Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)

Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Derek Smith

35,054 posts

196 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Vanden Saab said:
Zirconia said:
I thought there were some un challenged comments in the BBC interview, not challenged by Arcuri that is and with the laptop going missing could indicate more to come out but I suspect that team Boris really will not care. They have already indicated that Boris is a Boris, you know what you are getting. Mind you, a tech savvy would have a pretty secure lap top I would have thought. Who knows here.

But it is an indication of post election, the ability and type of person that is to lead us to the promised land. Five years of this then Labour will probably get their act together and the solids will really hit the fan. Leaving the EU is not the end by a long chalk.

Getting more like Trump every day.
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...
If, as you say, labour do not sort themselves out after the election then I agree that labour will ‘lurch’, or perhaps move, more to the left. This is the norm for political parties that lose an election. Instead of building on what they have, assessing where they can improve their voting base, they go all fundamentalist. The tory party did it after Thatcher and Major.

If labour do the same, but go the other way, then they, like the tories, will leave a gap. In 1997, it was filled by the opportunistic Blair.

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.

If they stay where they are, or even, as some have suggested, move more to the right now that there is, in their eyes, no point in voting for anyone else, then they might well only last the single term. A coalition of centrist parties will form in all probability, indeed we might be seeing the first green shoots now, and voters might well move back to more familiar, centre, grounds.

I’ve got the feeling that there will be significant changes in voting in this country, certainly for the next GE. If it goes on for two, then it becomes the norm. I think this will be the lasting legacy of the brexit shambles.


gizlaroc

13,200 posts

172 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
ClaphamGT3 said:
Actually not a massive Boris fan so not worried he didn't perform too well. It was interesting that the reaction to Johnson and Steptoe was about comparable with Jo Swinson going down by far the best of all three
I was trying to be funny.
I failed.


It's interesting. I watched Swinson\'s speech and felt she struggled. When the audience asking why they are ignoring the vote? She seemed to really squirm.
However, she did seem to win a few over when she said Lib Dems would not proper up Labour after talking to the Jewish community this week.



Sway

12,633 posts

142 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Sway said:
Derek, I used to really admire and respect both your points, and you as a poster.

However, in recent months you really have changed. Posting complete fantasy assertions with zero evidence or back up.

To suggest one of the three key pillars of global co-operation and enablement "does not, in any meaningful manner, exist" is complete fantasy.

The WTO is an enablement body. It doesn't "enforce" anything, as it has no mandate to (and never has). Disputes have always taken years to resolve in the vast majority of cases (such as the EU's schedules never being current after it underwent it's first major expansion). That does not mean it doesn't work, or doesn't exist.

Trillions of dollars of trade occur every year seamlessly due to adoption of WTO practices ratified by every member.

As with every global body, there's politicking. That doesn't mean it has no influence, or effect.

Ask Scottish whiskey distillers how their US trade is going currently, and whether the WTO has had any effect...

I really wish the Derek of a couple of years ago were posting, rather than the current iteration who seems to have lost all the principles that by your own assertion guided two careers.
I’m the same bloke I was two years ago. I take the same care, most of the time, with my posts that I always have. If you view them differently, then it might be best to ask yourself why.

To explain my posts on WTO, although I’m surprised they were not clear:

Look at what the bloke in charge of the WTO reckons on his institution. I can't remember his surname. Roberto something. He's the one guiding me. It’s on Google. He talked of serious harm to multilateral trade.

When Raab had a go at the WTO on 9 September, I thought I'd check out what he was talking about. All that I've posted is online, supported by those who know more about it than me.

That the USA and China, amongst others, impose sanctions and tariffs outside of the WTO guidelines in a given. They ignore it is another way of putting it.

That the USA blocks appointments to the ministers, is a given. There's no argument.

That the ministers are already well understaffed had been acknowledge for some time.

That over half have their term ending in December is also available to anyone who cares to take the trouble.

Now these are the points I made. They are as well researched and supported as I used to post, or should I say that they are as good as I posted before my objection to a hard brexit became the only criterion on which my posts were judged.

You suggest that the WTO is merely enabling. I'd agree. Indeed, that's what I posted as it is its weakness from the UK’s pov. What this means is the most powerful nations can and will continue to dominate and impose what they will. The WTO ministers sat in judgement, or, to put in in the term of a website I've just looked at, they are the appellate body for the WTO. Come December, they will not be able to function unless the USA pulls its objections. It won't.

In other words, there are tariffs that go against the WTO terms and nothing can be done about it. As I say, there's enough evidence out there to support this.

If individual nations decided to conform to them, well and good. Trade continues. However, there is no reason for these nations to want us to suddenly take an interest and stir things up. Why should they? If they refuse us anything, there is nothing, zilch, that we can do about it. We will have a place inside the WTO of course, but what can we do? There is no functioning appellate body. You admitted his. There are no restraints. We will not be able to boss them around, with our measly 3.4% of world trade.

My contention is that if, as they are, tariffs are imposed and nothing is done about it, then the WTO ‘is something of a myth. It’s ephemeral. It is ignored by many countries.’ If everyone can ignore it, then what is its point?

Nothing you have said contradicts my post. Surely you can see that?

If there are no sanctions, then there is no control. If there is no control, then all deals are on a 1:1.

Things might be going seamlessly, although given the USA and China’s bully boy tactics, I’ve got my doubts. However, I’m with Raab. ‘It is a bold decision to bet the future of the national economy on an organisation that even its leader recognises is struggling with legitimacy in a world that has turned away from multilateralism.’

Try to read my post, putting out of your mind the fact that I think a hard brexit will be an unmitigated disaster, and I use the phrase in its literal meaning, for the UK.
None of your points make any meaningful sense in terms of impacts to trade - indeed most of your objections to it's functions are relating to things happening now (things that have always happened...).

The cases where the US/China/EU impose sanctions or tariffs outside of WTO agreement are very specific and few. The current tariff sanctions affecting Scottish whiskey being an example, except that one was agreed recently by the same arbitration you claim is defunct.

What "bully boy" tactics or "bossing around" do you expect from anyone including ourselves in the next few years that meaningfully impact multilateral trade? None exist to that extent today.

How indeed are we "bet[ting] the future of the national economy" on the WTO specifically, rather than merely being good at making things people want (and not doing very naughty things like the EU have permitted which have led to authorised punitive tariffs on our producers...)?

Zirconia

33,413 posts

232 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
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...
Depends how Boris plays it. Labour will have five years now to re invent but keep the same (depending on the unions and momentum). I expect Boris to win, I expect Labour to hang on to Corbyn for a short while then recycle the front bench. Probably wrong.

Trump, not desperation (not sure how it could be), rather an observation of the situation and not likening Boris directly with the other golden boy but events and surrounding him. More so today when he said that all the MP's are backing him. I expect the un spoken bit Boris missed was "or else".

Derek Smith

35,054 posts

196 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
Sway said:
None of your points make any meaningful sense in terms of impacts to trade - indeed most of your objections to it's functions are relating to things happening now (things that have always happened...).

The cases where the US/China/EU impose sanctions or tariffs outside of WTO agreement are very specific and few. The current tariff sanctions affecting Scottish whiskey being an example, except that one was agreed recently by the same arbitration you claim is defunct.

What "bully boy" tactics or "bossing around" do you expect from anyone including ourselves in the next few years that meaningfully impact multilateral trade? None exist to that extent today.

How indeed are we "bet[ting] the future of the national economy" on the WTO specifically, rather than merely being good at making things people want (and not doing very naughty things like the EU have permitted which have led to authorised punitive tariffs on our producers...)?
I'm not sure you understand the point of my original post.

I wasn't predicting. I've mentioned a number of times I've got no idea how things will turn out. All one can do it base estimates on what has gone on before. With a hard brexit, there is no precedent.

I have no idea what will happen if we suddenly start trying to elbow our way in to multilateral trade, amongst the established countries. All I do know is what I researched, what I posted about the situation as it exists now, and what's coming up in December.

Look to what my research, brief research, showed, and what those in the know, such as the boss of WTO and Raab said.

In the two and a half months since I learned that the WTO seems to be in a state of collapse, I've seen posts where those in favour of a hard brexit glibly suggest that we can depend on the good offices of other countries to trade with us according to posted rules. I've kept quiet because I guessed that some would argue against those in the know.

The WTO is nothing more than a wish list of rules that no one has to obey. That is what so concerns Raab. That concerns me also. I'm not basing an awful lot of faith on whisky. Mind you, had I not been tee total I might be knocking back a few drams.

Argue against the points raised by Roberto whatsit, Dom Raab, Liz Truss (although I haven't mentioned her before, she reckons major reform of the WTO is an essential, and others. The only people I've found who place any faith in the WTO for stabilised multinational trade are all either on PH or politicians pushing for a hard brexit.

I'll stick to what I've found.


ClaphamGT3

7,860 posts

191 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
gizlaroc said:
I was trying to be funny.
I failed.


It's interesting. I watched Swinson\'s speech and felt she struggled. When the audience asking why they are ignoring the vote? She seemed to really squirm.
However, she did seem to win a few over when she said Lib Dems would not proper up Labour after talking to the Jewish community this week.
Did you watch it live?

Breadvan72

33,915 posts

111 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
techguyone said:
BV is showing off some impressive Class War ideals again. I'm starting to wonder if he's really Wolfie Smith and hails from Tooting.

Edited by techguyone on Monday 18th November 11:58
Busted!

Ps: commenting on the amusing but also rather sad survival of some aspects of the class system does not qualify as class warfare. Observation is not necessarily anything more than observation.



Breadvan72

33,915 posts

111 months

Monday 18th November
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
What you're mourning there is not the respective parties but Butskillism and the spirit of common enterprise that made it; unison on the general direction of travel if not the particular means, with a strong dose of paternalism. Absent a new cold war it's difficult to see how that could be recreated, particularly given the Momentum takeover and Boris filling his cabinet with clamouring empty vessels.
I agree, although I think that you have a typo as the word is spelled Butskellism. I could have used the term, but, because of the death of Butskellism, I cannot be confident that many people who left school after some point in the 1980s would recognise the term. You and I know how the term was coined, but even my apparently quite brainy daughter at her posh and alarmingly expensive school will not know that unless and until I tell her, or her history tutor at whichever university she ends up at (if she goes to one and if she studies history) tells her.

Butskellism was replaced by neoliberalism, also known as the plot to smash the state and restore the corporation as the dominant form for determining human affairs. Neoliberalism is still winning, as far as I can see.
Even the idiot Corbyn is its unwitting stooge.

Dr Jekyll

18,316 posts

209 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Things might be going seamlessly, although given the USA and China’s bully boy tactics, I’ve got my doubts. However, I’m with Raab. ‘It is a bold decision to bet the future of the national economy on an organisation that even its leader recognises is struggling with legitimacy in a world that has turned away from multilateralism.’

Try to read my post, putting out of your mind the fact that I think a hard brexit will be an unmitigated disaster, and I use the phrase in its literal meaning, for the UK.
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?

JagLover

27,088 posts

183 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
gizlaroc said:
It's interesting. I watched Swinson\'s speech and felt she struggled. When the audience asking why they are ignoring the vote? She seemed to really squirm.
However, she did seem to win a few over when she said Lib Dems would not proper up Labour after talking to the Jewish community this week.
I believe what she is actually saying is that she will not prop up Corbyn. So business will still get most of the Labour policies minus any they need to drop to get Lib Dem support.

Sway

12,633 posts

142 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Sway said:
None of your points make any meaningful sense in terms of impacts to trade - indeed most of your objections to it's functions are relating to things happening now (things that have always happened...).

The cases where the US/China/EU impose sanctions or tariffs outside of WTO agreement are very specific and few. The current tariff sanctions affecting Scottish whiskey being an example, except that one was agreed recently by the same arbitration you claim is defunct.

What "bully boy" tactics or "bossing around" do you expect from anyone including ourselves in the next few years that meaningfully impact multilateral trade? None exist to that extent today.

How indeed are we "bet[ting] the future of the national economy" on the WTO specifically, rather than merely being good at making things people want (and not doing very naughty things like the EU have permitted which have led to authorised punitive tariffs on our producers...)?
I'm not sure you understand the point of my original post.

I wasn't predicting. I've mentioned a number of times I've got no idea how things will turn out. All one can do it base estimates on what has gone on before. With a hard brexit, there is no precedent.

I have no idea what will happen if we suddenly start trying to elbow our way in to multilateral trade, amongst the established countries. All I do know is what I researched, what I posted about the situation as it exists now, and what's coming up in December.

Look to what my research, brief research, showed, and what those in the know, such as the boss of WTO and Raab said.

In the two and a half months since I learned that the WTO seems to be in a state of collapse, I've seen posts where those in favour of a hard brexit glibly suggest that we can depend on the good offices of other countries to trade with us according to posted rules. I've kept quiet because I guessed that some would argue against those in the know.

The WTO is nothing more than a wish list of rules that no one has to obey. That is what so concerns Raab. That concerns me also. I'm not basing an awful lot of faith on whisky. Mind you, had I not been tee total I might be knocking back a few drams.

Argue against the points raised by Roberto whatsit, Dom Raab, Liz Truss (although I haven't mentioned her before, she reckons major reform of the WTO is an essential, and others. The only people I've found who place any faith in the WTO for stabilised multinational trade are all either on PH or politicians pushing for a hard brexit.

I'll stick to what I've found.
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 fks 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.

stongle

2,069 posts

110 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.

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.



Stuart70

1,522 posts

131 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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 smile

Isaac Hunt

10,617 posts

159 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all

turbobloke

87,290 posts

208 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Isaac Hunt said:
yes

Derek Smith

35,054 posts

196 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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 fks 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.

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.


Sway

12,633 posts

142 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.

Derek Smith

35,054 posts

196 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
Sway said:
It's always been ephemeral - that's what's amusing...
I think the argument has run its course.


Mrr T

6,819 posts

213 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.

"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.



Sway

12,633 posts

142 months

Tuesday 19th November
quotequote all
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.

"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.
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.

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).
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED