks. But I'll continue to eat American beef. :)
-
The US continues to employ unfair trade practices that benefit certain US products. Until we start dropping things such as sugar quotas that prop up an unprofitable industry we should not cast aspersions on other countries practices.
If our competitors feel that's an issue, OK. Let's discuss those things in the tariff negotiations. But foreign countries will not go to the table to discuss anything until our rising tariffs force them too. Then we will make progress. Trump's on the right path.
-
Brexit was a British decision, not American.
True, but an outcome shamefully encouraged by a US President with a vested interest in breaking up an economic union out of nothing more than 'pique' .
India and China immediately rebuffed May and her entourage when, soon after the vote, they anxiously went searching for 'alternative' trading partners. The world had just got somewhat smaller, and the news today, that Japan has now signed a free-trade deal with the EU, following on from the Canadian one hasn't brightened British prospects and certainly hasn't dimmed European ones. Expect China to follow shortly.
-
Let's drop all tariffs including those and have complete fair and free trade.
Pretty much what was being discussed with Obama prior to the US election.
You tell me why your President nuked the negotiation.
-
Pretty much what was being discussed with Obama prior to the US election.
You tell me why your President nuked the negotiation.
Obama wasn't getting any anywheres. Which reminds me of the joke:
It seems a farmer was complaining to a friend about the trouble he was having in getting his stubborn mule to move. After listening to the farmer's complaint, the friend said he knew just what to do.
"Get a two-by-four board and whack the mule across the head with all your might," advised the friend. The farmer was taken aback. "But how will that get him to move?" asked the farmer. "Well, you see," the friend said, "first you've got to get his attention!"
-
I agree Trump is boorish. However, he's defending American interests, something past Presidents failed at doing much of the time. If you look at the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, I don't think they were in American or the world's interest. He's trying to make peace with NK and Russia. That would be good for you as well as us. Would you prefer war? 1. Also, I don't appreciate you calling our president "treasonous." You talk about Trump being impolite and then use a term like that because you don't like Trump or his policies.
Regarding Iran, Trump isn't having a hissy fit. The people who voted him into office didn't like the Iran deal. He ran on pulling out. So he followed through with his campaign promise. That's how democracy works. Elections have consequences. 2. It's like the people arguing that Brexit isn't right. It's just sour grapes. You lost.
Obama never got American consensus on the Iran deal. He unilaterally did it without Senate approval which is required by our Constitution. Had the Senate approved it as a treaty, Trump could not unilaterally pull out of the deal. All European companies care about is money. They expected Hillary to win. She would have kept the Iran deal. So they calculated wrong and now have to suffer the consequences. They made bad business decisions. But sanctions on Iran and companies that do business with them have nothing to do with tariffs. It's a separate issue.
1. If you go in front of the world and declare that you trust the other side's intelligence powers more than your own, can you think of another word for it than treason?
Of course, the great man is now telling the same public it was "just a slip of the tongue, and should have read..." then goes on to spout yet more gibberish during the "apology/correcton", of what he himself said on camera. And still you can't bring yourself to see him as your national liability!
2. Brexit isn't right becaue it was never debated; it was simply lied about by the lunatic right which, I'm sure you know by now from domestic experience, does not live only in some far-away European countries. Those fibs were designed to make the innocent think their jobs would be safe, and that the health services would be immensely more rich and, thus, capable. The fact that such a lot of emphasis was put on the damage Brexit would do the finacial sector was but added grist to the envy factor, and the desire to see the rich "punished" for being smarter than the rest of us. That many British people also want the possibility of unencumbered job-seeking within Europe (it was never a one-directional flow) is also, if realised as even existing, easily put down as just another elitist perk at the expense of the poor old huddled masses.
So those "poor olds" now face losing much of what they thought was ringfenced by their belief in imaginary, uniquely British manufacturing skills! As mentioned elsewhere, those jobs were within Britain because being within the EU made them commercially viable, with the advantage or existing within a relatively safe fiscal/legal jurisdiction. Remove commercial vaibility and it all vanishes in a puff of smoke.
-
1. If you go in front of the world and declare that you trust the other side's intelligence powers more than your own, can you think of another word for it than treason?
Of course, the great man is now telling the same public it was "just a slip of the tongue, and should have read..." then goes on to spout yet more gibberish during the "apology/correcton", of what he himself said on camera. And still you can't bring yourself to see him as your national liability!
2. Brexit isn't right becaue it was never debated; it was simply lied about by the lunatic right which, I'm sure you know by now from domestic experience, does not live only in some far-away European countries. Those fibs were designed to make the innocent think their jobs would be safe, and that the health services would be immensely more rich and, thus, capable. The fact that such a lot of emphasis was put on the damage Brexit would do the finacial sector was but added grist to the envy factor, and the desire to see the rich "punished" for being smarter than the rest of us. That many British people also want the possibility of unencumbered job-seeking within Europe (it was never a one-directional flow) is also, if realised as even existing, easily put down as just another elitist perk at the expense of the poor old huddled masses.
So those "poor olds" now face losing much of what they thought was ringfenced by their belief in imaginary, uniquely British manufacturing skills! As mentioned elsewhere, those jobs were within Britain because being within the EU made them commercially viable, with the advantage or existing within a relatively safe fiscal/legal jurisdiction. Remove commercial viability and it all vanishes in a puff of smoke.
1. Rob, it's just not right repeating the American left's tirade in calling our president a traitor. You're not American, didn't vote here, and it's a fighting term, no business being used. You're joining the crazy left and liberal press who want to get rid of Trump, something they couldn't do in the election. Is Merkel a German traitor because she's becoming indebted to Russia for that pipeline? How will Germany respond when Putin demands certain things or he'll shut off the switch to the pipe? She's jeopardizing German independence against Russia. Was Pres Nixon a traitor for opening up America to the Communist Chinese. Is May a traitor because of Brexit? Is Trump a traitor for hugging NK Communist dictator Kim who wants to bomb us with nuclear bombs? Trump wants to make nice with the Russians for many legitimate reasons. It's Ok for people to disagree with his policies. But in America, we use to wait until the elections to change leadership or parties. Resorting to impeachment is dangerous. Calling the president traitor just to justify a phony impeachment is a dangerous escalation for political power. It could mean that we'll devolve into changing leadership by fiat rather than the ballot box. I see it happening. If they get a majority in Congress, the democrats will "pack the Supreme Court" to get more liberal judges on it like Democrat Pres Roosevelt tried to do last century. If the Dems gain the House of Representatives in the fall, they will impeach. The election will be thrown away and 60 million Americans who voted for Trump will be disenfranchised.
2. I could think of good and bad things for and against Brexit. But the Brits have to decide where to go with it. As far as "fake news" about the push for Brexit, yes the same thing happens here. However, since 90% of the media is against Trump and has always been liberal and Democrat biased, it's always been difficult for conservative and Republican viewpoints.
"Americans' perceptions of news media bias have increased significantly over the past generation. Thirty-two percent believe the news media are careful to separate fact from opinion, well below the 58% who held this view in 1984. Meanwhile, 66% currently agree that most news media do not do a good job of letting people know what is fact and what is opinion, up from 42%."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/225755/americans-news-bias-name-neutral-source.aspx (https://news.gallup.com/poll/225755/americans-news-bias-name-neutral-source.aspx)
-
Time to stop blaming the media for everything, and concentrating again on what the guy actually said, on worldwide television. Base conclusions on that, not on your unlimited capability of looking the other way, or to apologise in some other manner for what is, sadly, the reality of what's going down in this world.
There are no ifs and buts, and your other conflated comparisons are totally spurious, as I hope you really, privately already know.
As mentioned before, Britain has no open forum where Brexit could have been discussed and evaluated clinically. All it has is print/tv media, much foreign-owned with all that that implies, and the barrages of tweets and assorted "like" spaces that have replaced conversation with sign language in order to accommodate the needs of the inarticulate.
-
Time to stop blaming the media for everything, and concentrating again on what the guy actually said, on worldwide television. Base conclusions on that, not on your unlimited capability of looking the other way, or to apologise in some other manner for what is, sadly, the reality of what's going down in this world.
Rob hit the ball right out of the park (or the soccer ball right in the goal) with this statement. The problem with President Trump is that he has put so much into the public record that he really appears not to know too much other than to give a good campaign rally speech. People complain about all the fact checking that is going on right now and accusing the media of bias. Isn't one of the principal jobs of the media and its readers to detect what is true? President Trump is my president though I did not vote for him and we will see how things play out with the Mueller investigation and the upcoming elections. Maybe he completes his term in office and maybe not but my simple expectation is for him to be consistent and either lie all the time or tell the truth all the time. Right now we just have a hodgepodge of truths, misstatements and out right falsehoods. this is inappropriate behavior of our President and going back to Eisenhower, I have never seen a President who so callously plays fast and loose with the facts. It's up to him to render the fact checker's job useless.
-
... Yesterday's results with Mr Putin, the remarks about the respective security services, comes pretty close to treason, in my book.
There is a difference what some people might think is treason, or even what late-night comedians find funny ("beyond treasonable doubt" - funny indeed), and what the legal reality is.
In my book, expressing an opinion, as Trump did, even as ever so clumsily and by confusing a double negative, is just that, an opinion, not a treason.
Even the alleged collusion, still unproven in the second year of investigation, would not be a treasonous event. Don't believe me? Here is what a Democrat, and a constitutional scholar, Alan Dershowitz has to say on the issue (not all agree with him, of course, but his opinion does carry a certain weight):
https://www.newsweek.com/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-impeachment-1012672
Notable excerpts (bold mine):
If there were proof of such collusion—and to date I have seen none—that would be a serious political sin. An American should not collude with a foreign power, especially a hostile foreign power, in an effort to enhance his candidacy. But there is a dispositive difference between a political sin and a high crime and misdemeanor. There is no such crime of collusion in the context of an election. Collusion may entail other crimes, such as election law violations or accessory to crimes such as hacking. But collusion itself is simply not a crime.
Consider the most extreme hypothetical: Assume, absurdly, that candidate Trump called Vladimir Putin and said the following: “Hey, Vlad. Do I have a deal for you? I want to be elected president, and you want to get rid of the Magnitsky sanctions, which I don’t like anyway. You should help me get elected by giving me dirt you already have on Hillary Clinton because, if I’m elected, there’s a better chance to get rid of the sanctions, which I disapprove of.”
