buckielugger
Vital 1st Team Regular
She somehow manages to both look like and totally out-do Mrs Brittas.
In a government that is woefully short on brain cells, she clearly wasn't handed out any at all.
Political Posts From "Stadium naming rights for SB"
- Thread starter devonexlondonimp
- Start date
She somehow manages to both look like and totally out-do Mrs Brittas.
In a government that is woefully short on brain cells, she clearly wasn't handed out any at all.
buckielugger
Vital 1st Team Regular
gijsbert_bos
Vital Football Hero
Another favourite:
It would be funny if it weren't for the fact she's involced in running the country.
buckielugger
Vital 1st Team Regular
Barking mad indeed !!
NottyImp
Vital Football Legend
The ability to strike trade deals is directly proportional to economic power and influence.
EU - huge trading bloc of hundreds of millions of people made up of 27 nations.
UK - only 65 million people in one pretty insignificant nation.
You see the problem? Seriously, you need to accept your weird fantasies do not intersect with reality.
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
I'm not biting
NottyImp
Vital Football Legend
I'm not biting
That's OK. You've been trashed on every single point you've raised.
Seriously, you're clearly an intelligent person. Why do you believe this nonsense?
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
Still not biting. We really ought to join a Brexit forum though (if there is such a thing) where we could debate to our hearts content without intruding too much on a football board.
NottyImp
Vital Football Legend
Nice excuse. You're clearly not an honest or honourable person. No problem at all. But please don't bother replying to my posts in the future.
MaineRoad_96
Vital 1st Team Regular
Suns them up perfectly though doesn’t it? Simply can not explain with any logic or reason whatsoever what was basically a nostalgic and ‘patriotic’ decision to blow our collective brains out.
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
OK now we are off topic I am happy to respond. My take on it*
Regarding EU - I would argue that sometimes less is more. 27 nations competing to have their individual agendas represented can be cumbersome and inefficient. As an example think back to the agreement with Canada that after much work and time invested was almost derailed by a bizarre late intervention from regional Belgian parliaments. Unilateral UK trade deals may be negotiated from a bespoke position that best serves the needs and specifics of The UK and the other party rather than a one size fits all that may meet resistance from within the 27 who understandably may have reservations based around strengths and weaknesses of their trade sectors likely to be affected by the deal. As the world markets change and evolve it is possible that trade deals may need amending or re-negotiating so it may be the case that once more the process can be repeated more efficiently to gain an advantage.
UK - I have no issue with your assessment that the UK is small numerically and size wise. I would ask you to consider though that the UK as a G7 member is one of the worlds wealthiest nations so disproportionately punches above its' weight and as such will always be an attractive consumer proposition to all other countries and blocs. So no UK won't be the biggest, but it will still be big and that is enough to secure the deals. Independently the UK also benefits historically from contacts and good will. There are strong cultural links with countries like the USA, Australia etc. that may enable deals more easily. There is a huge Commonwealth that in spite of our highly dubious colonial past still share a latent connection with the UK and will want to take advantage of that relationship. Failing that, I refer you to my original point and there is no way in my opinion that nations such as Japan, Germany and China are not going to want to have mutually beneficial deals with a large consumer country as ours - to not do so would be counter productive to their own national interests.
Moving away from the question of whether the UK is big enough in its' own right I would ask you to consider (even if you contend it is not) that a country doesn't necessarily have to be economically large or populous to still secure tailor made deals that still best serve their unique circumstances. Examples of small countries that exist at the heart of the European continent and deliberately remain outside of the EU whilst remaining highly prosperous are Norway and Switzerland. What is arguably interesting about both countries is their different political backgrounds and outlooks yet they both thrive. Whilst both capitalistic Norway traditionally hold dear social welfare issues in higher regard than The Swiss who present as a little more hard nosed. So we have two small countries that remain successful whilst steadfastly pursuing trade deals that are in the specific best interests of their respective nations.
Finally people are right to be concerned about a no deal as there will undoubtedly be losers (but also winners) and a very difficult period of adjustment. The government would need to divert a significant portion of the saved EU money into assisting the various sectors to deal with that - including emergency aid, direct subsidy and compensation during the initial phases. However to say there will never be a trade agreement with the EU does not make sense taking recognizance that we are nett consumers as I touched upon earlier. For me the biggest issue at the moment is the ideological posturing and intransigence, by politicians on all sides that help nobody. I believe that once we get past the initial Brexit (hopefully with a deal but without as a last resort) the UK mid to long term can and will pull together to secure greater prosperity. IF we do in fact leave The EU those that do not engage with the future will only be left behind to their own detriment.
*These are purely my own thoughts and whilst held in good faith I may be wrong and talking complete shite. I would encourage all to come to their own conclusions and respect that other people may hold opinions different to theirs that may be right or wrong. Ultimately those in power should be setting aside their own personal agendas and working together to find the common ground that are in the interests of the many and not the few (where have I heard that). That will take sacrifice from different sides.
Last edited:
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
Reply to the points raised by Notty attached above - now we are in off topic, for the reasons I previously alluded to
Sincilbanks
Vital Football Hero
"OK now we are off topic I am happy to respond. My take on it*
Regarding EU - I would argue that sometimes less is more. 27 nations competing to have their individual agendas represented can be cumbersome and inefficient. As an example think back to the agreement with Canada that after much work and time invested was almost derailed by a bizarre late intervention from regional Belgian parliaments. Unilateral UK trade deals may be negotiated from a bespoke position that best serves the needs and specifics of The UK and the other party rather than a one size fits all that may meet resistance from within the 27 who understandably may have reservations based around strengths and weaknesses of their trade sectors likely to be affected by the deal. As the world markets change and evolve it is possible that trade deals may need amending or re-negotiating so it may be the case that once more the process can be repeated more efficiently to gain an advantage."
It is far more efficient to conduct trade negotiations from within the EU than on our own..
Reason? We have one of the most open and barrier free set of tariffs in the world by default. When we negotiate a trade deal within the EU we negotiate all the barriers and minutiae of many of the other member states such as Spain and Italy away to gain advantages we can enjoy in the reciprocal arrangements. Once we leave the EU we simply can't do this any more and therefore our bargaining position is simply much weaker.
So for example a trade deal with the US is already starting to be prepared. The 2 things the US are interested in us negotiating away?
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...alling-and-us-trade-deal-wont-save-it/595753/
Still, the viability of a trade deal will largely depend on what concessions London is willing to make—and Washington is expecting many. Among the negotiating objectives set out by the U.S. trade representative in February is the insistence that Britain “remove expeditiously unwarranted barriers that block the export of U.S. food and agriculture products,” such as chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. (Both products are banned in Britain for health and safety reasons; The U.S. argues that such concerns are overblown.)
Agriculture isn’t the only potential stumbling block: Privacy and data flows (the U.S. has a more liberal approach to data privacy than Britain, which operatesunder the EU’s more stringent GDPR standard); digital taxes (the U.S. opposesa proposed measure that would see a 2 percent tax on American tech firms’ U.K. revenue); and drug pricing (the Trump administration has long been critical of how Britain’s National Health Service assesses the price of medicines) are all areas of disagreement.
Nor does the U.S. have any incentive to treat Britain any differently. From Washington’s vantage point, Britain may be a special ally, but it’s also a weak one. “Britain has no leverage,” Larry Summers, a former U.S. Treasury secretary, told BBC Radio 4 this week. “When you have a desperate partner, that’s when you strike the hardest bargain.”
Regarding EU - I would argue that sometimes less is more. 27 nations competing to have their individual agendas represented can be cumbersome and inefficient. As an example think back to the agreement with Canada that after much work and time invested was almost derailed by a bizarre late intervention from regional Belgian parliaments. Unilateral UK trade deals may be negotiated from a bespoke position that best serves the needs and specifics of The UK and the other party rather than a one size fits all that may meet resistance from within the 27 who understandably may have reservations based around strengths and weaknesses of their trade sectors likely to be affected by the deal. As the world markets change and evolve it is possible that trade deals may need amending or re-negotiating so it may be the case that once more the process can be repeated more efficiently to gain an advantage."
It is far more efficient to conduct trade negotiations from within the EU than on our own..
Reason? We have one of the most open and barrier free set of tariffs in the world by default. When we negotiate a trade deal within the EU we negotiate all the barriers and minutiae of many of the other member states such as Spain and Italy away to gain advantages we can enjoy in the reciprocal arrangements. Once we leave the EU we simply can't do this any more and therefore our bargaining position is simply much weaker.
So for example a trade deal with the US is already starting to be prepared. The 2 things the US are interested in us negotiating away?
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...alling-and-us-trade-deal-wont-save-it/595753/
Still, the viability of a trade deal will largely depend on what concessions London is willing to make—and Washington is expecting many. Among the negotiating objectives set out by the U.S. trade representative in February is the insistence that Britain “remove expeditiously unwarranted barriers that block the export of U.S. food and agriculture products,” such as chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. (Both products are banned in Britain for health and safety reasons; The U.S. argues that such concerns are overblown.)
Agriculture isn’t the only potential stumbling block: Privacy and data flows (the U.S. has a more liberal approach to data privacy than Britain, which operatesunder the EU’s more stringent GDPR standard); digital taxes (the U.S. opposesa proposed measure that would see a 2 percent tax on American tech firms’ U.K. revenue); and drug pricing (the Trump administration has long been critical of how Britain’s National Health Service assesses the price of medicines) are all areas of disagreement.
Nor does the U.S. have any incentive to treat Britain any differently. From Washington’s vantage point, Britain may be a special ally, but it’s also a weak one. “Britain has no leverage,” Larry Summers, a former U.S. Treasury secretary, told BBC Radio 4 this week. “When you have a desperate partner, that’s when you strike the hardest bargain.”
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
Indeed the path would not be smooth and doubtless the USA would want concessions. That's not to say a decent deal couldn't be reached though. Whilst we would be the 'weaker' partner it may be worth bearing in mind that the special relationship goes beyond economic issues. Whether we like it or not The USA benefits a great deal from The UK on the political and world stage. Often (not always) we are their staunchest ally when it comes to things like the security council, NATO and international policy. A recent example is UK doing the USA bidding to impound the Iranian tanker. As unpalatable and uncomfortable many people may be with that, it is the real world and I would expect the UK to lean on that as a bargaining chip.
Sincilbanks
Vital Football Hero
Well as a counter argument, it basically consists of "let's hope they do us a favour", that's not really how trade negotiations work, at all.
hulloutpost
Vital Champions League
I'm confident it is more than just hope. There has been a strong indication of a quick deal to be done, the countries have a history of co-operation. The USA do benefit greatly having Britain on side from the political aspect I have alluded to and I believe it is that which does give us a genuine hand in negotiations. The USA may be a super power but they do have a habit of alienating a lot of nations; they need a trusted, reliable friend even if they have to pay for one. It would be interesting to see where the red lines are drawn - will it be chlorinated chicken served up in unfettered NHS wards.
