erlando
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,432
It's almost like you didn't read the article..
Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero
- Thread starter Squeegee Beckenheim
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brexit
- Status
It's almost like you didn't read the article..
He cant stop lying about Brexit
The Guardian: Boris Johnson's Big Ben Brexit bong plan falls flat
The Guardian: Boris Johnson's Big Ben Brexit bong plan falls flat.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/14/boris-johnsons-big-ben-brexit-bong-plan-falls-flat
The Guardian: Boris Johnson's Big Ben Brexit bong plan falls flat
The Guardian: Boris Johnson's Big Ben Brexit bong plan falls flat.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/14/boris-johnsons-big-ben-brexit-bong-plan-falls-flat
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
A plan for a purely symbolic act that would disrupt an actual beneficial program taking place, benefit only a few people in and around Westminster, and never had a real underlying mechanism to bring it into reality.
I will say, you Brits do have a knack for well-constructed metaphors.
Lothian
should be banned
R4 today- Boris told to align with Trump's Iran nuclear policy if he wants a good UK/US trade deal. Brexit or JoinUS?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
As I understand it, that's exactly the kind of thing that the architects of Brexit want, a low tax low regulation where they are free to add to their billions with no regard for the societal, human or ecological costs. Donald Trump's USA provides an excellent template for how to achieve it and the money to be made flogging off the NHS and the UK's remaining "crown jewels" is just the cherry on top.
We're swapping a situation where 50% of our international trade is covered by a free trade agreement in which we're a party with a lot of influence to a situation where we have somewhat free trade with a party who represents around 15% of our trade and where we have little or no influence on the terms. Sounds like the case for Brexit in a nutshell to me
Lest anyone forget, Donald Trump is offering a very asymmetrical trade deal where the objective is to greatly increase exports of US goods to the UK whilst constraining UK exports to the US at today's (or lower) levels.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Trump had openly started he only wants trade deals that benefit the USA.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
And rightly so. That's what the rest of the world will be like too. If only we were a member of a large trading block that has the economic muscle to guarantee better trade agreements.
Perhaps we should look at joining such a trading block.....
We could have a referendum to see if people want to join such a group.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Just like the EU only wanting trade deals that benefit the EU.
It was always thus. The trick to negotiating trade deals is to find the things that benefit both sides.
...and that tends to happen when the two parties are negotiating as equals.
In a trade negotiation between the EU and the US that's the case - which is why the US isn't particularly happy with the deal they got - it wasn't all their way. OTOH they're licking their lips at the prospect of UK/US trade negotiations, they know it'll turn out heavily in their favour.
At least it will be a quick and simple agreement to get in place.
All we'll have to negotiate is how high we have to jump...
If you think a trade deal between different sized countries is harmful to the smaller country, why do you think the smaller country would ever sign up to such a deal? If the deal is worse than no deal for either side, then it's obvious that the deal will never be signed.
A trade deal will only ever be completed when both sides agree that it benefits both sides.
A trade deal will only ever be completed when both sides agree that it benefits both sides.
Last edited:
That isn't what people are saying ceptimus.
So you think the UK will willingly sign up to a deal that is worse for the UK than no deal?
Why on earth would they do that? It makes no sense whatsoever, regardless of what "people are saying."
Who are these "people"? Perhaps they're the usual biased remain fanatics?
Last edited:
"The NHS will only ever be sold off piecemeal if it benefits the British people"
Possibly true, but if we define 'the British people' in a certain way then elements of the NHS will certainly be privatised. Possibly, in time, all of it.
So, what is your definition of 'British people' in your statement above?
Why do I need to define 'British people' for you, when I never mentioned 'British people' in the first place? Where does your 'British people' thing come from, and why are you appending it to a post of mine that you're quoting?
Last edited:
It depends on what you mean by benefits I suppose.
A deal could be very one sided but just marginally better than no deal at all for the party getting the worse on the deal.
A deal could be contingent on other factors which means that it may be worse than no deal at all but. For example, a country could agree to a very disadvantageous trade deal in order to try to secure diplomatic and/or military support (which may or may not eventually be forthcoming).
A deal may not benefit the country, but instead may just benefit those in charge of the country. For a "banana republic" it may mean that the Generalissimo pockets a few billion dollars while the populace starves. For the UK it could mean that Boris Johnson and Conservative Party get to trumpet a "great US trade deal" while the country at large actually pays the price.
My mistake. You said 'both sides', so what would be the UK 'side' in a deal with the US? The whole country or perhaps not all of it?
- Status