Of course, no such conversation occurred, and no such deal was made. But if it had been, one can search the federal criminal statutes for a crime that would cover this political sin. Politicians often seek contributions and support from individuals who expect to benefit from the election of their candidate. There are, of course, limitations on what a foreign government can contribute to a campaign, but these limitations are vague and subject to constitutional scrutiny, especially in the context of information rather than cash.
The article contains more interesting examples and comments, and I urge you to read it.
-
Brexit isn't right because it was never debated; it was simply lied about...
Rob, I understand your personal pain caused by the Brexit. Still...
Brexit was debated ad nauseam. Except that one side lost the debate. Lies? But of course, what else is new under the sun and in politics? If one side lied, the appropriate response is either to expose it clearly as lies, or provide a better counter-lie. That is politics, that is democracy, for better or worse. People listen to both sides and ultimately decide which lie or truth to believe. Not to mention their own beliefs, correct or misguided as it might be, but theirs nevertheless.
Complaining that the other side lied better is just sour grapes.
-
Even the alleged collusion, still unproven in the second year of investigation, would not be a treasonous event. Don't believe me? Here is what a Democrat, and a constitutional scholar, Alan Dershowitz has to say on the issue (not all agree with him, of course, but his opinion does carry a certain weight):
https://www.newsweek.com/alan-dershowitz-donald-trump-impeachment-1012672
Notable excerpts (bold mine):
The article contains more interesting examples and comments, and I urge you to read it.
I've read Dershowitz and at this point agree with him. The only bizarre statement that then Candidate Trump made was urging Russia to get the undiscovered Clinton emails and as we have now found out some of the hacking activities began the next day. This is likely coincidence. I think that some of Trump's advisors and his son, Donald, Jr., are the ones that are most likely in legal peril as a result of the investigations.
-
Time to stop blaming the media for everything, and concentrating again on what the guy actually said, on worldwide television. Base conclusions on that, not on your unlimited capability of looking the other way, or to apologise in some other manner for what is, sadly, the reality of what's going down in this world.
There are no ifs and buts, and your other conflated comparisons are totally spurious, as I hope you really, privately already know.
As mentioned before, Britain has no open forum where Brexit could have been discussed and evaluated clinically. All it has is print/tv media, much foreign-owned with all that that implies, and the barrages of tweets and assorted "like" spaces that have replaced conversation with sign language in order to accommodate the needs of the inarticulate.
You know the founders of our Republic, when they wrote the US Constitution, were equally concerned about the ignorance and power of the dumb public. So they set it up with electors and that you had to own property to vote. Men only could vote. Who needed emotional women? (Boy am I in trouble now.) :)
-
I've read Dershowitz and at this point agree with him. The only bizarre statement that then Candidate Trump made was urging Russia to get the undiscovered Clinton emails and as we have now found out some of the hacking activities began the next day. This is likely coincidence...
See? We CAN agree... sometimes. :)
-
See? We CAN agree... sometimes. :)
You have no idea how immense my anger is at Clinton and the Democratic Party apparatchiks who ended up selecting her. I had to hold my nose very hard on election day, though in Maryland I could have voted for anyone and it would not have mattered. :)
-
Rob hit the ball right out of the park (or the soccer ball right in the goal) with this statement. The problem with President Trump is that he has put so much into the public record that he really appears not to know too much other than to give a good campaign rally speech. People complain about all the fact checking that is going on right now and accusing the media of bias. Isn't one of the principal jobs of the media and its readers to detect what is true? President Trump is my president though I did not vote for him and we will see how things play out with the Mueller investigation and the upcoming elections. Maybe he completes his term in office and maybe not but my simple expectation is for him to be consistent and either lie all the time or tell the truth all the time. Right now we just have a hodgepodge of truths, misstatements and out right falsehoods. this is inappropriate behavior of our President and going back to Eisenhower, I have never seen a President who so callously plays fast and loose with the facts. It's up to him to render the fact checker's job useless.
It's true that Trump the ultimate marketeer plays fast and loose with the truth to make his point and get his way. But he's kept faith with his supporters. Unlike many politicians who say one thing and do another, he's followed through on his campaign promises to them as best he could.
He said before the election that he wanted a reset with Putin and Russia. So that's what he's doing. If it wasn't for the phony collusion charges, he would have been meeting with Putin last year and moving our relationship along a lot earlier. Sure the Russians should not have hacked the DNC servers. Hopefully, the Russians will stop messing around in the upcoming midterms in November. I hope Trump told him so in private. But we have more important fish to fry with the Russians -Syria, Ukraine, Iran, nukes, NK, China, etc. We have to get on with it but domestic politics has been preventing Trump from doing it. We're only hurting ourselves.
-
I've read Dershowitz and at this point agree with him. The only bizarre statement that then Candidate Trump made was urging Russia to get the undiscovered Clinton emails and as we have now found out some of the hacking activities began the next day. This is likely coincidence. I think that some of Trump's advisors and his son, Donald, Jr., are the ones that are most likely in legal peril as a result of the investigations.
It wasn't a bizarre statement. I would have said the same thing. Remember the original email release showed that the Democrat National Committee and Hillary secretly conspired against her competitor Senator Sanders, another Democrat. That was really publicly embarrassing for the DNC and Clinton. So naturally, Trump the paramount competitor, would say something like, let's get all the dirt out, Russians. But wishing for something and hoping for it, especially publically, is not a conspiracy when you have no direct relationship with the other party. Frankly, I wish the Russians were able to get it out. Then we may have known what conniving she did with her Clinton Initiative slush fund.
-
You have no idea how immense my anger is at Clinton and the Democratic Party apparatchiks who ended up selecting her. I had to hold my nose very hard on election day, though in Maryland I could have voted for anyone and it would not have mattered. :)
Hillary learned her lesson in 2008 when she lost the nomination to newcomer Obama. He collected the apparatchiks, the super delegates, before she could and won the nomination. In 2016, she wasn't going to make that mistake again. Then to sow up the npmination deal, she got her buddy, Florida Congresswoman and DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to get her the DNC money and other support and to marginalize Sanders. It appears the Democrat Party was not so democratic. That's what Putin was alluding to at the news conference. It must have reminded him of being home.
-
It's true that Trump the ultimate marketeer plays fast and loose with the truth to make his point and get his way. But he's kept faith with his supporters. Unlike many politicians who say one thing and do another, he's followed through on his campaign promises to them as best he could.
He said before the election that he wanted a reset with Putin and Russia. So that's what he's doing. If it wasn't for the phony collusion charges, he would have been meeting with Putin last year and moving our relationship along a lot earlier. Sure the Russians should not have hacked the DNC servers. Hopefully, the Russians will stop messing around in the upcoming midterms in November. I hope Trump told him so in private. But we have more important fish to fry with the Russians -Syria, Ukraine, Iran, nukes, NK, China, etc. We have to get on with it but domestic politics has been preventing Trump from doing it. We're only hurting ourselves.
Alan, which Trump do you agree with? The one who said all those things at the Putin press conference, or the one who backtracked later.
-
Alan, which Trump do you agree with? The one who said all those things at the Putin press conference, or the one who backtracked later.
I think backing up the indictment of the Russians is better. Now let's get on with a relationship with Putin.
We're going to need them to assure the NK that their security is secure and to remove the NK nukes if we can settle with Kim. We need Russian divisions on the China Russia border to help keep China in check in the future. We need to reduce the number of nukes in our countries. We need to lower the tension on the European Russian border due to NATO activities. We need to let the Russians know we're not their enemy so they don't feel it necessary to expand into eastern Europe to protect their borders.
These things should have been discussed a year ago. Now we have to get on with it.
-
It's true that Trump the ultimate marketeer plays fast and loose with the truth to make his point and get his way. But he's kept faith with his supporters. Unlike many politicians who say one thing and do another, he's followed through on his campaign promises to them as best he could.
How many coal miners has he put back to work? How many factories has he reopened? I don't think he has managed to do much of anything other than to sign the tax reform bill and try to eliminate some environmental regulations (the only ones that they have undone were the easy ones that were promulgated by Obama late in the second term; the rest of the work they are doing has to go through notice and comment rulemaking and probably litigation). Not an especially great track record IMO.
-
How many coal miners has he put back to work? How many factories has he reopened? I don't think he has managed to do much of anything other than to sign the tax reform bill and try to eliminate some environmental regulations (the only ones that they have undone were the easy ones that were promulgated by Obama late in the second term; the rest of the work they are doing has to go through notice and comment rulemaking and probably litigation). Not an especially great track record IMO.
Hillary wrote these people off as deplorables. Trump is at least trying. He eliminated at lot of regulation on coal which is helping the industry expand. He pulled out of Paris giving a boost to the coal industry. There's more coal exports. Coal production is up 10% over last year. The economy is better. GDP % is the highest it's been in a long time. Stock market is up 35%. More people are employed in 40 years including blacks at the highest level ever. Company's profits are way up. They can't find enough workers. Tax legislation was completed helping the lower middle class. If you were a coal miner, would you prefer Hillary or Trump?
Some statistics regarding manufacturing:
"Employment in manufacturing continued to grow in June (+36,000).
Over the year, the industry has added 285,000 jobs, for a 2.3-percent
increase. The last time this industry experienced this pace of growth
occurred in February 1995 (+2.4 percent).
"
I can't find labor statistioc for coal miners specifically, but here are statistics for mining in general, probably mostly oil. So maybe coal miners are switching to oil??
"Employment in mining continued its upward trend in June (+5,000). Support activities for mining contributed 4,000 jobs to the gain. So far in 2018, mining has added 40,000 jobs, with 76 percent (+31,000) coming from support activities for mining. The recent job gains are consistent with increasing numbers of domestic oil rigs , up 1.3 percent between May and June. "
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf
-
Re-examing the statistics I posted, Trump isn't just trying. He's actually made substantial gains across the board.
-
1. If you go in front of the world and declare that you trust the other side's intelligence powers more than your own, can you think of another word for it than treason?
Yes, Rob, it's an opinion. It may be a silly opinion, or a perverse one, but that's all it is. It's not a betrayal of the country, unless you conflate the intelligence services with the nation.
Jeremy
-
Yes, Rob, it's an opinion. It may be a silly opinion, or a perverse one, but that's all it is. It's not a betrayal of the country, unless you conflate the intelligence services with the nation.
Unless you end up making policy decisions against the clear advice and evidence of your intelligence services and instead favour said other nation to the detriment of your own nation. Then there may be a case. Trump hasn't done that. Yet.
-
Unless you end up making policy decisions against the clear advice and evidence of your intelligence services and instead favour said other nation to the detriment of your own nation. Then there may be a case. Trump hasn't done that. Yet.
You mean like taking the advice of our intelligence agencies that got us into wars in Iraq and Vietnam with 65000 Americans killed? How about when our CIA got the Shah into power by supporting a coup in Iran causing major issues between our two countries ever since including the hostage crisis that lasted 444 days and lost President Carter his re-election. The CIA advised Kennedy to support the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Castro's Cuba that caused the Soviets to install nuclear missiles in Cuba to protect them which almost caused WWIII. Kennedy also allowed the CIA to support a coup in South Vietnam that got President Diem assassinated. His wife laughed when Kennedy was subsequently assassinated a year or so later. It was the CIA who water-boarded those nice fellows in the Middle East who wanted to blow us up and hurt America's reputation for fair play.
Sure the CIA has had successes. But with the black record described above, a president would be foolish not taking his own counsel. Trump wants to establish good relations with Russia just as he did with the dictators of North Korea and China. If he could hug KIm and share dessert with Xi in Mar-a-Lago, certainly having a good relationship with Putin is the thing to do. That would be to America's and the world's benefit if we can keep hostilities on the back burner. The whole reason with calling Trump "traitor" is to give credibility to Democrats who can then vote for impeachment with little criticism should they take over the House of Representatives. It's something we should not do and will cause terrible results for America in the future.
-
Unless you end up making policy decisions against the clear advice and evidence of your intelligence services and instead favour said other nation to the detriment of your own nation. Then there may be a case. Trump hasn't done that. Yet.
It is the President’s prerogative to take or not advice from those around him. To add to Alan’s examples, google “Operation Northwoods.” Should the then-President’s decision to shelve that advice be considered as a favor to Cuba, thus treasonous?
-
The whole reason with calling Trump "traitor" is to give credibility to Democrats who can then vote for impeachment with little criticism should they take over the House of Representatives. It's something we should not do and will cause terrible results for America in the future.
Unfortunately, there are no norms in national politics any longer and both parties are to blame. They keep trying to one up one another rather than looking after the best interests of the country. I can remember the days when there was a lot of bi-partisanship and stuff got done. these days Congress cannot even pass an appropriations bill on time. It's all pretty pathetic.
-
It is the President’s prerogative to take or not advice from those around him. To add to Alan’s examples, google “Operation Northwoods.” Should the then-President’s decision to shelve that advice be considered as a favor to Cuba, thus treasonous?
I read the Wiki article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
What's interesting is how the American military chiefs and CIA who recommended the plan that Kennedy rejected felt that the president had gone soft on Cuba. Sounds like what we're hearing from them saying Trump is soft on Russia. Frankly, they're part of the dark state that Trump is fighting. They think they're smarter than everyone and they're the ones who have caused all kinds of problems for America. Kennedy was smart ignoring them. I think Trump is doing the right thing with Russia and should ignore them too.
-
Unfortunately, there are no norms in national politics any longer and both parties are to blame. They keep trying to one up one another rather than looking after the best interests of the country. I can remember the days when there was a lot of bi-partisanship and stuff got done. these days Congress cannot even pass an appropriations bill on time. It's all pretty pathetic.
I agree. There's no comity. It's all a zero sum game today. I remember when Democrat Tip O'Neal the Irish Speaker of the House would sit down with Republican President Reagan and have a few good laughs. Sure they were in opposing parties. But they knew they had to compromise to get things done and worked things out. As recently as 15 years ago, Kagan, an ultra liberal was voted as a justice of the supreme court 95-0. Both sides of the aisle. Now we had to do away with the filibuster rule to get Gorsuch appointed by a one or two vote majority. Obamacare was voted for only by Democrats. And only Republicans voted for the tax reform. There may have been two Dems from Red states that voted for it. But the situation is dire.
-
Yes, Rob, it's an opinion. It may be a silly opinion, or a perverse one, but that's all it is. It's not a betrayal of the country, unless you conflate the intelligence services with the nation.
Jeremy
On one level that may well be true, but the difference between my opinion, yours and Mr T's opinion is that his matters right across the world, and what gets said gets remembered, stored away and available to be used for whatever purposes, propaganda included, later on at the most inconvenient times.
To me, that is indeed betrayal of the better interests of the country you are supposed to be leading, hand across beating heart, all flags aflutter.
Rob
-
Rob, I understand your personal pain caused by the Brexit. Still...
Brexit was debated ad nauseam. Except that one side lost the debate. Lies? But of course, what else is new under the sun and in politics? If one side lied, the appropriate response is either to expose it clearly as lies, or provide a better counter-lie. That is politics, that is democracy, for better or worse. People listen to both sides and ultimately decide which lie or truth to believe. Not to mention their own beliefs, correct or misguided as it might be, but theirs nevertheless.
Complaining that the other side lied better is just sour grapes.
I have to disagree, Slobodan: there was no debate other than countless media claims and counter-claims, which do not constitute debate. Who sat down, representing enough people to count as a nation, to talk about the situation and what it could really mean to Britain? Nobody. You got an endless array of self-seekers smelling the opportunity to be top dogs in some new world power situation. One-item agenda parties appeared, told their lies and instantly admitted to being "mistaken" the moment the result was in. Absolution, right? We didn't mean it!
You can not call what went on prior to that referendum a debate. As I said, there is no forum in the land for it to happen, and that includes Parliament, where only those in whom power is already vested have voice.
The best anyone could have hoped for was a fresh general election, with a detailed manifesto explaining what reality looks like in the mind of each party standing. Then, whichever way that lousy cookie crumbled, at least it would have had basis in democratic process.
Grapes, sour or sweet, have nothing to do with it. At best, the result was so close as to be indecisive. Of course, as I said before, the only figure that gets mentioned is the 16 million that voted quit, always with the intention of having people imagine it to mean a majority of 16 million, when it was no such thing.
-
On one level that may well be true, but the difference between my opinion, yours and Mr T's opinion is that his matters right across the world, and what gets said gets remembered, stored away and available to be used for whatever purposes, propaganda included, later on at the most inconvenient times.
To me, that is indeed betrayal of the better interests of the country you are supposed to be leading, hand across beating heart, all flags aflutter.
Rob
What it means is that Trump does international relations and other business on a personal basis. He has found that he can get things done more successfully one-on-one. So he hugged Kim and served Xi desert. Let's be pals and work things out. If you're an ally or adversary, try to get on Trump's good side. Be friends. Just as he feels he can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, so could leaders on other nations do the same with him. If friendliness doesn't seem to work, he switches to bombast and attack.
We'll see if his style works. It's too soon to tell.
-
I have to disagree, Slobodan: there was no debate other than countless media claims and counter-claims, which do not constitute debate. Who sat down, representing enough people to count as a nation, to talk about the situation and what it could really mean to Britain? Nobody. You got an endless array of self-seekers smelling the opportunity to be top dogs in some new world power situation. One-item agenda parties appeared, told their lies and instantly admitted to being "mistaken" the moment the result was in. Absolution, right? We didn't mean it!
You can not call what went on prior to that referendum a debate. As I said, there is no forum in the land for it to happen, and that includes Parliament, where only those in whom power is already vested have voice.
The best anyone could have hoped for was a fresh general election, with a detailed manifesto detailing what reality looks like.
Why doesn't Parliament do that and vote up or down? I thought your constitution required Parliament to approve Brexit not a referendum.
-
Why doesn't Parliament do that and vote up or down? I thought your constitution required Parliament to approve Brexit not a referendum.
What constitution?
The parties, as they stand as of today, have no idea what they, as a party, believe. There is a mix of Labour and Conservative making tactical vote agreements on the fly, each party unable to control its politicians, and it is shameful, and underscores what I just wrote above, about "the people" not really having any honest representation any longer, never mind the opportunity for open, frank and considered thought and debate. The adults that were in the room have moved to the garden for a drink.
The Brexit thing has done more to destroy the unity and fabric of this nation than anything else of which I can think.
-
What constitution?
The parties, as they stand as of today, have no idea what they, as a party, believe. There is a mix of Labour and Conservative making tactical vote agreements on the fly, each party unable to control its politicians, and it is shameful, and underscores what I just wrote above, about "the people" not really having any honest representation any longer, never mind the opportunity for open, frank and considered thought and debate. The adults that were in the room have moved to the garden for a drink.
The Brexit thing has done more to destroy the unity and fabric of this nation than anything else of which I can think.
I read some place that Parliament is required to enact a Brexit. That referendums cannot be used. Am I incorrect?
-
What constitution?
The parties, as they stand as of today, have no idea what they, as a party, believe. There is a mix of Labour and Conservative making tactical vote agreements on the fly, each party unable to control its politicians, and it is shameful, and underscores what I just wrote above, about "the people" not really having any honest representation any longer, never mind the opportunity for open, frank and considered thought and debate. The adults that were in the room have moved to the garden for a drink...
Rob, seems like you are longing for a land of unicorns and butterflies, where free-ice-cream-day lasts all year long. In the meantime, in the real world, with real people, represented by real politicians... ;)
-
It is the President’s prerogative to take or not advice from those around him. To add to Alan’s examples, google “Operation Northwoods.” Should the then-President’s decision to shelve that advice be considered as a favor to Cuba, thus treasonous?
So long as he is not acting against the interests of the US in favour of another nation, sure.
-
So long as he is not acting against the interests of the US in favour of another nation, sure.
Phil, That doesn't make sense. So if Trump allows higher tariffs to stand in Germany for American goods than we charge them, it's treasonous? So then Trump by raising American tariffs against Germany to match theirs would make him immune to charges of treason.
-
Phil, That doesn't make sense. So if Trump allows higher tariffs to stand in Germany for American goods than we charge them, it's treasonous? So then Trump by raising American tariffs against Germany to match theirs would make him immune to charges of treason.
He has no control over the tariffs charged by Germany, so that's nothing against him (or any PotUS).
However, if he went to Germany and said, "They spoke powerfully and bigly and I don't not want to disagree with them but there are lots of other countries anyway and so they're right they should raise their tariffs and I am going to block the US from looking into it or lodging a WTO complaint and fire anyone who tries" or something like that, then that might be. Of course, he'd never do anything even vaguely like that, right? Right...
Again, I started my first comment by saying he hasn't yet done anything to warrant such a charge, but he's headed awfully close to that direction. He didn't misspeak in Helsinki - he got caught out saying what he really thought. He love Putin - has done for years and so long as Putin whispers nice things to him, that's all he cares about - not the US.
-
[/size]
He has no control over the tariffs charged by Germany, so that's nothing against him (or any PotUS).
However, if he went to Germany and said, "They spoke powerfully and bigly and I don't not want to disagree with them but there are lots of other countries anyway and so they're right they should raise their tariffs and I am going to block the US from looking into it or lodging a WTO complaint and fire anyone who tries" or something like that, then that might be. Of course, he'd never do anything even vaguely like that, right? Right...
Again, I started my first comment by saying he hasn't yet done anything to warrant such a charge, but he's headed awfully close to that direction. He didn't misspeak in Helsinki - he got caught out saying what he really thought. He love Putin - has done for years and so long as Putin whispers nice things to him, that's all he cares about - not the US.
[/size]
That also doesn't make any sense. President's do all sorts of favors for foreign countries and leaders - both allies and potential adversaries. Recently, Trump helped President Xi of China out by helping out the Chinese company that was going broke. But that's not treason. The President I'm sure is putting that on his list of favors that Xi now owes him down the road. Trump cancelled military exercises with South Korea as a favor to Kim of North Korea. That weakens our military prowess against a country that we could be at war with and who's threatened us with nuclear attack. Is that treason? Of course not. He's trying to prevent a war by making peaceful overtures. If Trump doesn't want to press the Russians about their breakin of DNC emails because he wants to move forward in our relations with them becasue he consider them more important, that's not treason either. Reminder that we're not at war with any of these countries.
Here's Congressional law regarding the definition and penalty for treason against the US.
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States
Some definitions of the above:
ADHERING. Cleaving to, or joining; as, adhering to the enemies of the United States.
2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
3. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship, with a design to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. by Lofft, 798.
4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force atreasonable enterprise, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adhering
-
Unless you end up making policy decisions against the clear advice and evidence of your intelligence services and instead favour said other nation to the detriment of your own nation. Then there may be a case. Trump hasn't done that. Yet.
True. In which case, it would be the making of those policy decisions which might constitute treason, not the expression now of an opinion.
Jeremy
-
Rob, seems like you are longing for a land of unicorns and butterflies, where free-ice-cream-day lasts all year long. In the meantime, in the real world, with real people, represented by real politicians... ;)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16360211.police-probe-vote-leave-amid-calls-to-blow-up-electoral-system-and-start-again/?ref=ebln
Not really; unicorns are notoriously dangerous - and you never see them coming! Ice cream is bad for your teeth and makes you fat, as well as the sporter of gleaming fakes which, looking on the bright side, results in selling more new Leicas.
There are very few real politicians around; there are many self-promoters, charlatans, property developers, trade-union honchos and wide-eyed, earnest innocents just out of university, though. Butterflies might be fun, as long as not the imported-from-Africa variety that eats geraniums. They arrived here, as did the inches-long beetle that has destroyed most of the palm trees, from Africa along with cheaper plant imports than the available home-grown products. In that sense, just as long as Mr T can reignite the Pittsburgh furnaces, convince the resuscitated workes to do it for nothing, he may be onto something after all!
Don't you just love the erudition within this LuLa of ours?
-
Why doesn't Parliament do that and vote up or down? I thought your constitution required Parliament to approve Brexit not a referendum.
Parliament did exactly that, in enacting The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 (http://The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act).
What constitution?
The UK constitution, of course. It's a commonly-repeated fallacy to say that we have no written constitution. It's not codified, but it's embodied in centuries of parliamentary practice, jurisprudence and academic writing. Some might think that the flexibility and ability to adapt to changing circumstance which that embodies is superior to reliance on later interpretation of a document whose contents were fixed two centuries ago, but of course that's a rather different question.
Jeremy
-
That also doesn't make any sense. President's do all sorts of favors for foreign countries and leaders - both allies and potential adversaries. Recently, Trump helped President Xi of China out by helping out the Chinese company that was going broke. But that's not treason. The President I'm sure is putting that on his list of favors that Xi now owes him down the road. Trump cancelled military exercises with South Korea as a favor to Kim of North Korea. That weakens our military prowess against a country that we could be at war with and who's threatened us with nuclear attack. Is that treason? Of course not. He's trying to prevent a war by making peaceful overtures. If Trump doesn't want to press the Russians about their breakin of DNC emails because he wants to move forward in our relations with them becasue he consider them more important, that's not treason either. Reminder that we're not at war with any of these countries.
Here's Congressional law regarding the definition and penalty for treason against the US.
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States
Some definitions of the above:
ADHERING. Cleaving to, or joining; as, adhering to the enemies of the United States.
2. The constitution of the United States, art. 3, s 3, defines treason against the United States, to consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
3. The fact that a citizen is cruising in an enemy's ship, with a design to capture or destroy American ships, would be an adhering to the enemies of the United States. 4 State Tr. 328 ; Salk. 634; 2 Gilb. Ev. by Lofft, 798.
4. If war be actually levied, that is, a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force atreasonable enterprise, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are leagued in the general conspiracy are to be considered as traitors. 4 Cranch. 126.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adhering
Alan, if LuLa ever presents a prize for indefatigably gleeful bouncing, from one untenable position to one yet more so, I would expect you to be hands-down winner!
I have no idea where you find the reserves, the Trump-like energy to spend the time this consumes - unless it flows as a gift - so yep, you win the prize, even before the contest is announced!
Felicidades!
;-)
Rob
-
Alan, if LuLa ever presents a prize for indefatigably gleeful bouncing, from one untenable position to one yet more so, I would expect you to be hands-down winner!
I have no idea where you find the reserves, the Trump-like energy to spend the time this consumes - unless it flows as a gift - so yep, you win the prize, even before the contest is announced!
Felicidades!
;-)
Rob
I should be out taking pictures. :)
-
Recently, Trump helped President Xi of China out by helping out the Chinese company that was going broke. But that's not treason.
The company in question is ZTE and they deserved the punishment which was imposed by the Commerce Department. ZTE were in massive violation of the Iran boycott and were using US sourced chips from Qualcomm to make their cell phones. If you believe that harsh sanctions against certain countries is an appropriate foreign policy then this change of US policy against ZTE was just plain wrong. In this case President Trump was unilaterally removing a company from the sanctions list. The complete story is in The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/business/zte-trump-china.html) (apologies to those who cannot access the article because of the pay wall but you can do a Google search and get more on this). I'm sure ZTE will now get back to business and include spyware in their phones.
-
The company in question is ZTE and they deserved the punishment which was imposed by the Commerce Department. ZTE were in massive violation of the Iran boycott and were using US sourced chips from Qualcomm to make their cell phones. If you believe that harsh sanctions against certain countries is an appropriate foreign policy then this change of US policy against ZTE was just plain wrong. In this case President Trump was unilaterally removing a company from the sanctions list. The complete story is in The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/business/zte-trump-china.html) (apologies to those who cannot access the article because of the pay wall but you can do a Google search and get more on this). I'm sure ZTE will now get back to business and include spyware in their phones.
I was initially surprised and disappointed by Trump's action as well. But the company would have folded and lost 50,000+ Chinese jobs, a real problem for Xi. So he asked Trump to help out. Maybe Xi's been helping with the North Korea issue and Trump is paying him off. Maybe Trump wants consideration in a trade deal with them. Who knows? A lot of things on this level are kept secret from the public. The company which makes third tier cell phones for third world nations will be watch by our Commerce Department. I hope so.
-
I was initially surprised and disappointed by Trump's action as well. But the company would have folded ...
Boys, I do appreciate your inputs and running commentary on President Trump and the current affairs of the USA, but I started this thread as a place for all to comment, should they so wish, on the unfolding 'drama' in the UK which seems certain to continue into the autumn months and beyond. So. I'd respectfully suggest/request that any ongoing discussions regarding Trump, not directly related to the EU/UK, be posted in an appropriate thread. Makes it easier to read, comment and follow. And more interesting.
Note to Moderators:
If you could refrain from nuking Schewe's Trump II, or equivalent, daily log - it'd not only be appreciated but greatly faciltate staying /*on-topic.
-
Sorry Manoli. Your topic did drift from time to time off of Brexit. But Trump did say some powerful comments relating to it from time to time. I'll try to stay focused.
-
Unfortunately, Manoli, Trump has become Carthage* of today.
* as in the Roman senator, Cato the Elder’s phrase "Carthago delenda est,” or “Carthage must be destroyed,” which he would use to end all his Senate speeches, no matter the subject.
-
Boys, I do appreciate your inputs and running commentary on President Trump and the current affairs of the USA, but I started this thread as a place for all to comment, should they so wish, on the unfolding 'drama' in the UK which seems certain to continue into the autumn months and beyond. So. I'd respectfully suggest/request that any ongoing discussions regarding Trump, not directly related to the EU/UK, be posted in an appropriate thread. Makes it easier to read, comment and follow. And more interesting.
I still want to know how the Channel Tunnel will be managed post-Brexit. Is this a part of the negotiations in terms of travel back and forth? Will there be mandatory passport checks?
-
Thank you,
both all. I really do enjoy reading your posts (Some, Slobodan, not all) [/levity] and hope the Mods take note and refrain from nuking a future Trump thread. Also hope that everyone feels free to comment and contribute here.
-
Passport checks?
Heck everywhere I go, everyone wants to check my passport at street crossings!
Sorry folks..carry on, please.
I still want to know how the Channel Tunnel will be managed post-Brexit. Is this a part of the negotiations in terms of travel back and forth? Will there be mandatory passport checks?
