First in the queue? Looks like it.
Discussion
Joscal said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Yesterday was Trump's Inauguration.
This morning the sun rose as normal, and I was still here to see it.
I will wait to see what happens tomorrow.
It's quite remarkable the world didn't end. I wonder what the snowflake generation are going to be offended with today? This morning the sun rose as normal, and I was still here to see it.
I will wait to see what happens tomorrow.
rscott said:
alfie2244 said:
Churchill's bust has been reinstated into the oval office apparently 
Uh oh. Does that mean he removed the bust of Abe Lincoln that Obama had there instead? I do hope Trump doesn't go to the theatre any time soon then.
rscott said:
Obama didn't get rid of the Churchill bust - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/07/... .
Seems it may not have been true.Open to correction of course.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Pesty said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Yesterday was Trump's Inauguration.
This morning the sun rose as normal, and I was still here to see it.
I will wait to see what happens tomorrow.
Are you sure?This morning the sun rose as normal, and I was still here to see it.
I will wait to see what happens tomorrow.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q2R2btO4MEo
It is certain that I am going to Hell.
Thank you, I really enjoyed that
rscott said:
alfie2244 said:
Churchill's bust has been reinstated into the oval office apparently
Uh oh. Does that mean he removed the bust of Abe Lincoln that Obama had there instead? I do hope Trump doesn't go to the theatre any time soon then.I do realise he has a "putting the US 1st" mantra but I think he genuinely will give the UK preferences over and above other countries if for no other reason than to p
s off the EU.eta notwithstanding the fact that Winny's bust being removed by Obama may have all been fabricated in the 1st instance........more fake news eh
Edited by alfie2244 on Saturday 21st January 13:47
Goaty Bill 2 said:
rscott said:
alfie2244 said:
Churchill's bust has been reinstated into the oval office apparently
Uh oh. Does that mean he removed the bust of Abe Lincoln that Obama had there instead? I do hope Trump doesn't go to the theatre any time soon then.rscott said:
Obama didn't get rid of the Churchill bust - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/07/... .
Seems it may not have been true.Open to correction of course.
There was another bust of Churchill, but that was loaned to Bush Jnr and so was removed when he left.
SKP555 said:
That's where those quaint and abstract notions of democracy and sovereignty so derided by some of the Remainers actually come in quite handy.
Whatever deal we reach will have to be put to parliament where it will be scrutinised and debated by MPs who are elected by us and will seek reelection in a few years time.
And it stops there.
They can't blame the French or the lobbying might of the German car industry. They can't say it's an inevitable consequence of the modern world or a price worth paying for all the environmental protection, cheap wine and nice holidays we get from being in a political union.
Our politicians negotiate it for the benefit of Britain and the people of Britain judge them on it.
And if it isn't working out in a few years then we can elect politicians who will either renegotiate a better deal or scrap it all together. Hopefully without the NUS claiming such a move is racist.
How many times to treaties/trade deals get successfully renegotiated?Whatever deal we reach will have to be put to parliament where it will be scrutinised and debated by MPs who are elected by us and will seek reelection in a few years time.
And it stops there.
They can't blame the French or the lobbying might of the German car industry. They can't say it's an inevitable consequence of the modern world or a price worth paying for all the environmental protection, cheap wine and nice holidays we get from being in a political union.
Our politicians negotiate it for the benefit of Britain and the people of Britain judge them on it.
And if it isn't working out in a few years then we can elect politicians who will either renegotiate a better deal or scrap it all together. Hopefully without the NUS claiming such a move is racist.
And how much of the damage of a bad deal with the US would be irreversible?
If May says a bad deal is better than no deal with the EU surely she'll apply the same logic to the US, but here's what I see happening.
-We leave the EU with no trade deal and others are looking far off
-There are some job losses because of this-it doesn't have to be massive but it's much hard to say 'play the long game' when unemployment is rising.
- This makes the tories look very bad-so they start leaking poll numbers right before the next general election
- In a bid to maintain their majority they hastily sign us up to whatever trump puts down in front of them. Hey presto-trade deal with the US-brexit is a success. But it locks us in for many years and causes irreparable damage to the UK in terms of trade and other areas i.e. The NHS.
Cookie
First of all May said that no deal was better than a bad deal with the EU. So hopefully she'll keep that in mind when negotiating with the US.
Agree there will be a temptation to get a deal done before the next election but again they will have to get that deal through a parliament full of MPs seeking reelection. May still has a small majority and her MPs face multiple threats from Labour and UKIP so there will be plenty of scrutiny.
