Trump dangles very big trade deal in front of Brexit Britain

[samran]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I sense a bit of anger or is it jealousy.

555. Neither.

 

Maybe the fascination of watching a car crash in slow motion better sums it up. 

[stephenterry]

24 minutes ago, Basil B said:

                                                   ^^^ Deflection ^^^

 

My argument was how America is always ready to exploit us (Brits), no more so at this time with the Orange Buffoon at the helm...

 

There is very little I would agree with Corbyn on but seems today he has got it right...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49476705

Yes, I agree that as far as the US is concerned, Corbyn has got it right. However, it should be crystal (to everyone apart from him) that Corbyn would not obtain a no confidence vote if he was at the helm (of an alternative government), because under no circumstances would Tory MPs would vote him into power.

[Basil B]

37 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Yes, I agree that as far as the US is concerned, Corbyn has got it right. However, it should be crystal (to everyone apart from him) that Corbyn would not obtain a no confidence vote if he was at the helm (of an alternative government), because under no circumstances would Tory MPs would vote him into power.

Opposition party leaders meeting today...

 

Certainly not a stable government that would last more than a few weeks, could see if Corbyn were not to step aside the opposition parties supporting a Labour government on scuttling a no deal brexit on condition of a referendum only.

 

Even still the opposition parties would want to have some control over JC executive orders...

 

Any other legislation the Labour caretaker government wanted to pass would have to be acceptable to all the opposition parties or it would be defeated, so Corbyn could follow BoJo as being the shortest tennier of No 10.

 

It is now very likely we will have a General Election in Q4 of this year, would be the first time since 1974, (10th Oct 74 Harold Wilson re-elected)

 

 

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

A no-deal Brexit would leave the UK at the mercy of US President Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn has claimed.

Writing in the Independent, the Labour party leader accused the PM of "cosying up to Trump" because "no-deal Brexit is really a Trump-deal Brexit".

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49476705

Corbyn's just miffed because nobody's cosying up to him, not even in his own party.

 

...not even the Rt Hon Diane Abbott.

[bristolboy]

16 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Isn't that foreign interference?

 

The Good Friday Agreement was chaired by US senator George Mitchell but Pelosi, the Democrats or any American doesn't have copyright or patents on it.

You mean like Trump pushing for Brexit and promising the UK a great deal?

Doublethink much?

[johnnybangkok]

8 hours ago, mania said:

I know that sounds logical but...........

 

I am a sport/hobby nut & spend much $$$  on my hobby.

I am in the US & my main 3 vendors I buy from are all in the UK.

 

I do not know how they do it but their prices are so much better that with delivery ( which many times is free)

are still better than what I can buy online here including places like Amazon etc Even if they use Royal Mail>USPS or DHL/UPS/FedEx etc.

 

So if they can ship my things (which are not tiny) either free or very cheaply as they do then I have to wonder if what you say is factual

Lastly remember I am buying small quantities of items for personal use. If anything the cost of shipping should be much less in bulk

 

You've answered your own question with 'If anything the cost of shipping should be much less in bulk'. I'm unsure of what you are buying but whoever you are buying from obviously has your product produced en masse and therefore has the benefit of producing large quantities of it, therefore making it cheaper to export. Most regular exporters/importers negotiate their shipping costs on an annual agreement so if they can guarantee a certain quantity, they can get a good price and even beat local competition. Also to note is you are talking about non-perishables whereas my comment was more aimed at perishables such as fruit, vegetables and the likes. Current EU trade rules allow for friction-less borders meaning an orange grown in Spain can be shipped to the UK that same day. This will not be the case for the US as apart from the rules needing to be set up, you're talking an awful lot longer in transport time and the difficulties and expenses of keeping them fresh without pumping them full of chemicals.

I'm no logistic expert but I'm sure someone on this forum is and can probably explain this better than I have.  

[Nigel Garvie]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

You've answered your own question with 'If anything the cost of shipping should be much less in bulk'. I'm unsure of what you are buying but whoever you are buying from obviously has your product produced en masse and therefore has the benefit of producing large quantities of it, therefore making it cheaper to export. Most regular exporters/importers negotiate their shipping costs on an annual agreement so if they can guarantee a certain quantity, they can get a good price and even beat local competition. Also to note is you are talking about non-perishables whereas my comment was more aimed at perishables such as fruit, vegetables and the likes. Current EU trade rules allow for friction-less borders meaning an orange grown in Spain can be shipped to the UK that same day. This will not be the case for the US as apart from the rules needing to be set up, you're talking an awful lot longer in transport time and the difficulties and expenses of keeping them fresh without pumping them full of chemicals.

I'm no logistic expert but I'm sure someone on this forum is and can probably explain this better than I have.  

I worked for a Scottish container shipping company in the early 80s. You are broadly right, but in addition every Line has only so many container ships (They cost 120M£ even then, todays are giants by comparison). So even when your goods get to the port, they have to wait for the next ship. We are talking about 10/15 days to cross the pond, then loading/unloading 2/3 days. Most UK containers then go by train to an area depot, where they are loaded onto lorries. The perishable goods face significant additional costs. 1/2 days for delivery within EU is a distant dream. I think I'd rather get my oranges from Spain!

 

[samran]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

You've answered your own question with 'If anything the cost of shipping should be much less in bulk'. I'm unsure of what you are buying but whoever you are buying from obviously has your product produced en masse and therefore has the benefit of producing large quantities of it, therefore making it cheaper to export. Most regular exporters/importers negotiate their shipping costs on an annual agreement so if they can guarantee a certain quantity, they can get a good price and even beat local competition. Also to note is you are talking about non-perishables whereas my comment was more aimed at perishables such as fruit, vegetables and the likes. Current EU trade rules allow for friction-less borders meaning an orange grown in Spain can be shipped to the UK that same day. This will not be the case for the US as apart from the rules needing to be set up, you're talking an awful lot longer in transport time and the difficulties and expenses of keeping them fresh without pumping them full of chemicals.

I'm no logistic expert but I'm sure someone on this forum is and can probably explain this better than I have.  

Add to this, you are getting rid of one seamless trade agreement with 20+ countries and going out to attempting to replace those 20+ countries with separate trade agreements, which will all be different in their scope and nature. And they won't be free trade, they will be partial things. A bit here, and bit there, but nothing as comprehensive as you have now. 

 

As such, a UK business which could rely on one set of rules to sell to these 20+ countries in the EU, will need to eventually come up with the capacity to deal with 20+ separate trade agreements with new non EU trade partners (each with 20+ different forms of compliance around rules of origin, regulatory standards etc) as Britain spreads its wings to deal with the rest of the world. So massive compliance costs imposed on british business, just to get back to square one for starters. And you'll do this by diverting away from your closest trading partners - in the logistical sense.

 

Its interesting to note that the 2004 Australia-US free trade agreement achieved not very much in the end. This was a trade deal, mind you, which was negotiated between two conservative governments off the back of Australia being front and centre in the 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq. So as favourable trade deal as you are going to get with the US without the ego of the trump added in.

 

So you still get screwed over with longer copyright rules for drugs, lessening your ability to produce generic drugs for your NHS. The US farmers are a powerful lobby, so the welsh farmers are unlikely to see much joy from any UK-US FTA.

 

"AUSFTA included more stringent protections for intellectual property(IP)right holders, most notably US pharmaceutical companies and copyright holders. The agreement required changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, potentially impacting on the price and ability to sell generic medicines, and given that Australia was a net importer of IP meant the agreement was likely to result in increased transfers of IP rents to the United States. The fact that key US markets for Australian agricultural producers like beef and dairy were only partially liberalised, and not liberalised at all in the case of sugar, added to the controversy about the agreement.

 

"Most ex ante studies estimated that AUSFTA would have little or no impact on the Australian economy. Andriamananjara and Tsigas (2003) estimated the FTA would have a miniscule effect, increasing Australia’s welfare by only $44 million. In a comprehensive study, Dee (2005) estimated an increase in Australian economic welfare of $53 million a yearand an increase in goods trade of around $127 million. Other studies show results of a similar magnitude. There were some studies that showed net negative effects from AUSFTA.Hilaire and Yang (2003) predicted that AUSFTA would shrink the economy by 0.03 per cent a year with US imports displacing more competitive imports from elsewhere —a result of the effects of ‘trade diversion’.

 

The source is: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/ajrc/wpapers/2015/201501.pdf?06d09

 

No doubt the usual suspects will see this as 'too technical' and 'project fear'.

 

[Nigel Garvie]

3 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Yes, I agree that as far as the US is concerned, Corbyn has got it right. However, it should be crystal (to everyone apart from him) that Corbyn would not obtain a no confidence vote if he was at the helm (of an alternative government), because under no circumstances would Tory MPs would vote him into power.

 

3 hours ago, Basil B said:

Opposition party leaders meeting today...

 

Certainly not a stable government that would last more than a few weeks, could see if Corbyn were not to step aside the opposition parties supporting a Labour government on scuttling a no deal brexit on condition of a referendum only.

 

Even still the opposition parties would want to have some control over JC executive orders...

 

Any other legislation the Labour caretaker government wanted to pass would have to be acceptable to all the opposition parties or it would be defeated, so Corbyn could follow BoJo as being the shortest tennier of No 10.

 

It is now very likely we will have a General Election in Q4 of this year, would be the first time since 1974, (10th Oct 74 Harold Wilson re-elected)

 

 

This is the most critical question at the moment, I think that Corbyn has to step aside. Few trust him, he has to ask Milne and McLusky's permission before stating his views, so he is impossible to negotiate with. His timetable is based round a GE not a referendum. The first job of any Government of national salvation is to dump article 50. Then a referendum without a Damoclean sword hanging over us. Finally a GE.

[joecoolfrog]

8 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I sense a bit of anger or is it jealousy.

I sense a great deal of denial or is it desperation ?

[Forethat]

10 minutes ago, samran said:

Add to this, you are getting rid of one seamless trade agreement with 20+ countries and going out to attempting to replace those 20+ countries with separate trade agreements, which will all be different in their scope and nature. And they won't be free trade, they will be partial things. A bit here, and bit there, but nothing as comprehensive as you have now. 

 

As such, a UK business which could rely on one set of rules to sell to these 20+ countries in the EU, will need to eventually come up with the capacity to deal with 20+ separate trade agreements with new non EU trade partners (each with 20+ different forms of compliance around rules of origin, regulatory standards etc) as Britain spreads its wings to deal with the rest of the world. So massive compliance costs imposed on british business, just to get back to square one for starters. And you'll do this by diverting away from your closest trading partners - in the logistical sense.

 

Its interesting to note that the 2004 Australia-US free trade agreement achieved not very much in the end. This was a trade deal, mind you, which was negotiated between two conservative governments off the back of Australia being front and centre in the 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq. So as favourable trade deal as you are going to get with the US without the ego of the trump added in.

 

So you still get screwed over with longer copyright rules for drugs, lessening your ability to produce generic drugs for your NHS. The US farmers are a powerful lobby, so the welsh farmers are unlikely to see much joy from any UK-US FTA.

 

"AUSFTA included more stringent protections for intellectual property(IP)right holders, most notably US pharmaceutical companies and copyright holders. The agreement required changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, potentially impacting on the price and ability to sell generic medicines, and given that Australia was a net importer of IP meant the agreement was likely to result in increased transfers of IP rents to the United States. The fact that key US markets for Australian agricultural producers like beef and dairy were only partially liberalised, and not liberalised at all in the case of sugar, added to the controversy about the agreement.

 

"Most ex ante studies estimated that AUSFTA would have little or no impact on the Australian economy. Andriamananjara and Tsigas (2003) estimated the FTA would have a miniscule effect, increasing Australia’s welfare by only $44 million. In a comprehensive study, Dee (2005) estimated an increase in Australian economic welfare of $53 million a yearand an increase in goods trade of around $127 million. Other studies show results of a similar magnitude. There were some studies that showed net negative effects from AUSFTA.Hilaire and Yang (2003) predicted that AUSFTA would shrink the economy by 0.03 per cent a year with US imports displacing more competitive imports from elsewhere —a result of the effects of ‘trade diversion’.

 

The source is: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/ajrc/wpapers/2015/201501.pdf?06d09

 

No doubt the usual suspects will see this as 'too technical' and 'project fear'.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong from a financial perspective. Yet you seem to forget that there's the issue of sovereignty and national identity as well. Money isn't everything.

Just wanted to point that out. In fact, I'm rather confident a majority of leave-voters are willing to sacrifice quite a lot in order to get their sovereignty and national identity back. 

[JonnyF]

8 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I sense a bit of anger or is it jealousy.

Exactly. Some of these Europhiles are starting to look like a soon to be divorced wife who just found out that her husband is getting a lot of interest from better looking women. 

 

Not a good look.

[stephenterry]

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Just wanted to point that out. In fact, I'm rather confident a majority of leave-voters are willing to sacrifice quite a lot in order to get their sovereignty and national identity back. 

We've never lost our sovereignty. As for national identity - do me a favour...

[Forethat]

32 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Exactly. Some of these Europhiles are starting to look like a soon to be divorced wife who just found out that her husband is getting a lot of interest from better looking women. 

 

Not a good look.

Actually, I'd say the Europhiles look more like the husband whose wife has moved out and then stalks her to see whether she's dating other men, in which case he threatens to beat her up with a baseball bat and makes sure she doesn't get to see the children. Ever again. 

[stephenterry]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Exactly. Some of these Europhiles are starting to look like a soon to be divorced wife who just found out that her husband is getting a lot of interest from better looking women. 

 

Not a good look.

If it's no-deal, you'd lose the house, car and everything valuable to satisfy a mentality that has no benefits.

[candide]

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Exactly. Some of these Europhiles are starting to look like a soon to be divorced wife who just found out that her husband is getting a lot of interest from better looking women. 

 

Not a good look.

Divorced men often found out that these beautiful women were more rapacious than their previous wife.....

[Forethat]

4 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

We've never lost our sovereignty. As for national identity - do me a favour...

We've never lost our sovereignty? Wow, are you in for a rude wakeup to reality. The highest juridical instance in the UK is the European Court of Justice.

 

You were saying?

[scorecard]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

Divorced men often found out that these beautiful women were more rapacious than their previous wife.....

Frying pan to the fire so to speak...

[watcharacters]

On 8/26/2019 at 10:44 AM, Victornoir said:

Trump has a lot of flaws but he's not stupid.

 

Everyone knows that!      Trump reminds the world daily..

 

 

[stephenterry]

15 minutes ago, Forethat said:

We've never lost our sovereignty? Wow, are you in for a rude wakeup to reality. The highest juridical instance in the UK is the European Court of Justice.

 

You were saying?

Britain is a sovereign state Full Stop. Parliament can make their own laws, albeit owing to the EU treaties, Britain has accommodated the ECJ - and that's beneficial IMO in that we're unlikely to enter into an undemocratic state that the right-wingers strive to achieve. 

 

You were saying ?

[Forethat]

4 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Britain is a sovereign state Full Stop. Parliament can make their own laws, albeit owing to the EU treaties, Britain has accommodated the ECJ - and that's beneficial IMO in that we're unlikely to enter into an undemocratic state that the right-wingers strive to achieve. 

 

You were saying ?

Well, this is my area and you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

Here it is, served on a silver plate:

• There is national law, and there's EU law.
• The Rome Treaty included the creation of the European court of justice.
• One of the most important ruling of the ECJ is that EU member states must give up part of their sovereignty and accept EU law EVEN when there are applicable national laws in place.

 

https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/eu-law-and-the-ecj/eu-law-the-ecj-and-primacy-over-national-laws

 

You were saying?

[samran]

40 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I'm not saying you're wrong from a financial perspective. Yet you seem to forget that there's the issue of sovereignty and national identity as well. Money isn't everything.

Just wanted to point that out. In fact, I'm rather confident a majority of leave-voters are willing to sacrifice quite a lot in order to get their sovereignty and national identity back. 

haha.

 

Don't worry, if you are worried about sovereignty loss, then all your Christmases are coming at once. All your new fan-dangled FTA's will be governed under Investor State Dispute mechanisms, which essentially allow foreign investors to bypass local laws and let un-elected judges and tribunals in far off lands adjudicate over them. Only those with the best lawyers win.

 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-are-trade-disputes-resolved

 

But i'm sure the blue passports will be worth as you clutch it as your already stretched NHS is asked to give even more.

 

And don't forget you as a nation, have no ongoing input on your ongoing trade relationship given FTA's are largely 'set and forget after negotiations are completed.

 

If only there were an organization you could be a member of, where you could constantly review your ongoing trade arrangements to make sure they were fit for purpose....

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, Forethat said:

Well, this is my area and you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

Here it is, served on a silver plate:

• There is national law, and there's EU law.
• The Rome Treaty included the creation of the European court of justice.
• One of the most important ruling of the ECJ is that EU member states must give up part of their sovereignty and accept EU law EVEN when there are applicable national laws in place.

 

https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/eu-law-and-the-ecj/eu-law-the-ecj-and-primacy-over-national-laws

 

You were saying?

Before you make insulting comments, it's clear you don't seem to accept that Britain is a sovereign nation. When you get that into your head, by all means talk about the effect of the ECJ and that successive British governments have chosen to pool aspects of the country’s sovereign power in the EU in order to achieve national objectives that they could not have achieved on their own, such as creating the single market, enlarging the EU, constraining Iran’s nuclear programme, and helping to design an ambitious EU climate change strategy.

 

Is that clear?  Apologies accepted.

[cleopatra2]

9 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Well, this is my area and you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

Here it is, served on a silver plate:

• There is national law, and there's EU law.
• The Rome Treaty included the creation of the European court of justice.
• One of the most important ruling of the ECJ is that EU member states must give up part of their sovereignty and accept EU law EVEN when there are applicable national laws in place.

 

https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/eu-law-and-the-ecj/eu-law-the-ecj-and-primacy-over-national-laws

 

You were saying?

This is not accurate

 A UK court must take into account any EU law when reaching its decision .

[bannork]

24 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Well, this is my area and you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

Here it is, served on a silver plate:

• There is national law, and there's EU law.
• The Rome Treaty included the creation of the European court of justice.
• One of the most important ruling of the ECJ is that EU member states must give up part of their sovereignty and accept EU law EVEN when there are applicable national laws in place.

 

https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/eu-law-and-the-ecj/eu-law-the-ecj-and-primacy-over-national-laws

 

You were saying?

That can be a good thing. Irish citizens took legal action in the European Court of Justice against their own government for contaminated public water supplies.

[Forethat]

19 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

This is not accurate

 A UK court must take into account any EU law when reaching its decision .

Correct. A UK court cannot rule without taking the EU law into account, and is prohibited from ruling in a way that it contradicts EU law.

 

So, in simple terms - EU law has precedence over UK law.  Just as I said (and you).

 

 

[Forethat]

5 minutes ago, bannork said:

That can be a good thing. Irish citizens took legal action in the European Court of Justice against their own government for contaminated public water supplies.

Absolutely. EU law isn't always a bad thing.

[cleopatra2]

35 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Well, this is my area and you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

Here it is, served on a silver plate:

• There is national law, and there's EU law.
• The Rome Treaty included the creation of the European court of justice.
• One of the most important ruling of the ECJ is that EU member states must give up part of their sovereignty and accept EU law EVEN when there are applicable national laws in place.

 

https://lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-legal-guide/eu-law-and-the-ecj/eu-law-the-ecj-and-primacy-over-national-laws

 

You were saying?

Since this is your area I would refer you to Lord Denning statement 1979

 

He stated that if Parliament expressly declared its intention to contradict a treaty or provision of such treaty . Then it would be the duty to uphold Parliaments intention.

[cleopatra2]

3 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Correct. A UK court cannot rule without taking the EU law into account, and is prohibited from ruling in a way that it contradicts EU law.

 

So, in simple terms - EU law has precedence over UK law.  Just as I said (and you).

 

 

EU law as primacy . A provision that Parliament accepted in 1972 .

However the ECJ cannot overule a national court.

See Lord Dennings comments about disregarding UK law

[stephenterry]

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Since this is your area I would refer you to Lord Denning statement 1979

 

He stated that if Parliament expressly declared its intention to contradict a treaty or provision of such treaty . Then it would be the duty to uphold Parliaments intention.

I would also add:

Apart from EU immigration, the British government still determines the vast majority of policy over every issue of greatest concern to British voters – including health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security. The arguments for leaving also ignore the fact that the UK controls more than 98 % of its public expenditure.