-
Passport checks?
Heck everywhere I go, everyone wants to check my passport at street crossings!
Sorry folks..carry on, please.
Come to America. We don't have the Chunnel. But we do have the Brooklyn Bridge. No one will check your passport once you get in. In NYC, no one has papers. Trump will personally stamp your visa. Well, are you from Qatar? If so, you're good to go. Welcome.
Also, if you come through our southern border, you probably can get in without documentation. Papers there are beside the point. :)
-
I still want to know how the Channel Tunnel will be managed post-Brexit. Is this a part of the negotiations in terms of travel back and forth? Will there be mandatory passport checks?
Alan, question of free movement aka control of borders, isn't even close to being decided. Whatever you read in the papers today, is subject to a 'penultimate' round in the Autumn when discussions with the EU re-open.
With Parliament so divided, and the Government narrowly avoiding a devastating defeat (6 votes mainly due to a bit of Tory skullduggery and a handful of Labour MP's) all is set to rival House of Cards, minus Kevin Spacey, though even there a Minister has resigned over more than 2,000 'depraved' sex texts to a barmaid and her friend.
Like Trump, if it weren't so serious it might actually be amusing ...
-
Alan, question of free movement aka control of borders, isn't even close to being decided. Whatever you read in the papers today, is subject to a 'penultimate' round in the Autumn when discussions with the EU re-open.
With Parliament so divided, and the Government narrowly avoiding a devastating defeat (6 votes mainly due to a bit of Tory skullduggery and a handful of Labour MP's) all is set to rival House of Cards, minus Kevin Spacey, though even there a Minister has resigned over more than 2,000 'depraved' sex texts to a barmaid and her friend.
Like Trump, if it weren't so serious it might actually be amusing ...
Sex scandals in Britain are old hat. I'm surprised he resigned.
Curious. What is happening with trade between Britain and the EU afterwards? Tariffs? Etc? Will Britain be able to make a unique deal with America?
-
Linking Brexit and photography:
Question: looks photoshopped to me. Any Brits here with the original photo?
-
Curious. What is happening with trade between Britain and the EU afterwards?
Billion dollar question.
They either agree what is referred to as Norway+, or they go to WTO rules.
Will Britain be able to make a unique deal with America?
Following on from #35, no reason why not. What the terms will be and to whose benefit, I'll leave to you to guess.
Economically, there will be no immediate benefit to leaving the EU. The contrary, more deficit, increase in prices ( the falling pound is already well on it's way) etc.. The trade-off is regaining control of UK borders and what the Brexiteers believe is sovereignity of parliament.
Edit:
Sex scandals in Britain are old hat. I'm surprised he resigned.
This one is different it involved a girl ...
-
... This one is different it involved a girl ...
Oh, no, horrible! ;D
-
Linking Brexit and photography:
Question: looks photoshopped to me. Any Brits here with the original photo?
Slobodan ,
looks genuine - AP / Daily Mail
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/13/09/4E2C4B5500000578-5949835-image-a-48_1531471390516.jpg
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/13/09/4E2C4B5500000578-5949835-image-a-48_1531471390516.jpg)
-
What a miserable lot. At least our clowns dance, sing and laugh.
-
Economically, there will be no immediate benefit to leaving the EU. The contrary, more deficit, increase in prices ( the falling pound is already well on it's way) etc.. The trade-off is regaining control of UK borders and what the Brexiteers believe is sovereignity of parliament.
A good American friend of ours who has a German passport because of a WW 2 settlement with German Jews who fled the country during the 1930s works in the financial services industry in London. Most of the banks she is familiar with have already made contingency plans and some have already started transferring employees. The European Drug Regulatory administration which is head quartered at Canary Wharf will be relocating to an EU country and this will mean the loss of a number of high paying jobs. If May were gutsy she would renounce the referendum and stay in the EU.
-
Slobodan ,
looks genuine...
Not really. Close, but still photoshopped. For all, but Trump (he apparently can do it naturally ;) )
-
...
This one is different it involved a girl ...
Oh yeah. A girl. No wonder he resigned. It must of shocked Brits. What's England coming too?
-
A good American friend of ours who has a German passport because of a WW 2 settlement with German Jews who fled the country during the 1930s works in the financial services industry in London. Most of the banks she is familiar with have already made contingency plans and some have already started transferring employees. The European Drug Regulatory administration which is head quartered at Canary Wharf will be relocating to an EU country and this will mean the loss of a number of high paying jobs. If May were gutsy she would renounce the referendum and stay in the EU.
There's more to life than just money. Brits are patriotic. They don't want their country run by the EU gnomes in Brussels anymore than we would. In any case, the same people predicted the US economy would collapse if Trump won. Just the opposite happened.
-
I still want to know how the Channel Tunnel will be managed post-Brexit. Is this a part of the negotiations in terms of travel back and forth? Will there be mandatory passport checks?
Alan, there have always been obligatory passport checks traveling to the UK via Chunnel or ferry. I suppose they never signed the Schengen agreement (same with Ireland and Cyprus).
I'm interested in how the Irish boarder will be handled - could turn into an economic disaster!
-
Billion dollar question.
They either agree what is referred to as Norway+, or they go to WTO rules.
That's a dramatic oversimplification, as you well know.
Jeremy
-
Thank you, both all. I really do enjoy reading your posts (Some, Slobodan, not all) [/levity] and hope the Mods take note and refrain from nuking a future Trump thread. Also hope that everyone feels free to comment and contribute here.
The Moderators Know Everything. Even before you post it. Beware.
Jeremy
-
Alan, there have always been obligatory passport checks traveling to the UK via Chunnel or ferry. I suppose they never signed the Schengen agreement (same with Ireland and Cyprus).
I knew they were not part of the Schengen agreement as we found out the hard way. We had a trip scheduled for Croatia three years ago and they would not let my wife board the plane here in Washington. Her passport was only valid for three months from the end of our trip which was only scheduled for 12 days. Schengen countries require a passport with at least six months to expiry. The weird thing was that the United Airlines didn't flag it when I entered the information into their web database but only told us at the airport. It was our fault in the end for not being familiar with the passport/visa regulations. We could have gone to the UK or Ireland as they only required a passport that was valid for the duration of the trip. We learned a hard lesson that day and ended up forfeiting only one night hotel stay as we were able to cancel all the others.
-
Life is inherently unfair.
Life is not unfair. “Fair” and “unfair” are concepts that don’t really exist in life. Life just is.
-
I knew they were not part of the Schengen agreement as we found out the hard way. We had a trip scheduled for Croatia three years ago and they would not let my wife board the plane here in Washington. Her passport was only valid for three months from the end of our trip which was only scheduled for 12 days. Schengen countries require a passport with at least six months to expiry. The weird thing was that the United Airlines didn't flag it when I entered the information into their web database but only told us at the airport. It was our fault in the end for not being familiar with the passport/visa regulations. We could have gone to the UK or Ireland as they only required a passport that was valid for the duration of the trip. We learned a hard lesson that day and ended up forfeiting only one night hotel stay as we were able to cancel all the others.
Although it didn't matter in the end, Norwegian Cruise Lines flagged us with the 6 month requirement before our cruise to the south Caribbean Sea. We had to expedite our passport renewals that cost extra money. Here's a list of countries that have the 6 month rule. Croatia isn;t on it. But I suppose the rules change so I would get the renewal regardless of the countries you're visiting.
https://fastportpassport.com/blog/six-month-validity-passport-rule
-
That's a dramatic oversimplification, as you well know.
Absolutely.
Alan Klein asked a simple outline question - considering the context, it's a reasonable recap (in a couple sentences) of the two most plausible eventualities.
But, please, do expand on the question.
Edit:
Opinion piece in The Guardian by Simon Jenkins: "Don’t worry, a no-deal Brexit won’t be allowed to happen" (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/19/no-deal-brexit-britain-eu-wto-march)
People at the coalface of the European economy cannot afford the posturing, vanity and idiocy of the Brexit parliament this past week. They have lives to live and mouths to feed. A closed border with the EU, not least in Ireland, would be like closing the Berlin Wall after it had reopened. There would be riots. That is why crashing out would not mean hard Brexit, but rather remain in all but name. When Brexit fantasy hits practical reality, reality will win.
-
Although it didn't matter in the end, Norwegian Cruise Lines flagged us with the 6 month requirement before our cruise to the south Caribbean Sea. We had to expedite our passport renewals that cost extra money. Here's a list of countries that have the 6 month rule. Croatia isn;t on it. But I suppose the rules change so I would get the renewal regardless of the countries you're visiting.
https://fastportpassport.com/blog/six-month-validity-passport-rule
We were flying to Frankfurt and then on to Zagreb. You cannot land in Germany without six months on your passport. That's why we were could not board. We renewed both passports right away and also got Global reentry which allows you to get back in the country easily.
-
We were flying to Frankfurt and then on to Zagreb. You cannot land in Germany without six months on your passport. That's why we were could not board. We renewed both passports right away and also got Global reentry which allows you to get back in the country easily.
It's a good thing you got back before SCOTUS signed off on Trump's travel ban. You might still be there. :)
-
Absolutely.
Alan Klein asked a simple outline question - considering the context, it's a reasonable recap (in a couple sentences) of the two most plausible eventualities.
But, please, do expand on the point.
Edit:
Opinion piece in The Guardian by Simon Jenkins: "Don’t worry, a no-deal Brexit won’t be allowed to happen" (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/19/no-deal-brexit-britain-eu-wto-march)
So Britain can make whatever trade deal it wants with the US?
-
So Britain can make whatever trade deal it wants with the US?
When Brexit is done, can Britain and American sign off on the BRAMTA trade agreement whereby all trade between Great Britain and America will have no tariffs? (BRAMTA is my name for it- The BRitish-AMerican Trade Agreement)
-
So Britain can make whatever trade deal it wants with the US?
It'll depend on the terms, if any, agreed with the EU. And not 'any trade deal it wants', but more probably a trade deal that Trump wants. In case you missed it, Alan - Junker is due in the USA in just under a week, in reality to continue trade discussions initiated by Obama.
Obama told the UK to 'stay', Trump told the UK to 'leave' - go figure, as they say across the pond.