How exactly would you envisage a trade deal damaging the NHS?
First of all May said that no deal was better than a bad deal with the EU. So hopefully she'll keep that in mind when negotiating with the US.
Agree there will be a temptation to get a deal done before the next election but again they will have to get that deal through a parliament full of MPs seeking reelection. May still has a small majority and her MPs face multiple threats from Labour and UKIP so there will be plenty of scrutiny.
How exactly would you envisage a trade deal damaging the NHS?
The UK currently has a trade surplus with the USA, we have speciality services they want to buy. It is a massive market for growth potential for UK business.
It seems clear to me Trump sees the UK as a worthwhile partner to help support, that can only be a good thing for the UK.
Trump is not anti trade, he is interested in partnerships where the US worker doesn't see negative effects, that seems a logical approach for any country, both the USA and UK can have that approach and gain from the partnership.
He quite rightly understands its more practical in achieving that by having bilateral deals. The deal that has to work for large groups of dissimilar parties is cumbersome, inflexible and slow to react to change, everything a successful enterprise isn't.
Just think about the processes in your own daily life, what works best, having a discussion between large groups of people with different goals, or two people with a common goal who are prepared to compromise to achieve that common goal.
It seems clear to me Trump sees the UK as a worthwhile partner to help support, that can only be a good thing for the UK.
Trump is not anti trade, he is interested in partnerships where the US worker doesn't see negative effects, that seems a logical approach for any country, both the USA and UK can have that approach and gain from the partnership.
He quite rightly understands its more practical in achieving that by having bilateral deals. The deal that has to work for large groups of dissimilar parties is cumbersome, inflexible and slow to react to change, everything a successful enterprise isn't.
Just think about the processes in your own daily life, what works best, having a discussion between large groups of people with different goals, or two people with a common goal who are prepared to compromise to achieve that common goal.
Randy Winkman said:
cookie118 said:
Newsflash-a trade deal with a trumpian America will prioritise benefits for trump first, the republicans second, America third, American companies fourth etc etc and the uk will be right at the bottom of that list of priorities.
Exactly. His speech yesterday made it clear that any deal would be one sided.alfie2244 said:
No idea about Lincoln's bust but, as per the thread title, it certainly looks as though he is making a clear indication of where the UK stands in his thinking.
Maybe. Or maybe he's a massive egoist who thinks he has something in common with Churchill (Presumably not just being massively flawed...)hidetheelephants said:
Trade is not a zero-sum deal; it's quite feasible to have an agreement which is mutually beneficial.
Agreed. People only sign up to trade deals because they get a net "benefit". But, according to Trump, the US has been well and truly f*ked over due to various trade deals. Now either the most advanced economy in the world has the least competent and least powerful negotiators OR Trump is talking through his arrse....
Countdown said:
Agreed. People only sign up to trade deals because they get a net "benefit". But, according to Trump, the US has been well and truly f*ked over due to various trade deals.
Now either the most advanced economy in the world has the least competent and least powerful negotiators OR Trump is talking through his arrse....
There is a third option - that NAFTA (and that's the one that has caused all of the opposition to other deals) was a political rather than purely economic deal. Now either the most advanced economy in the world has the least competent and least powerful negotiators OR Trump is talking through his arrse....
NAFTA in effect was a foreign aid deal, designed to make Mexico so wealthy that a) Mexicans would stop illegally immigrating to the USA, and b) that Mexico would have its own trouble with immigrants and secure its own southern border, making the US doubly secure. The result was that lower margin manufacturing was sent to Mexico.
That was considered a price worth paying for a country that was deindustrialising anyway - "if the jobs were going they might as well give us a benefit" - but it did rather mean that middle America was left to rot.
Countdown said:
hidetheelephants said:
Trade is not a zero-sum deal; it's quite feasible to have an agreement which is mutually beneficial.
Agreed. People only sign up to trade deals because they get a net "benefit". But, according to Trump, the US has been well and truly f*ked over due to various trade deals. Now either the most advanced economy in the world has the least competent and least powerful negotiators OR Trump is talking through his arrse....
That has been the message of this last election.
Ok that's a fair point. However I'd disagree that it was the "Middle class", more likely the working class. The other thing is that, by all means use protectionism to keep the kjobs in the US but all it means is consumers are subsidising them. It's the reason why we in the UK didn't subsidise the coal industry or the cotton industry. It's a short term sticking plaster at best.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff