INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3421 Post by Alan H » May 11th, 2018, 11:01 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Thread by @tony_nog: "1) An absolutely cracking exposure of @DanielJHannan and his foolishness. This is what happens when you spend your life campaigning […]" #Brexit

...and the article referred to: Daniel Hannan has noticed that Brexit isn’t going well. And he blames Remainers and the left
Not working out the way you thought, Hannan, is it?” I am asked the question daily by angry Europhiles. And, to be fair, they’ve got a point. I had assumed that, by now, we’d have reached a broad national consensus around a moderate form of withdrawal that recognised the narrowness of the result – a Brexit that left intact a number of our existing arrangements, while allowing us to leave the aspects of the EU which all sides could agree were harmful, such as the agricultural and fisheries policies and the common external tariff.

So begins Daniel Hannan’s latest brainfart over at Conservative Home. The article is mainly an excuse to kick the Labour party for pushing what the Tory MEP describes as the “worst-of-all-worlds outcome”, in which Britain would leave the single market but remain within the customs union. But the sight of Captain Brexit: The First Brexiteer suggesting that maybe things were not all going quite to plan has been novel enough to win coverage in the news pages of the Evening Standard, at least. (I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it’s just possible George Osborne doesn’t think very highly of Daniel Hannan either.)

Hannan has form for blaming the left for messes for which his own side is very obviously responsible – but just for kicks, let’s consider some other reasons why Brexit might not be going quite the way the liberal leavers had hoped.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3422 Post by Nick » May 11th, 2018, 11:25 pm

animist wrote:
Nick wrote:
obviously the reports may have been written up tendentiously, but still, they are reports from the horse's mouth, so to speak, not speculation on the part of the paper.
Not really. It is claiming that regulation will have catastrophic effects, while ignoring the fact that such effects do not affect other international trade in that way, and making out that the only alternative is to stay in a customs union, instead of reforming or scrapping the regulations.
the article is not claiming anything,
Yes it is. It is claiming that food staples could disappear. I'd call that a warning of catastrophe.
simply reporting verbatim what professionals are saying.
Pro's with an axe to grind.
Look, just read what Keefe says - that the phytosanitary checks legally required on both sides of the border were a bigger challenge than the high-profile issue of customs checks that is currently dividing the cabinet; please note the word "legally".
And there we have it in a nut-shell. I am claiming that, as such checks do not need to be made at present- indeed would be banned because of the single market, you are saying that they must, must, must be imposed. Not because they are needed, but because of "the law". Then change the damn law! It is not needed!
Nick wrote:
Why mention non-EU produce when the article was about EU produce? I assume that the gist of the expressed fears was that the delays currently operating in processing non-EU produce will, post-Brexit, apply to EU produce
I mention non-EU produce to demonstrate that their threats are OTT.
I think that the point you miss is that we are used to having to check produce from outside the EU, with attendant delays, but not stuff from the EU. I don't think that the warnings were OTT - mass starvation was not mentioned :)
I consider "staples disappearing from the shelves" to be OTT. Secondly, as above, most of the checks are unnecessary, and thirdly, I just love the delicious irony that a lefty should finally be waking up to the fact that sticking bureacracy in the way of markets is actually quite damaging! :wink: So next itme you advocate any such thing, I'll refer you back to this! :D
Nick wrote:
it may not do so immediately, but the whole point of Brexit is that Britain is able to set its own standards and tariffs, is it not? Probably in fact this will not happen for the time being, so Brexit will not have happened and things will not descend into chaos. That seems to be the way things are going, with Britain "tied" to the EU for x number of years
So we have an incentive to have due regard for other peoples regulations, just as we do with the US. We can decide that imports from the EU are just fine, because their regulations are good enough. When exporting to them, we can decide our production accordingly, can't we? We already export British cars with left-hand drive, for example. And where there is specific conflict between regulations, then we should be free to decide what we do about it, rather than just be a rule taker.
I assume that what you mean is that there's a difference between producing for export according to the importer's laws and tastes, on the one hand, and having to produce goods for domestic consumption according to some regulation determined mainly by foreigners, on the other. Well yes, there is a difference. But how many EU directives and regulations have seriously been a problem for Britain?
Vast numbers!! If they are not a problem, then why will it be a problem if we do not adhere to them? If we want certain regulations, then our own elected government can put them in place, not have them imposed by a foreign power.
Nick wrote:
you may think they are unnecessary, but that is beside the point - they will still be operating
They will only be operating if the Brexit talks end up saying that they must. Us free-market Brexiteers are saying that we should start from a presumption that we start from shared rules, so that no such extra impediments should be imposed. Brussels, however, has a different agenda, seeking to disadvantage the UK, even if it hurts their own people. Which is one reason we should leave!
terrible reason, as I have said umpteen times, to leave in some vague hope of improving the lot of other member countries' folks, who can at any time bring into power parties which want to leave the evil EU! I ignore your continued attempts at telepathy. But one thing I can telepathise about the EU: they will not abandon their established rules for Britain's convenience, and good for them
We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not one should have concern for ones fellow Europeans. I do; it seems you don't. I find that very sad, but let's leave that there. But continuing to rely on imported labour cannot last. There's no reason to suppose we are immune to a recession. Who knows, we might have a disastrous government, like Corbyn's for example, and millions leave for booming Southern Europe. Taking all the tax contributions with them, leaving the old and dependent. We saw that in the 1970's. It could easily happen again. And ultimately, within the lifetime of teenagers today, world population itself will be falling.

As for other people bringing in Eurosceptic parties- just look at Italy.....

And yet, you continue to praise the EU's intransigence, even in the face of economic disaster! When it's the EU's rules which are responsible for the size and duration of the disaster. But you'd rather see those rules maintained, even at the expense of the wellbeing of their people. Who's the conservative here? You or me? :wink:
How about answering my comments about HM government, which, the articles posted by Alan (and actually some by coffee) show, clearly is shit scared of leaving the EU Customs Union. Even you must be able to see that the Tories' threshings around and divisions betray their lack of confidence in Brexit. Even the DUP now prefers a customs union of some sort to the prospect of being divided from the rest of Britain. Brexit is pathetic
Certainly there are divisions within the Conservatives. But there is a total lack of any understanding in Labour. They haven't a scooby- just look at Dan Hannan's article. But, as I see it, it is the obstinacy and bloody-mindedness of the EU which it overwhelmingly to blame. They are out to damage us. Whatever we come up with they say "Non! Impossible!" How can we progress with partners like that? It will go to the wire, it always does, and we have to be prepared to walk away. The EU has huge amounts to lose from Brexit going badly. And bit by bit, some are beginning to realise it.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3423 Post by Alan H » May 12th, 2018, 11:29 pm

One million students join calls for vote on Brexit deal
Student organisations representing almost a million young people studying at UK universities and colleges are today joining forces to demand a referendum on any final Brexit deal, amid growing fears that leaving the EU will have a disastrous effect on their future prospects.

Predicting a young people’s revolt over the coming months, student unions – representing 980,000 students at 60 of the country’s leading universities and colleges – are writing to MPs in their areas this weekend, calling on them to back a “people’s vote” before a final Brexit deal can be implemented.

Student leaders said last night that they were planning action that would dwarf protests held in 2010 against the coalition government’s plans for student fees, and that they would not rest until they had been granted a say on their futures.

They argue in the letter to MPs that there are large numbers of young people – estimated at 1.4 million – who were too young to vote in the June 2016 EU referendum but who are now eligible to do so, and that this group deserves a say.

They also insist that promises made by the pro-Brexit groups during the campaign have not been kept and that only now, almost two years on from the narrow Leave vote, are most people beginning to understand what life outside the EU will look like.

“Because of all this, we call on our elected leaders to deliver on a people’s vote on the Brexit deal so that young people can once and for all have a say on their futures,” the letter says.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3424 Post by Alan H » May 13th, 2018, 5:50 pm

Satire is dead. Brexit: UK government to host summit on why other countries should join the EU
The British government will host a summit encouraging six European countries to join the EU for the sake of their “security, stability and prosperity”, months before it is due to sign its own Brexit withdrawal deal with Brussels.

London will in July play host to Western Balkans governments including Serbia and Albania, as well as existing EU member states, to discuss reforms to pave the way to future EU enlargement.

The summit is part of the so-called Berlin Process – a series of meetings aimed at supporting the region towards joining the bloc and described by the European parliament’s research arm as “bringing a new perspective and impetus to the enlargement process”.

Critics said the UK government must have “a sense of humour” for hosting a conference on EU enlargement and extolling the benefits of accession as Britain itself headed towards the exit door.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3425 Post by Alan H » May 13th, 2018, 9:42 pm

Leave.EU chief reported to police over alleged over-spending
BREXIT campaign group Leave.EU has been reported to police over the organisation’s spending in the run up to the 2016 referendum.

The Electoral Commission handed down a hefty £70,000 fine, and accused the Leave-backing activists of spending at least 10 per cent more than they were legally allowed to.

The commission said the actual overspend figure “may well have been considerably higher”, adding that the group had presented “incomplete and inaccurate” information.

Leave.EU, was co-founded by former Ukip backer Arron Banks, and was fronted by Nigel Farage.

They were responsible for the Breaking Point poster that was reported to police and accused of inciting racial hatred and breaching UK race laws.

Yesterday, it was chief executive, Liz Bilney, who took the fall. The commission referred her to the Metropolitan Police, saying they had “reasonable grounds to suspect that the responsible person for Leave.EU committed criminal offences”.

Scotland Yard confirmed they were investigating a potential criminal offence under section 123(4) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Banks attacked the regulator, describing them as a “Blairite swamp creation packed full of establishment remoaners that couldn’t quite make it to the House of Lords”.

“We view the Electoral Commission announcement as a politically motivated attack on Brexit and the 17.4 million people who defied the establishment to vote for an independent Britain,” Banks said.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3426 Post by Nick » May 14th, 2018, 9:08 am

Alan H wrote:One million students join calls for vote on Brexit deal
Student organisations representing almost a million young people studying at UK universities
Typical Grauniad. Student organisations, which presumably includes the NUS, where membership is (or at least was in my day) mandatory, may well have a million members, but that is not the same as the claim that all of them want a referendum on any Brexit deal.

But you know, the Graun and an understanding of numbers. Like oil and water. :wink:

Still, links in nicely with the EU inter-rail bribe. A rather larger incentive at around £800 million, going directly to impressionable electors, than an alleged £70,000 overspend, would you say? :wink:

coffee
Posts: 1523
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: In or out?

#3427 Post by coffee » May 14th, 2018, 9:43 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:One million students join calls for vote on Brexit deal
Student organisations representing almost a million young people studying at UK universities
Typical Grauniad. Student organisations, which presumably includes the NUS, where membership is (or at least was in my day) mandatory, may well have a million members, but that is not the same as the claim that all of them want a referendum on any Brexit deal.

But you know, the Graun and an understanding of numbers. Like oil and water. :wink:

Still, links in nicely with the EU inter-rail bribe. A rather larger incentive at around £800 million, going directly to impressionable electors, than an alleged £70,000 overspend, would you say? :wink:
:scorepoint: :clap: :clap: :happyclappy: :happyclappy: Good one Nick

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3428 Post by Alan H » May 14th, 2018, 10:36 am

coffee wrote:
Nick wrote:
Typical Grauniad. Student organisations, which presumably includes the NUS, where membership is (or at least was in my day) mandatory, may well have a million members, but that is not the same as the claim that all of them want a referendum on any Brexit deal.

But you know, the Graun and an understanding of numbers. Like oil and water. :wink:

Still, links in nicely with the EU inter-rail bribe. A rather larger incentive at around £800 million, going directly to impressionable electors, than an alleged £70,000 overspend, would you say? :wink:
:scorepoint: :clap: :clap: :happyclappy: :happyclappy: Good one Nick
:pointlaugh: :pointlaugh: :pointlaugh: Same old nonsense...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3429 Post by animist » May 14th, 2018, 1:03 pm

second meeting of the East Grinstead U3A Brexit group. I think we are now pretty well all Remainers, even those who voted Leave. We are mystified and appalled at what is going on. But our next meeting will focus on the evils of the EU. Your turn to attend and persuade, Nick (and coffee FTM)

Zeff
Posts: 142
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: In or out?

#3430 Post by Zeff » May 14th, 2018, 1:24 pm

Sorry I don't have time to keep abreast of (much less contribute much to) this discussion. I'm still in favour of Remain too, by the way.

It will be interesting to see how the EU and UK respond to the possible imposition of sanctions on UK companies if John Bolton and Trump seriously threaten them if companies act in accordance with the Iran Nuclear deal, or JCPA...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Maybe UKGov will just say the UK will stick to the deal and let individual UK companies trade or not as they judge the risks. However, a crunch might come if a UK company acts within the JCPA but is damaged by US sanctions.

Sorry that is going off-topic but I thought it was a tangental point worth mentioning as the EU and UK might not react in complete unison.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3431 Post by Alan H » May 14th, 2018, 3:49 pm

MSPs urged to reject EU Withdrawal Bill
MSPs will be asked to formally refuse to give Holyrood's consent to the EU Withdrawal Bill on Tuesday.

The Scottish and UK governments are at odds over provisions of the Brexit legislation on what happens to devolved powers after the UK leaves the EU.

Scottish ministers have put forward a motion for debate on Tuesday, asking MSPs not to give consent to the bill.

It is expected this will pass, with Scottish Labour and the Greens backing the SNP in opposing parts of the bill.

UK ministers have refused to say if they would go ahead and legislate without Holyrood's consent, saying there is still a chance to come to an agreement.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told business leaders in London on Monday that "time is running out" for a deal to be done.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3432 Post by Nick » May 14th, 2018, 4:06 pm

animist wrote:second meeting of the East Grinstead U3A Brexit group. I think we are now pretty well all Remainers, even those who voted Leave. We are mystified and appalled at what is going on. But our next meeting will focus on the evils of the EU. Your turn to attend and persuade, Nick (and coffee FTM)

You'll need more than one meeting for that, animist! :D Which date....? Though I probably won't be able to make it, I'll come if I can :)

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3433 Post by Nick » May 14th, 2018, 4:15 pm

Zeff wrote:Sorry I don't have time to keep abreast of (much less contribute much to) this discussion. I'm still in favour of Remain too, by the way.

It will be interesting to see how the EU and UK respond to the possible imposition of sanctions on UK companies if John Bolton and Trump seriously threaten them if companies act in accordance with the Iran Nuclear deal, or JCPA...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Maybe UKGov will just say the UK will stick to the deal and let individual UK companies trade or not as they judge the risks. However, a crunch might come if a UK company acts within the JCPA but is damaged by US sanctions.

Sorry that is going off-topic but I thought it was a tangental point worth mentioning as the EU and UK might not react in complete unison.
It will indeed be interesting! Though I am in general pretty horrified by Trump and his actions, it seems he has had rather more success than anyone expected. I am still pretty horrified, and it is certainly a high-risk strategy, but we'll see soon enough. Of course, it is not the EU which is acting, but a consortium of various countries, rather demonstrating that the EU is not required to act in concert with our neighbours.

Zeff
Posts: 142
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: In or out?

#3434 Post by Zeff » May 14th, 2018, 8:48 pm

Nick: "..it seems [Trump] has had rather more success than anyone expected."
What "success" has he "had"?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3435 Post by Alan H » May 14th, 2018, 10:04 pm

Zeff wrote:Nick: "..it seems [Trump] has had rather more success than anyone expected."
What "success" has he "had"?
Success at not being impeached?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3436 Post by Nick » May 14th, 2018, 10:45 pm

Zeff wrote:Nick: "..it seems [Trump] has had rather more success than anyone expected."
What "success" has he "had"?
I'm not claiming his success is complete. It may still unravel. And yes, I'm nervous it might. But for whatever reason, it seems things are different in North Korea. Of course, there may be other reasons for it (I can think of several), but why has it happened now? Trump is too big a factor (in either direction) not to need to be accounted for.

And, in other areas, I think the repatriation of capital to America is important, as well as the forcing of China to move nearer to its WTO obligations.

As I say, not complete, the jury's still out, or perhaps more accurately, not all the evidence has been presented yet, but still, not (yet?) the disaster predicted. Hmmm....

Zeff
Posts: 142
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Re: In or out?

#3437 Post by Zeff » May 15th, 2018, 4:57 am

Nick wrote:
Zeff wrote:Nick: "..it seems [Trump] has had rather more success than anyone expected."
What "success" has he "had"?
.... But for whatever reason, it seems things are different in North Korea. Of course, there may be other reasons for it (I can think of several), but why has it happened now? Trump is too big a factor (in either direction) not to need to be accounted for.

And, in other areas, I think the repatriation of capital to America is important, as well as the forcing of China to move nearer to its WTO obligations.

As I say, not complete, the jury's still out, or perhaps more accurately, not all the evidence has been presented yet, but still, not (yet?) the disaster predicted. Hmmm....
The reason cannot be foolish tweets. More likely, it was the visit Kim made (by train) to China, the fact that he is now seen to have a nuclear deterrant and the collapse of the test site...
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/35801 ... pse-report
What has apparently changed is that Kim feels secure.

Ex-Pres Obama said that N Korea would be a top priority for the incoming President and there was hope that international cooperation (impossible under a buffoon) would stop them getting it. It still isn't clear that the delivery system is in place, but the NK regime does seem secure now. So no Trump achievement observable there to me.

From what I have read, mainly in the Economist Magazine, far from "forcing China" he has done the opposite. By opting out of TPP and leaving so many diplomatic posts unfilled he has left the W Democracies of Japan, SKorea, Australia and NZ to try to impose western standards of transparency and rules without US backing and support.

I agree he seems to have taken some good advice on tax codes (such as state taxes no longer being deductible) and perhaps on some repatriation of capital but even a baffoon like Trump can't get it wrong all the time.
https://www.suredividend.com/repatriation-tax-reform/

I'm afraid far from being "not complete" Trump's achievements appear to be virtually nil and risk war and disaster. As Zakaria pointed out (GPS, CNN) unemployment was already falling and the economy doing well. All Trumps reforms have achieved is overstimulous without commensurately improved infrastructure or other benefits and even greater deficits. So mainly squandering rather than "achievement" there.

Nobody mentions condemning N Koreans to serving Kim's regime indefinitely.

I understand that people see "no choice" between Clinton and Trump, but it is foolish to put a dimwitted egotist in the Oval Office to try to solve anything.

And returning to Brexit, it still looks like a big mistake. Looking at PM May's trips to India and China, now authoritarian Erdogan's visit to London, it looks like we have not "handed control of our democracy" (as Brexiteers insist on seeing it) to the EU, where we had influence and vote, but to anyone willing to give us a trade deal.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: In or out?

#3438 Post by Nick » May 15th, 2018, 7:22 am

Zeff wrote:
Nick wrote:
Zeff wrote:Nick: "..it seems [Trump] has had rather more success than anyone expected."
What "success" has he "had"?
.... But for whatever reason, it seems things are different in North Korea. Of course, there may be other reasons for it (I can think of several), but why has it happened now? Trump is too big a factor (in either direction) not to need to be accounted for.

And, in other areas, I think the repatriation of capital to America is important, as well as the forcing of China to move nearer to its WTO obligations.

As I say, not complete, the jury's still out, or perhaps more accurately, not all the evidence has been presented yet, but still, not (yet?) the disaster predicted. Hmmm....
The reason cannot be foolish tweets.
Why not? I too am horrified my most of what Trump does, but maybe it is this very "foolishness which has changed the paradigm. Akin to throwing all the cards in the air.
More likely, it was the visit Kim made (by train) to China,
Why has China's attitude changed, though? Could it be the belligerence of Trump? China is moving towards being fairer in its international trading, and more exasperated with its loony dictator neighbour. Though Trump's "rocket man" japes are alarming, he would be sickeningly self-satisfied to complete a fabulous deal to solve the North Korean problem. I also wonder is Kim thinks it wise and advantageous to try to improve the state of his nation. He's live in Switzerland, I believe. Maybe he liked what he saw...?
the fact that he is now seen to have a nuclear deterrant and the collapse of the test site...
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/35801 ... pse-report
What has apparently changed is that Kim feels secure.
Hmmm... "Seen to have". If I were N.Korean, I wouldn't want to rely on it for defence! It may have allowed Kim to save face, allowed him to move on, but the destruction of all future nuclear weapon development doesn't support the thesis IMO that Kim has joined the top table. I'd like to have been a (tri-lingual) fly-on-the-wall at Kim's meeting in China. That seems the most likely reason for the change....
Ex-Pres Obama said that N Korea would be a top priority for the incoming President and there was hope that international cooperation (impossible under a buffoon) would stop them getting it.
So where do Obama's "international co-operation" get to in stopping the nuclear aspiration of NK? Nowhere. Buffoon? Maybe, but maybe it is that buffoonery which has changed the best options for China and NK.
It still isn't clear that the delivery system is in place, but the NK regime does seem secure now. So no Trump achievement observable there to me.
Hmmm... I don't see any "security" for NK. it remains a disaster waiting to happen. Totally reliant on China. Admittedly "achievement" implies some reasoned progression, which I don't see much of either, (!) but maybe we could use the word " result" instead.
From what I have read, mainly in the Economist Magazine, far from "forcing China" he has done the opposite. By opting out of TPP and leaving so many diplomatic posts unfilled he has left the W Democracies of Japan, SKorea, Australia and NZ to try to impose western standards of transparency and rules without US backing and support.
The Economist is always worth reading. But to suggest "the opposite of force" doesn't fit at all. Trump has been disruptive, and played good cop, bad cop all on his own!
I agree he seems to have taken some good advice on tax codes (such as state taxes no longer being deductible) and perhaps on some repatriation of capital but even a baffoon like Trump can't get it wrong all the time.
https://www.suredividend.com/repatriation-tax-reform/
I dunno... Corbyn seems to manage it! :wink:
I'm afraid far from being "not complete" Trump's achievements appear to be virtually nil and risk war and disaster.
Certainly the risk is still there, and may get worse. We will see.
As Zakaria pointed out (GPS, CNN) unemployment was already falling and the economy doing well. All Trumps reforms have achieved is overstimulous without commensurately improved infrastructure or other benefits and even greater deficits. So mainly squandering rather than "achievement" there.
Quite possibly.
Nobody mentions condemning N Koreans to serving Kim's regime indefinitely.
Hmmm... are you now advocating regime change...?
I understand that people see "no choice" between Clinton and Trump, but it is foolish to put a dimwitted egotist in the Oval Office to try to solve anything.
I certainly wouldn't have voted for him! But his feet are (currently, at least,) under the desk in the Oval Office, so that's where we are.
And returning to Brexit, it still looks like a big mistake. Looking at PM May's trips to India and China, now authoritarian Erdogan's visit to London, it looks like we have not "handed control of our democracy" (as Brexiteers insist on seeing it) to the EU, where we had influence and vote, but to anyone willing to give us a trade deal.
We had a vote, but were consistently outvoted and dragged in the wrong direction, so our influence was negated. And we can certainly seee that the EU has made spectacular mistakes as a matter of policy. The EU has so far failed to agree a trade deal with either China or India; I don't see trade deals where before there were none to be a failure.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3439 Post by Alan H » May 15th, 2018, 7:37 pm