Junker said he would seek again to explain to Trump that the European Commission coordinates trade policy for the 28-country European Union and that the United States could therefore not forge a trade deal with just one of its members.
“When it comes to trade, the European Union, its internal market, its single market, form an indivisible unity and it’s the Commission that is in charge of articulating trade policy. All efforts to divide the European Union are in vain,” Juncker said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-eu/eus-juncker-upbeat-and-relaxed-ahead-of-trump-trade-meeting-idUSKBN1K81ZC
-
It'll depend on the terms, if any, agreed with the EU. And not 'any trade deal it wants', but more probably a trade deal that Trump wants. In case you missed it, Alan - Junker is due in the USA in just under a week, in reality to continue trade discussions initiated by Obama.
Obama told the UK to 'stay', Trump told the UK to 'leave' - go figure, as they say across the pond.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-eu/eus-juncker-upbeat-and-relaxed-ahead-of-trump-trade-meeting-idUSKBN1K81ZC
I don't understand your post. Once GB leaves the EU, it won;t be tied to its trade policies. GB won;t be a member any longer.
-
It'll depend on the terms, if any, agreed with the EU. And not 'any trade deal it wants', but more probably a trade deal that Trump wants. In case you missed it, Alan - Junker is due in the USA in just under a week, in reality to continue trade discussions initiated by Obama.
Obama told the UK to 'stay', Trump told the UK to 'leave' - go figure, as they say across the pond.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-eu/eus-juncker-upbeat-and-relaxed-ahead-of-trump-trade-meeting-idUSKBN1K81ZC (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-eu/eus-juncker-upbeat-and-relaxed-ahead-of-trump-trade-meeting-idUSKBN1K81ZC)
The linked article says that EU Trade head Juncker is going to the US to negotiate. It says he's calm about the meeting. I doubt it. I'm sure he's intuiting Trump's game plan. If the the EU doesn't agree to lower their tariffs, Trump will put American tariffs on EU cars before his jet lands in Europe. Then the CEO's of VW, BMW and Mercedes will tell Merkel to stop the nonsense and drop EU 10% tariffs on cars. The funny thing is he's meeting Larry Kudlow one of Trump's trade advisors. Larry hates tariffs. Go figure. Politics make strange bedfellows.
-
Life is not unfair. “Fair” and “unfair” are concepts that don’t really exist in life. Life just is.
Finally!
-
If the the EU doesn't agree to lower their tariffs, Trump will put American tariffs on EU cars before his jet lands in Europe. Then the CEO's of VW, BMW and Mercedes will tell Merkel to stop the nonsense and drop EU 10% tariffs on cars...
Just wondering, Alan, if you're aware that both BMW, VW and Mercedes manufacture some of their models in the USA. Mercedes even had a tie-up with Chrysler (not sure if they still do ). BMW with the 'Mini' and variations of the X series, Merc with the C and GLS class and VW the Passat and Atlas.
The reality: BMW is America’s biggest car exporter
What Trump apparently didn’t know is that BMW Group (the umbrella for BMW, Mini, and Rolls-Royce) is a model for exporting cars from the US. The BMW factory in Spartanburg is BMW’s largest facility in the world, with the most volume: 411,171 BMWs built there last year, versus 365,204 BMWs and Minis sold in the US. Nobody exports more cars from the US — not Ford, not GM, not the Chrysler arm of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles: 287,700 BMW vehicles last year, or 70% of production, and 3.7 million vehicles since the plant opened in 1996.
Every BMW SUV (except the subcompact X1) is built in one factory – Spartanburg — then shipped to the 140 countries where BMWs are sold. Mercedes builds SUVs and compact C-Class cars at a factory in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and is building a factory for Sprinter vans in Charleston, SC.
-
Just wondering, Alan, if you're aware that both BMW, VW and Mercedes manufacture some of their models in the USA. Mercedes even had a tie-up with Chrysler (not sure if they still do ). BMW with the 'Mini' and variations of the X series, Merc with the C and GLS class and VW the Passat and Atlas.
Regardless of tarrifs on those "quality" cars such as Mercedes and BMW, those already able to purchase will sigh, and carry right on to the next model whenever it comes out.
We are not talking selling to the Ford Fiesta crowd (moi) here, but to folks who can buy whatever the hell their hearts desire. Hiking the price just raises the desirability and satisfaction quotient. Some might even feel more exclusive because of it.
-
It'll depend on the terms, if any, agreed with the EU.
I don't understand your post. Once GB leaves the EU, it won;t be tied to its trade policies. GB won;t be a member any longer.
It's perfectly simple. If the terms agreed with the EU have an impact on the ability to deal with other countries, for example by allowing for regulations made in the EU to apply in the UK, then Britain will remain restricted by those terms. Deals are not done in isolation.
Jeremy
-
It's perfectly simple. If the terms agreed with the EU have an impact on the ability to deal with other countries, for example by allowing for regulations made in the EU to apply in the UK, then Britain will remain restricted by those terms. Deals are not done in isolation.
Jeremy
Jeremy,
Thank you for reiterating what I have been attempting to communicate, to the same person, until the snap! moment arrived, when it became too tedious to continue.
I hope you have greater success than did I.
(If there is one positive to emerge from my encounter, it's that it reinforces my belief that, like photography, conversation is often best practised entirely on one's own! In the end, it often comes to much the same thing.)
;-)
Rob
-
Absolutely.
Alan Klein asked a simple outline question - considering the context, it's a reasonable recap (in a couple sentences) of the two most plausible eventualities.
But, please, do expand on the question.
Edit:
Opinion piece in The Guardian by Simon Jenkins: "Don’t worry, a no-deal Brexit won’t be allowed to happen" (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/19/no-deal-brexit-britain-eu-wto-march)
Agree with your one-line summary but ... that article is utter garbage. Some things can carry on with no deal - planes can fly, trucks can roll, but other things will not happen - jobs for EU nationals, retirement houses for expats in Spain, because those things require the legitimacy of laws and confidence in a long term stability.
The country seems to have been utterly ****ed by the personal ambitions and ideologies of a few over-grown schoolboys. I despair.
-
It's perfectly simple. If the terms agreed with the EU have an impact on the ability to deal with other countries, for example by allowing for regulations made in the EU to apply in the UK, then Britain will remain restricted by those terms. Deals are not done in isolation.
Jeremy
Thanks for clearing it up.
So Trump's comment to May, "You can do what you want." is his unhappy acknowledgement that GB will do and arrange Brexit with the EU however they need too. Prior to that,Trump was trying to pull GB away to negotiate with us directly. It would have been a wedge against the rest of the EU. It would also help us with tariffs with other non-EU countries like China especially as it would be the first crack in the tariff wall. I guess May told him that it would probably be impossible for GB to make that deal with the EU during Brexit because Britain can't afford not to be able to trade with the EU countries.
Of course, if they take on the same tariffs as the EU, they will be treated the same way as the EU. So US tariff would be applied to BRitish products as well as the EU's. So he will negotiate with the EU primarily at that point. If by chance, GB does not have to follow the EU with tariffs, then we will negotiate a direct deal with Britain. The EU will follow Britain.
-
Just wondering, Alan, if you're aware that both BMW, VW and Mercedes manufacture some of their models in the USA. Mercedes even had a tie-up with Chrysler (not sure if they still do ). BMW with the 'Mini' and variations of the X series, Merc with the C and GLS class and VW the Passat and Atlas.
We appreciate that they build their cars here in America. Maybe they can open more plants here. That would help our employment and add wealth to our country. Also, the EU would avoid tariffs on cars built in Europe that use to be shipped here.
Hey, here's an idea. If the EU dropped its tariffs on our cars shipped there, then we would do the same. Then the problem would be over.
-
We appreciate that they build their cars here in America. Maybe they can open more plants here. That would help our employment and add wealth to our country. Also, the EU would avoid tariffs on cars built in Europe that use to be shipped here.
Hey, here's an idea. If the EU dropped its tariffs on our cars shipped there, then we would do the same. Then the problem would be over.
That's assuming we actually want to buy American cars :-)
-
Regardless of tarrifs on those "quality" cars such as Mercedes and BMW, those already able to purchase will sigh, and carry right on to the next model whenever it comes out.
We are not talking selling to the Ford Fiesta crowd (moi) here, but to folks who can buy whatever the hell their hearts desire. Hiking the price just raises the desirability and satisfaction quotient. Some might even feel more exclusive because of it.
There are Japanese cars like Acura, Lexus and Infiniti that compete with Europe's classy cars. It Trump puts tariffs on EU cars only but not Japanese (they don't have tariffs on American cars now), BMW, Mercedes Audi will lose a huge share of the American market. Like I said, their CEO's will be telling Merkel to make a deal.
-
That's assuming we actually want to buy American cars :-)
If that's true, why would they keep their tariffs and risk losing US market share?
-
Trump's going to put major tariffs on $500 billion of China's exports to America. I guess he's sending a signal to Junker before he arrives for negotiations here. The EU is next unless we make a deal. What do you think German automakers are telling Junker today?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/trump-says-hes-ready-to-put-tariffs-on-all-505-billion-of-chinese-.html
-
Agree with your one-line summary but ... that article is utter garbage. Some things can carry on with no deal - planes can fly, trucks can roll, but other things will not happen - jobs for EU nationals, retirement houses for expats in Spain, because those things require the legitimacy of laws and confidence in a long term stability.
The country seems to have been utterly ****ed by the personal ambitions and ideologies of a few over-grown schoolboys. I despair.
We don't always coincide in these matters, but this time my mental aura is in perfect harmony with yours.
Not only overgrown schoolboys, but from the 19th century. Probably think Queen Victoria is away on holiday right now...
I've been trying to sell for perhaps three years now, and I have to admit that any Brit thinking of buying today, before this friggin' Brexit mess is settled, has to be out of his skull.
Not just buying, but inheritance laws, tax libilities, health service access, all of that gets thrown up in the air like a pack of cards on the very edge of a precipice. I wonder if many even thought about their EHIC (which replaced the E 111 card) and what that actually signifies even on holidays.
The problems and questions that are currently left unanswered are very scary indeed.
-
We appreciate that they build their cars here in America. Maybe they can open more plants here. That would help our employment and add wealth to our country. Also, the EU would avoid tariffs on cars built in Europe that use to be shipped here.
Hey, here's an idea. If the EU dropped its tariffs on our cars shipped there, then we would do the same. Then the problem would be over.
The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/economy/tariffs-south-carolina-bmw.html) has a lengthy article on the BMW plant in Spartanburg SC today. It is BMW's largest plant in the world and the largest exporter of American made cars.
-
There are Japanese cars like Acura, Lexus and Infiniti that compete with Europe's classy cars. It Trump puts tariffs on EU cars only but not Japanese (they don't have tariffs on American cars now), BMW, Mercedes Audi will lose a huge share of the American market. Like I said, their CEO's will be telling Merkel to make a deal.
Only Audi will be adversely impacted as all of theirs are imported at present. I've not seen anything to point to Audi manufacturing in the US. BMW won't be impacted much at all because of the Spartanburg plant. I don't know how many cars Mercedes makes in the US at their plant.
-
We don't always coincide in these matters, but this time my mental aura is in perfect harmony with yours.
Not only overgrown schoolboys, but from the 19th century. Probably think Queen Victoria is away on holiday right now...
I've been trying to sell for perhaps three years now, and I have to admit that any Brit thinking of buying today, before this friggin' Brexit mess is settled, has to be out of his skull.
Not just buying, but inheritance laws, tax libilities, health service access, all of that gets thrown up in the air like a pack of cards on the very edge of a precipice. I wonder if many even thought about their EHIC (which replaced the E 111 card) and what that actually signifies even on holidays.
The problems and questions that are currently left unanswered are very scary indeed.
How much will you suffer if a hard Brexit goes through?
-
If that's true, why would they keep their tariffs and risk losing US market share?
No idea. I can't see POS American cars being very popular here. On the other hand, why the US tariffs on European small trucks?
-
How much will you suffer if a hard Brexit goes through?
That is the worst scenario this side of no deal at all.
-
No idea. I can't see POS American cars being very popular here. On the other hand, why the US tariffs on European small trucks?
American-made cars would have to be manufactured with right side drive which would require changes to the manufacturing lines further driving up the costs.
-
The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/economy/tariffs-south-carolina-bmw.html) has a lengthy article on the BMW plant in Spartanburg SC today. It is BMW's largest plant in the world and the largest exporter of American made cars.
What's your point? What does this have to do with higher EU tariffs on the cars we ship to Europe? These American made BMW's that we ship to Europe to sell will have a tariff added to them so that we can't compete with BMW's made in Europe.
-
Only Audi will be adversely impacted as all of theirs are imported at present. I've not seen anything to point to Audi manufacturing in the US. BMW won't be impacted much at all because of the Spartanburg plant. I don't know how many cars Mercedes makes in the US at their plant.
So you're confirming what I said. European cars will lose American share to Japanese and American autos.
-
American-made cars would have to be manufactured with right side drive which would require changes to the manufacturing lines further driving up the costs.
What's that have to do with tariffs?
-
No idea. I can't see POS American cars being very popular here. On the other hand, why the US tariffs on European small trucks?
What does POS mean?
-
How much will you suffer if a hard Brexit goes through?
Pretty much all the problems I listed for a new buyer, the most pressing being health services. For a while that seemed settled: UK expats already living within Europe and in the system, would have their present situation carried forward. Then the proclamation that "nothing is settled until everything is settled!" whatever that means in governmental non-speak.
So all these months later, nobody knows anything, only that the pound is ever weaker and making the pension more miserable and inadequate as the weeks wear on. Perhaps that's what has caused my current photographic dry spell. Who can concentrate on things of the soul with hard reality fighting for attention?
:-)
-
American cars for the U.K.
I think that they have never had much hold for the market: they used to be too large, and too heavy on very expensive petrol. Petrol was always expensive in Britain, at least from '56 when I started driving.
Ford eventually made a rhd Mustang, and now it faces being made uncompetitive with better-made, hot European cars. Its US heritage/romantic cachet may not be enough any longer. That is, unless Brexit makes everything uncompetitive. I can almost imagine Red Robbo coming back to life in some resurrected British Leyland adventure... beware, Pittsburgh, what you wish!
One of the Kray Twin wives had an American car... (I think it was one of the last cars that were made to Italian design by the company that grew out of the dead Studebaker)* a few other folks, mainly in the other showbiz with music and cameras, had them too, but usually people went for Jaguar and the local uber-brands that are still made in Britain, even if not actually owned by us anymore. Some went German and some Italian, too.
I am still nostalgic for US cars, but during my impressionable years I lived in India, and V8 was daily transport when I was out of prison boarding school, so maybe I see life from a different perspective. India may have been in Britain's immediate sphere of influence, but there were more US cars and magazines around than anything else that I can remember.
* Apparently not: seems to have been a Barracuda from Plymouth!
-
What does POS mean?
Piece of sh*t.
-
One of the Cray Twin wives had an American car... (I think it was one of the last cars that were made to Italian design by the company that grew out of the dead Studebaker)
AFAIK Studebaker never used an Italian design. The car you may be thinking of is the Avanti and it was designed by the French American, Raymond Loewy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Loewy). He did some other work for Studebaker and lots of other companies.
-
That is the worst scenario this side of no deal at all.
Anna Soubry in The Commons forcefully making the point ..
https://youtu.be/CN1WrjlWLXQ
" 'Nobody voted to be poorer. Nobody voted leave on the basis that somebody with a gold-plated pension and inherited wealth would take their job away from them.'
-
Amusingly, or perhaps less so depending on one's political inclination, here's a clip of Jacob Rees-Mogg on the Andrew Mrr show last December. ( starts at 2:33)
… the pooresr areas of the country voted to leave. We need to deliver the benefits of leaving to the poorest in our Nation because otherwise they will feel deeply let down and that includes getting free trade deals so we can lower the cost of food, clothing and footwear ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib9N6kIdFA0
Hopefully, someone in Parliament could ask him to explain how Britain benefits from being outside the largest free-trading block in the world and particularly how this benefits the 'poorest in our Nation'
-
AFAIK Studebaker never used an Italian design. The car you may be thinking of is the Avanti and it was designed by the French American, Raymond Loewy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Loewy). He did some other work for Studebaker and lots of other companies.
Yes, that's the car! You are also right about the designer.
But hey, one out of two on a hot day... a really attractive car but, apparently, it ended up being too expensive.
;-)
-
... a really attractive car but, apparently, it ended up being too expensive.
Like women ;)
-
Like women ;)
Some, but not all: some could be but choose not to be; others never were.
Funny how cars and women seem to be associated with similar descriptive words: body curves; clutch; manual or automatic; self-starters; convertibles; comfortable or hard suspension; headlights; horn warning system; tail and bumpers; front and rear overhang... this is getting silly.
:-)
-
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/851/41776731840_ee5dd95fc7.jpg)
-
As any divorced man would tell you, divorce comes with steep economic losses, but, man, what a relief! :D
-
As any divorced man would tell you, divorce comes with steep economic losses, but, man, what a relief! :D
Now that's rationalisation!
:-)
-
As any divorced man would tell you, divorce comes with steep economic losses, but, man, what a relief! :D
Not true in the case of my first marriage. We had a no-fault divorce and there were no economic losses on either side. :) I've been luckier the second time around as my wife and I have been married for 38 years with great economic benefit.
-
As any divorced man would tell you, divorce comes with steep economic losses, but, man, what a relief! :D
I have been divorced twice. Painful, expensive and totally worth it. Relief totally understates it.
-
I have been divorced twice. Painful, expensive and totally worth it. Relief totally understates it.
You must learn to listen to your head, not to below the Plimsoll line. There are pills...
:-)
-
You must learn to listen to your head, not to below the Plimsoll line. There are pills...
:-)
That’s a great theory. I’m in my 5th long term relationship at the moment. Let’s see.
I hope the Brexit thing was the right decision. Doesn’t appear to be so from here. For the UK that is. For us I don’t know. I think big strong trading blocks are not good for us small countries. When elephants fight the grass gets trampled.
-
As any divorced man would tell you, divorce comes with steep economic losses, but, man, what a relief! :D
So Brittanica is male and the EU female... :)
Me Too
-
That’s a great theory. I’m in my 5th long term relationship at the moment. Let’s see.
I hope the Brexit thing was the right decision. Doesn’t appear to be so from here. For the UK that is. For us I don’t know. I think big strong trading blocks are not good for us small countries. When elephants fight the grass gets trampled.
Being the little guy is never a good idea, unless you have no choice, and then you can't blame anyone and become a comedian in order to save your skin. But, when you go out of your way to cut yourself down to size... time for the men in white coats.
-
Trump's going to put major tariffs on $500 billion of China's exports to America. I guess he's sending a signal to Junker before he arrives for negotiations here. The EU is next unless we make a deal. What do you think German automakers are telling Junker today?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/trump-says-hes-ready-to-put-tariffs-on-all-505-billion-of-chinese-.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/trump-says-hes-ready-to-put-tariffs-on-all-505-billion-of-chinese-.html)
So it looks like the German car manufacturers did get to Merkel. The EU trade negotiator came to America and met with our officials. The EU appears to be acquiescing to Trump's demands that we equalize or eliminate tariffs. This is another big win for Trump. He's moving ahead doing good things for America and the world while his enemies the democrats and liberal press spend all their time attacking him.
"Trump said: “This is why we agreed today, first of all, to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods.”[/size]
Juncker was more restrained in his remarks, saying: “We have identified a number of areas on which to work together. Work towards zero tariffs on industrial goods. And that was my main intention, to propose to come down to zero tariffs on industrial goods.”"
This is the first break in the tariff pressure. Both sides will now work out their differences and come to a deal. Afterwards, it is hoped that the EU will join America in putting pressure on China who is a really big trade problem for both the EU and America including the theft of intellectual property.
-
So it looks like the German car manufacturers did get to Merkel. The EU trade negotiator came to America and met with our officials. The EU appears to be acquiescing to Trump's demands that we equalize or eliminate tariffs. This is another big win for Trump. He's moving ahead doing good things for America and the world while his enemies the democrats and liberal press spend all their time attacking him.
That's great news! The threat of 20% would mean that the price of my next Mercedes S650 cabriolet would increase from $323,000 to almost $390,000.
However, if Donny succeeds in completely eliminating the current car tariffs (is it 2.5%?), I could now save $8000. Just enough to buy with the savings a nice new Leica.
-
That's great news! The threat of 20% would mean that the price of my next Mercedes S650 cabriolet would increase from $323,000 to almost $390,000.
However, if Donny succeeds in completely eliminating the current car tariffs (is it 2.5%?), I could now save $8000. Just enough to buy with the savings a nice new Leica.
Les: Why would Trump's tariffs in America on German cars effect your purchase in Canada. By the way, can I use your car one weekend when you get it? Your Leica too? :)
-
Les: Why would Trump's tariffs in America on German cars effect your purchase in Canada. By the way, can I use your car one weekend when you get it? Your Leica too? :)
Alan, it could affect me, and more than in one way. Actually, I don't know if we pay any tariffs in Canada, but typically the car prices are higher here than in US, even for Mercedes Sprinter vans. Whether that is due also to some taxes or greedier car dealers, I don't know. But as I mentioned in some previous post, when those 20% tariff rumors started, they had a profound effect on the Canadian automobile industry. For example, Magna and Linamar, the Canadian automobile part manufacturers lost 15%, resp. 30% in their value in the last two months. Once Donald waves his magic wand, those stocks would hopefully bounce back to their pre-tariff talks, and since I hold a smallish position in Linamar, I might be able to buy from my profits that Mercedes cabriolet for my winter vacations in Florida. Such a car should be cheaper there than in Canada, so if I buy it while down there, I could save money twice. If things go according to my plan, of course, you could join me on a drive from or to Florida. We should get a CB radio and a really good radar detector.
-
(Is this topic still about the Brexit?)
Then i would like to add that the point of Google getting fined and Juncker making deals with the US is a way England cannot do alone.
England will brexit from the EU, but as a result will be more dependent on others, formost the US. The idea of doing things just like the UK wants it is not very realistic.
about Trump...
It would be wise to focus on what Trump really accomplishes and not what he tweets/ screams... for that is his main strenght
Look at the facts ( not the alternative ones)
The statements of Juncker vs Trump are an example; I give credit to Junckers summary.
-
(Is this topic still about the Brexit?)
Yes, very much so - just sometimes with the occasional off-topic detour.
And though it's more than likely that the UK will Brexit next year, it's not 100% guaranteed, primarily because the current parliamentary impasse could give way to a variety of unexpected turns. The Irish , for one (there are others) have indicated that they would agree to extend Article 50 talks - though this would require the UK to ask for an extension and all 27 EU member states to agree to one.
Earlier this month, MPs on the HoC Brexit select committee said the Article 50 should be extended so that parliament should have more time to examine any final deal - all based on the assumption that May will secure a deal (anything but a foregone conclusion). Apart from the ultra right-wing , it's generally considered preferable that the UK exit with a deal rather than the so called hard Brexit - and no, I doubt that many are convinced on the merits of leaving the world's largest free-trading block just to jump into the arms of the Donald.
More akin to jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
-
Yes, very much so - just sometimes with the occasional off-topic detour.
And though it's more than likely that the UK will Brexit next year, it's not 100% guaranteed, primarily because the current parliamentary impasse could give way to a variety of unexpected turns. The Irish , for one (there are others) have indicated that they would agree to extend Article 50 talks - though this would require the UK to ask for an extension and all 27 EU member states to agree to one.
Earlier this month, MPs on the HoC Brexit select committee said the Article 50 should be extended so that parliament should have more time to examine any final deal - all based on the assumption that May will secure a deal (anything but a foregone conclusion). Apart from the ultra right-wing , it's generally considered preferable that the UK exit with a deal rather than the so called hard Brexit - and no, I doubt that many are convinced on the merits of leaving the world's largest free-trading block just to jump into the arms of the Donald.
More akin to jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
If Trump and Juncker make a deal, Britain will be part of it. They'll still be in the EU. Once they leave, they'll have to make a direct deal with the US. Britain should sign something on the side with the US when the Juncker deal is executed that the formulas will remain the same between the US and Britain after Brexit. Otherwise they'll have to negotiate with Trump and who knows what he'll offer then. Britain will be in a less powerful negotiating position and the terms might turn out worse. Just a suggestion to our British friends.
Curious about Juncker. Does he need approval of all the EU nations to sign a trade deal?
-
Curious about Juncker. Does he need approval of all the EU nations to sign a trade deal?
Yes I think he does, which is how the TTIP treaty was rejected.
-
If Trump and Juncker make a deal, Britain will be part of it. They'll still be in the EU. Once they leave, they'll have to make a direct deal with the US. Britain should sign something on the side with the US when the Juncker deal is executed that the formulas will remain the same between the US and Britain after Brexit. Otherwise they'll have to negotiate with Trump and who knows what he'll offer then. Britain will be in a less powerful negotiating position and the terms might turn out worse. Just a suggestion to our British friends.
Curious about Juncker. Does he need approval of all the EU nations to sign a trade deal?
A better suggestion to those friends would be: "don't walk away from your best customer on the merits of lies and pipe dreams. Try a little reality and pragmatism instead. There is still time!"
-
And though it's more than likely that the UK will Brexit next year, it's not 100% guaranteed, primarily because the current parliamentary impasse could give way to a variety of unexpected turns. The Irish , for one (there are others) have indicated that they would agree to extend Article 50 talks - though this would require the UK to ask for an extension and all 27 EU member states to agree to one.
That's not strictly accurate. Any extension to the two-year notice period must be agreed by the Council of Europe and by the departing member state, but not necessarily at the request of the departing state.
Jeremy
-
Yes I think he does, which is how the TTIP treaty was rejected.
Requiring all 29 members of the EU to agree to a final deal with the US is not good for a settlement. It's always harder to get numerous sides to agree to terms rather than just two. If there's no deal, I could see Trump starting his auto tariffs. Since they affect Germany the most, that could precipitate a Gerxit. Now wouldn't that be something.
-
Alan, it could affect me, and more than in one way. Actually, I don't know if we pay any tariffs in Canada, but typically the car prices are higher here than in US, even for Mercedes Sprinter vans. Whether that is due also to some taxes or greedier car dealers, I don't know. But as I mentioned in some previous post, when those 20% tariff rumors started, they had a profound effect on the Canadian automobile industry. For example, Magna and Linamar, the Canadian automobile part manufacturers lost 15%, resp. 30% in their value in the last two months. Once Donald waves his magic wand, those stocks would hopefully bounce back to their pre-tariff talks, and since I hold a smallish position in Linamar, I might be able to buy from my profits that Mercedes cabriolet for my winter vacations in Florida. Such a car should be cheaper there than in Canada, so if I buy it while down there, I could save money twice. If things go according to my plan, of course, you could join me on a drive from or to Florida. We should get a CB radio and a really good radar detector.
You're still going to Florida? I thought it warmed up in Canada due to climate change. :)
-
You're still going to Florida? I thought it warmed up in Canada due to climate change. :)
I go to Florida only in the winter. The summer here is almost as hot as in Miami.
If it's good enough for the president, it's good also for me.
-
That's not strictly accurate. Any extension to the two-year notice period must be agreed by the Council of Europe and by the departing member state, but not necessarily at the request of the departing state.
/* levity-mode-on
which conjured up this vision of the PM, at the despatch box, addressing the House of Commons “The President of the Council of Europe, and its 27 members, have invited the United Kingdom to extend their membership in the EU for a further year beyond March 2019, and HM Government have gratefully accepted”
Imagine what that would do to Jacob Rees-Mogg and his ERG group ...
/* levity-mode-off
The EU fact sheet dated March 2017, (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.pdf)only refers to the required unanimity to extend the period. I read it as being understood/implied, in this context, that such request would, of necessity, come from the UK itself - and if not a request certainly an indication of a predisposition to accepting such an offer - particularly as acceptance would result in
the Member State remains a member of the European Union, with all the rights and obligations that derive from membership ...
-
The EU fact sheet dated March 2017, (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.pdf)only refers to the required unanimity to extend the period. I read it as being understood/implied, in this context, that such request would, of necessity, come from the UK itself - and if not a request certainly an indication of a predisposition to accepting such an offer - particularly as acceptance would result in
As ever, it would pay to read the source rather than an interpretation. Article 50 is readily available online, clearly written and very short.
Jeremy
-
As ever, it would pay to read the source rather than an interpretation. Article 50 is readily available online, clearly written and very short.
And article 50.3 says
. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Jeremy - there is a difference between precision and pedantry.
Given the disarray and split both between and within the various parties in parliament, it is inconceivable, today, that such an extension could/would be proposed/considered without it being at the request of the UK Government - IMO.
What steps and hoops UK GOV would need to go through to get there, is another question - one, that perhaps, you could enlighten us on.
Edit: added ‘IMO’ for clarity.
-
Could Britain hold up trade negotiation settlement between the EU and the US to get concessions from the EU for its Brexit?
-
Could Britain hold up trade negotiation settlement between the EU and the US to get concessions from the EU for its Brexit?
In principle no, there is a deadline after article 50 was effected (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39143978). Only in the unlikely hypothetical case that the remaining EU members unanimously decide to not follow the rules as they were set out and known to the UK, could there be e.g. a delay. Besides, the UK lacks trade negotiators because that function was executed on their behalf by the EEC and EFTA. So they threw the child away with the bathwater.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In principle no, there is a deadline after article 50 was effected (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39143978). Only in the unlikely hypothetical case that the remaining EU members unanimously decide to not follow the rules as they were set out and known to the UK, could there be e.g. a delay. Besides, the UK lacks trade negotiators because that function was executed on their behalf by the EEC and EFTA. So they threw the child away with the bathwater.
Cheers,
Bart
It's not clear to me. Someone earlier said a trade deal between the EU and America requires all 29 countries to sign off, including Britain (they'll still be in the EU). If Britain refuses to sign off unless they get a better Brexit deal, is that possible?
-
And article 50.3 says
...
Jeremy - there is a difference between precision and pedantry.
Yes, I'd read it; and I'm being precise. You are confusing law and practice, or in this case theoretical practice.
Jeremy