RayC

The Chinese and Indian restaurants are open but all the Thai ones are closed😉

Not a big enough area. You'd need part of Rome ... oh, hold on ... Some of those buildings are +/-2000 years old. About time they were demolished.

Yep. Nothing in the article supports the headline.

It's an bias opinion piece written by a neo-conservative, China hawk which is devoid of any empirical evidence. Apart from that it's an excellent piece of journalism. On the positive side, I do like the word, 'Emojinauts'. Congratulations for coming up with that.

Oh, my achy breaky heart💔 I note that you offer nothing in reply to the questions posed,

Do you disagree? If so, perhaps you could point out how Trump's actions since January have benefitted the world and/or where I can find the sunlit uplands promised by Brexit?

'Nice lady'? Perhaps you know her personally in which case, I'll bow to your superior knowledge. My impression is that she is so confrontational she could start a row in an empty room.

I would imagine that Meghan is a Brexiter. Having left the 'club', she appears to still want to retain all the benefits of membership and does seem to understand why this is not possible.

Again, we agree. This is where we might disagree. I'm not so sure about that I would also imagine everyone in the White House is, and if they are not they should be. If, by that, you mean that a fully-fledged trade war takes place accompanied by a world-wide recession then again, I agree. And the world will know where to lay the blame.

Imo simply an excuse. As I explained in my previous post, the Maïdan uprising was the catalyst for the current situation, and that was about EU - not NATO - membership. There was no serious possibility of Ukraine being granted NATO membership in the foreseeable future when the Maïdan uprising took place in 2014.

You are quite right to imply that the world is not static and that things change in the MT/LT, however, short-term measures do have consequences. There can be no doubt that Trump's actions wrt tariffs have caused chaos and instability. Markets and (most) governments crave the exact opposite. In the ST, maybe China (and the rest of the world) will blink first, we'll see. However, if the US is perceived as being an unpredictable, unreliable partner - and that is happening - imo it can only have negative effects in the MT/LT for the US.

It is almost certainly true to say that the US government at the time of the Maïdan Revolution preferred an EU-focussed Ukraine to a Russian focussed one and perhaps the US stoked the fire, but to claim that the US instigated the uprising is nonsense. As Chicagoexpat correctly points out, the catalyst for the Maidan Revolution was Yanukovich's refusal to sign the 'EU Association Agreement' - which was a central part of his manifesto - but instead, under pressure from Moscow, attempt to tie Ukraine's economic future to Russia. (Over 80% of Ukrainians supported the idea of joining the EU). Putin subsequently used the Maïdan as an excuse to increase Russia's interference in Ukraine which ultimately resulted in the invasion. The blame for the war falls squarely on Putin's shoulders. It really is as simple as that. Why Putin felt so strongly about Ukraine's tilt to the West is another matter. Concern about the effect on Russia's economy? Fear of potential NATO aggression? Perhaps. However, imo - and there is strong supporting evidence - a more likely explanation is that Putin falls into the 'Tsarist school' which does not believe that Ukraine is a sovereign country in its' own right, but is simply a part of a 'Greater Russia' The attached link gives a very good overview of the historical context of the Russian - Ukrainian relationship https://theconversation.com/why-putin-has-such-a-hard-time-accepting-ukrainian-sovereignty-174029

I think that the UK may suffer more damage as a result of Trump's actions rather than Starmer's.

Nice summary. Actually, I'll qualify that slightly. Trump bad for the world outside of the US. I'll leave it to US posters to comment on his domestic performance. EU good: Absolutely when you consider what Brexit has achieved i.e. very little, if any, positive effect and no end of negatives.

It's the " .. and more" bit that has caused the concern. Wrt tariffs, you're correct that he promised them. However, the markets and the rest of the world had probably 'priced in' some targeted tariffs of moderate size e.g. against China and, perhaps, the EU and on certain products such as steel. The problem has been caused by the scattergun approach and the size of the tariffs.

Thank goodness that governing the UK is as straightforward as you portray it, and that international issues never affect the UK. "'Put the domestic issues in this box please and the overseas ones in that one'. We'll deal with the domestic ones first. What's that? Trump is attempting to redefine international trade? Never mind that for now, we've got to deal with some applications for planning permission in Telford.'"

It is difficult to switch suppliers in the very short term, so to that extent it could be argued that the rest of the world NEEDS the US. Obviously, this dependency works the other way as well. (Incidentally, this short term dependency also explains why US tariff revenue is at record levels). However, outside of this very short time-scale it is a different story: Other nations will WANT to deal with the US but very few will NEED to. On the (US) export side, substitutes for most US goods will be available elsewhere; other things being equal, there shouldn't be any major problems with capacity as goods which were originally destined for the US market can be diverted. All that Trump's tariffs will succeed in doing is reducing the demand for US goods and financially injuring the US producer and ultimately the US consumer. As far as (overseas) exports to the US are concerned; yes, nations will want to deal with the US but not at any price: No deal is better than a bad deal. I suspect that Trump will wrestle a few concessions from nations and claim a great victory, when in reality nothing much will have changed. I doubt very much that there will be a fundamental reordering of the structure of world trade as some posters suggest. Going off on a slight tangent. I am still baffled why Trump believes that relocating cheap textile manufacturing from the likes of Bangladesh and Vietnam - and cheap electrical manufacturing from China - to the US is a good idea. Are these the types of low-paid jobs which the average American worker wants to fill? Even in the unlikely event that is the case, these jobs are likely to very temporary, as capital innovation will probably soon render human labour mostly redundant in these types of industries.

In a departure from tradition, PM Carney did not firstly thank his family and friends, instead he opened with, "Thanks, Don. I couldn't have done it without you".

Humanity rules the waves.

My detestation of Hamas dates back to 2nd December 1987. I remember it well. It was a Wednesday and I played squash in the evening🤦 Have they? Unfortunately, they still appear to have plenty of support. Were they? There were also plenty of people who considered them terrorists from the outset. Assuming that is the case, you had best ask a Hamas supporter.

Another example of misplaced arrogance. The US may have decided to opt-out from the MFN, the remainder of the world has not and need not. If the manufacturing of consumer goods returns to the US en masse, it will undoubtedly lead to inflation (or wage deflation). Whether - and how much of this - the US consumer will put up with is another matter. Chinese companies may decide to focus on quality rather than price in the future, but that will have nothing to do with Trump's tariff policies. Unless the demand for the good is inelastic - and that is not the case for most consumer goods - all that will happen is that there will be fewer goods sold and, in all probability, a recession will occur. A threat that I suspect that China, the EU and, perhaps, the rest of the G7 would find unacceptable and refuse to agree to. Trump's actions undermine the US economy and the dollar's status as a stable, trustworthy currency. I'm not sure that the ECB would welcome the Euro becoming the reserve currency but maybe it would have little choice but to accept the role. Who knows, maybe things will edge back towards the Gold Standard or maybe, crypto really is the way forwards?

That's fair enough. I made a mistake. I misread the OP. Having re-read it, I withdraw my support for that post.

At least one person has implied otherwise. Agreed. Even with your later correction, I have no idea why you address this comment to me. For the record and in case you are wondering, I detest anti-Semitism and the actions of Hamas.

Governments have to deal with both domestic and overseas events. It's a fact of political life.

Certainly the latter.