This Brexit thingy is all going tickety-boo, isn't it? Trump threatens to use US trade talks to force NHS to pay more for drugs
Donald Trump is ready to use trade talks to force the National Health Service to pay more for its drugs as part of his scheme to "put American patients first”.

Mr Trump has claimed that the high costs faced by US patients are a direct result of other countries’ health services “freeloading” at America’s expense.

Alex Azar, the US Health and Human Services Secretary, has said Washington will use its muscle to push up drug prices abroad, to lower the cost paid by patients in the United States.

"On the foreign side, we need to, through our trade negotiations and agreements, pressure them," Azar said on CNBC.

"And so we pay less, they pay more. It shouldn't be a one-way ratchet. We all have some skin in this game."

He continued: "The reason why they are getting better net prices than we get is their socialised system."

In the UK, prices are dictated in part by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) which has been successful in securing discounts for some of the costliest drugs.

Single-payer government-run health services like the NHS are able to use their negotiating muscle to pay far lower prices than their fragmented insurance-based private American counterparts, to the fury of the US president.

“America will not be cheated any longer, and especially will not be cheated by foreign countries,” Mr Trump said.

“In some cases, medicine that costs a few dollars in a foreign country costs hundreds of dollars in America for the same pill, with the same ingredients, in the same package, made in the same plant. That is unacceptable.

“It's unfair. It's ridiculous. It's not going to happen any longer. It's time to end the global freeloading once and for all.”

The pharmaceutical companies in the US are among the biggest corporate political donors and Democrats accused the US president of looking after the industry rather than patients.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#3440 Post by animist » May 15th, 2018, 9:28 pm

Nick wrote: We had a vote, but were consistently outvoted and dragged in the wrong direction, so our influence was negated. And we can certainly seee that the EU has made spectacular mistakes as a matter of policy. The EU has so far failed to agree a trade deal with either China or India; I don't see trade deals where before there were none to be a failure.
um yes, we had a vote, but so did the other 27 - it is something called democracy. The EU has not done deals with China or India, and neither is the UK, even from a position of isolated desperation rather than rational choice, likely to do so

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24046
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#3441 Post by Alan H » May 16th, 2018, 1:20 am

Who knew? Theresa May's Brexit plans are 'undeliverable' warns former head of UK civil service
Exclusive: The government is "heading at full steam towards an undeliverable goal" in its attempt to implement Brexit by 2020, according to Lord Kerslake, the former head of the UK civil service.

Kerslake warned that civil servants were being hamstrung by ministerial indecision and unworkable customs plans.

"Talk privately to anyone involved [and] the thing they say is most difficult to handle has been the indecisiveness of the May government," he said.

He said the government would likely seek to extend the transition period to avoid an economic "cliff-edge."

Theresa May's government is "heading at full steam towards an undeliverable goal" in its attempt to implement her Brexit customs plans by 2020, the former head of the UK civil service has told Business Insider.

"We haven't sorted out a deliverable version of the 'end state' of Brexit because there isn't a deliverable version," Lord Kerslake, who headed the civil service between 2012 and 2014 during David Cameron's coalition government, told BI. "The deliverable version isn't acceptable to a significant chunk of Conservative MPs."

Kerslake warned that civil servants were being hamstrung by ministerial indecision and unworkable customs plans.

"The biggest single issue has been the inability of ministers to firm up what the policy is. Talk privately to anyone involved [and] the thing they say is most difficult to handle has been the indecisiveness of the May government. And I think it's greatly challenging for preparedness," he said.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply