Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
Lots and lots of words, buts lets pull this one out....
Will the tories move to the centre ground?
If they do, they’ll dominate for years. 18 years of Thatcher and Major might be possible if they take up the centre gound. I doubt it as the right, as always, will become disruptive.
Historically the conservatives move left, whether thats a ruse to get in power is negotiable. They are masters of cribbing policy.Will the tories move to the centre ground?
If they do, they’ll dominate for years. 18 years of Thatcher and Major might be possible if they take up the centre gound. I doubt it as the right, as always, will become disruptive.
The last 200 years of history teach us this time and time again. You can go back to Disraeli to prove this....
Boris has been playing the same game since before he was PM. I don't like historical observation as a prediction method, but I suspect you are wrong. Again.
Sway said:
The situation as it exists now, is a functioning WTO, as evidenced by the recent punitive tariffs levied against Scottish whiskey by the Americans thanks to the EU giving zero f
ks about France ignoring the rules...
What exactly about a hard brexit has no precedent? Plenty of nations have fallen out of a trade bloc, mostly in a chaotic manner. We've already got continuation deals with over 50 nations. We're not "muscling into" multilateral trade - we're already one of the largest multilateral trading nations on earth...
The WTO has always mostly been a wishlist of rules that no one has to obey. Yet they, in the staggeringly large majority, choose to do so. Why? Because trade is in everyone's interests.
Amusing you seem to agree so heavily with Raab on this, yet little else. Confirmation bias at all?
The point you really, really are missing - is no one relies on the offices of the WTO to trade. They make use of the processes and guidelines as it reduces effort, cost and time. Everyone trades on their own merits - and we've a stunning record at doing so.
That's the amusing thing - you're presenting information as though it's new or recent, whilst those who actually get quite heavily involved in international trade recognise that it's situation normal and trillions of dollars of goods are moving just as they always have.
You say that the WTO has always mostly been a wishlist of rules that no one has to obey. You also say that no one relies on . . . the WTO to trade. ks about France ignoring the rules... What exactly about a hard brexit has no precedent? Plenty of nations have fallen out of a trade bloc, mostly in a chaotic manner. We've already got continuation deals with over 50 nations. We're not "muscling into" multilateral trade - we're already one of the largest multilateral trading nations on earth...
The WTO has always mostly been a wishlist of rules that no one has to obey. Yet they, in the staggeringly large majority, choose to do so. Why? Because trade is in everyone's interests.
Amusing you seem to agree so heavily with Raab on this, yet little else. Confirmation bias at all?
The point you really, really are missing - is no one relies on the offices of the WTO to trade. They make use of the processes and guidelines as it reduces effort, cost and time. Everyone trades on their own merits - and we've a stunning record at doing so.
That's the amusing thing - you're presenting information as though it's new or recent, whilst those who actually get quite heavily involved in international trade recognise that it's situation normal and trillions of dollars of goods are moving just as they always have.
We agree. There, that didn't take long.
I amuse you? Why? I actually looking stuff up funny?
I did not depend on what Raab said. It worried me. I researched it. I saw that others, such as the bloke at the top of the WTO was concerned as well. Not sure why you find that so funny. You suggestion of confirmation bias seems a leap into the dark, rather like a hard brexit depending on WTO wishes, as it was the start. I confirmed what Raab said.
Anyway, good to see that we both believe that the WTO is ephemeral. It seems I have convinced you. You seem happy, amused perhaps, that we are depending on a whishlist that no one else has to obey. That bewilders me. But my job here, it seems, is done; the argument is over.
As an organisation the WTO is toothless. Yet, it seems, posters are happy to refer to it as rules.
It's always been ephemeral - that's what's amusing...
Yet, despite that, it is the absolute basis for virtually all trade conducted globally for decades. Through wars, famines, trade wars and much more that's been the case. Ephemeral does not mean temporary in this context.
You used to follow data through to an effective conclusion, yet have no causal link for anything meaningful to change regarding multilateral trade whilst positing doom.
Yet, despite that, it is the absolute basis for virtually all trade conducted globally for decades. Through wars, famines, trade wars and much more that's been the case. Ephemeral does not mean temporary in this context.
You used to follow data through to an effective conclusion, yet have no causal link for anything meaningful to change regarding multilateral trade whilst positing doom.
Dr Jekyll said:
Trading on WTO terms as an alternative to a deal with the EU doesn't mean only trading if the WTO permits it. It just means trading the way we trade with most of the rest of the world already.
In a worst case scenario, if WTO ceases to exist, do you think all trade will cease?
You made this claim yesterday and I corrected you.In a worst case scenario, if WTO ceases to exist, do you think all trade will cease?
"Not really correct. The UK trades with all WTO members on WTO terms. For most WTO members those terms are improved by bilateral or multilateral agreements. The UK trades with very few WTO members only on WTO rules. "
You then claimed the side agreement where minor. Once again that's simple not correct. People keep claiming for example we trade with the US only on WTO rules. That's just rubbish the EU has some 35, will need to check, TFA with the US including a full mutual acceptance of standard agreement.
Mrr T said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Trading on WTO terms as an alternative to a deal with the EU doesn't mean only trading if the WTO permits it. It just means trading the way we trade with most of the rest of the world already.
In a worst case scenario, if WTO ceases to exist, do you think all trade will cease?
You made this claim yesterday and I corrected you.In a worst case scenario, if WTO ceases to exist, do you think all trade will cease?
"Not really correct. The UK trades with all WTO members on WTO terms. For most WTO members those terms are improved by bilateral or multilateral agreements. The UK trades with very few WTO members only on WTO rules. "
You then claimed the side agreement where minor. Once again that's simple not correct. People keep claiming for example we trade with the US only on WTO rules. That's just rubbish the EU has some 35, will need to check, TFA with the US including a full mutual acceptance of standard agreement.
The EU doesn't have a TFA with the US that includes full mutual acceptance of standards. It does have one that offers full mutual acceptance of testing of standards.
Of course, those TFAs are under the auspices of the WTO, not outside it. There's also the matter of the global WTO TFA that came into force in 07 that superceded so many of the individual ones that came before (because effectively everyone had them with everyone else).
Vanden Saab said:
You think Labour will get their act together after they lose the election? IMHO they will be in the wilderness for years just as they were during Thatchers time. The reaction if they lose the election will be more socialism and a further lurch to the left driven by the momentum nutters now in charge...If he plays his cards right Boris could be PM for 15 years or more. Trying to compare him to Trump is pure desperation...
I think one thing we can say for certain is that Boris will be PM for longer than Iain Duncan Smith was, eh? 
Stuart70 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Butskellism.
New one to me, but it came before my personal experience and after any period of history studied. Every day is a schoolday 
Breadvan72 said:
The teaching of history in many UK schools appears to be inadequate. A bit of Henry VIII plus some Hitler fails to explain to people where the modern world came from. In a sensible system history would be compulsory to sixteen and would aim at providing an understanding of how things got to be as they are. For example, there would probably not have been the same misguided outrage about Miller 2 if more people had learned about the seventeenth century.
Socialist teachers, teaching fluffy history based on the teachings of socialist academics, what could possibly go wrong ?(Hint: look at Scotland)
Breadvan72 said:
No one has suggested that.
The teaching is lacking but the indoctrination is high quality. This is a primary school polling station on election day, taking a hammer and sickle to crack a nut.
Beyond the election element which meant that police were called, don't consider it isolated; visit at least a few dozen primary schools in the inner London communist borough republics, not forgetting to take a quick peek in the staff room.
Breadvan72 said:
Michael Gove set the current history syllabus. Is Michael Gove a socialist?
PS: cool photo of one school, tb. Obviously proves that the entire system is broken.
There's a saying, RTFP. Do you often just look at the pretty pictures and forget about reading the narrative?PS: cool photo of one school, tb. Obviously proves that the entire system is broken.
It's a safe bet you've had no cause to visit hundreds of schools recently, many tens each year, if so you know little to nothing on this matter. Hence your posting of doggerel in blissful ignorance.
Sway said:
You've always been more specific than this...
The EU doesn't have a TFA with the US that includes full mutual acceptance of standards. It does have one that offers full mutual acceptance of testing of standards.
I was going out so did not reread. I ment Mutual Recognition Agreements. The EU doesn't have a TFA with the US that includes full mutual acceptance of standards. It does have one that offers full mutual acceptance of testing of standards.
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/in...
Breadvan72 said:
The teaching of history in many UK schools appears to be inadequate. A bit of Henry VIII plus some Hitler fails to explain to people where the modern world came from. In a sensible system history would be compulsory to sixteen and would aim at providing an understanding of how things got to be as they are. For example, there would probably not have been the same misguided outrage about Miller 2 if more people had learned about the seventeenth century.
Interesting issue. When I was at school, they decided to concentrate on teaching of historiography rather than history. So we did 1914-1945 European history, with emphasis (probably third of the time) on the Spanish Civil War. (our teacher actually ignored the world wars, despite them being in syllabus, on the basis that that was trying to cover too much scope). I actually really enjoyed it, as they were trying to teach us how to do history. My projects were on a radical/ violent Indian independence leader who looked to Germany and USSR as models (vs the Congress party who looked to U.K.) and the battle of Kursk - because tanks!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff