42 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Normally I woild agree with you but you have Farage in Parliament now - I strongly suspect when he does his first state visit he will aslo be visiting Clacton where he will get a heros welcome. His win will energise the Europena 'populist' movements.

 

If Trump decides to visit Clacton then he might need to find his own way there. Apparently, Farage doesn't spend much time in the constituency.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/20/clacton-nigel-farage-first-months-as-mp-reform

 

It remains to be seen whether Trump's win will have any effect on Europe's populist movements.

43 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

What?

 

The BS

1 hour ago, candide said:

UK strongly benefited from trade deals made by the EU. In particular, one key point of these agreements was to give access to the EU market for products in exchange for the partner giving access to its market for EU services.

 

 

 

Oh come on, this is just left wing student politic cliches. You would do well to research some history of the UK within the EU; the die was cast to our second class membership back in 1970 when the Fisheries Minister, Geoffrey Rippon, told Prime Minister, Ted Heath, “if we want to join the EEC (as it was then known) on the terms stated by General de Gaulle, we will have to sacrifice Britain’s fishermen” This is exactly what the treacherous Heath did, and with that one submissive act, set the tone for how the UK has been treated by the EU ever since; it also resulted in our fishing industry, that was the largest in all of Europe, being completely decimated, leaving huge unemployment and poverty in towns like Hull and Grimsby, the latter once being the largest fishing port in the world.

 

Heath was also made aware of the “Werner” report in 1970, which set out the EEC’s plans for monetary union and a federal state; he deliberately kept this information from the British public, who subsequently voted to join a “common market” unaware of the political and monetary aspirations of the EEC. The EU has never treated the UK equally despite us always having been a nett contributor; even at the end, they refused to grant a few lame concessions to Cameron, concessions that would have prevented the referendum. I look on cheerfully as the whole edifice is starting to implode ….. oh Mutti, look what you’ve done.

 

apologies, it’s slightly off topic, but you brought the EU into the conversation.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Because the UK can renegotiate a trade deal directly with the other countries at a time/reason of it's own choosing  rather than wait for a long delayed compromise deal that suits France/Germany and not the UK!

 

59 minutes ago, candide said:

A cause off what?

What did the UK obtain that was better that what the EU obtained from the same countries?

I reply for you. I checked the trade deals with NZ and UK had to give more access to agricultural imports than the EU, in exchange for the same access for its products than the EU. 😁

It confirms my initial claim.

https://borderlex.net/2022/07/13/new-zealand-eu-and-uk-ftas-herald-healthy-new-competition-for-good-deals/

https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/uk-new-zealand-trade-deal-how-does-this-compare-to-the-eu-deal/

11 minutes ago, sungod said:

 

So he's in it for himself, that much is clear.

 

Politicians cannot effect change unless they are in office. Starmer will compromise on his beliefs in to gain (remain in) office. He's no different to almost any other politician in that regard irrespective of the colour of the rosette.

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The BS

 

You lost me, just like you lost the referendum. Now back to  topic?

3 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

 

Oh come on, this is just left wing student politic cliches. You would do well to research some history of the UK within the EU; the die was cast to our second class membership back in 1970 when the Fisheries Minister, Geoffrey Rippon, told Prime Minister, Ted Heath, “if we want to join the EEC (as it was then known) on the terms stated by General de Gaulle, we will have to sacrifice Britain’s fishermen” This is exactly what the treacherous Heath did, and with that one submissive act, set the tone for how the UK has been treated by the EU ever since; it also resulted in our fishing industry, that was the largest in all of Europe, being completely decimated, leaving huge unemployment and poverty in towns like Hull and Grimsby, the latter once being the largest fishing port in the world.

 

Heath was also made aware of the “Werner” report in 1970, which set out the EEC’s plans for monetary union and a federal state; he deliberately kept this information from the British public, who subsequently voted to join a “common market” unaware of the political and monetary aspirations of the EEC. The EU has never treated the UK equally despite us always having been a nett contributor; even at the end, they refused to grant a few lame concessions to Cameron, concessions that would have prevented the referendum. I look on cheerfully as the whole edifice is starting to implode ….. oh Mutti, look what you’ve done.

 

apologies, it’s slightly off topic, but you brought the EU into the conversation.

 

 

 

 

Blah blah. You don't know what's in the trade deals and how they have been negotiated.

2 minutes ago, candide said:

 

I reply for you. I checked the trade deals with NZ and UK had to give more access to agricultural imports than the EU, in exchange for the same access for its products than the EU. 😁

It confirms my initial claim.

https://borderlex.net/2022/07/13/new-zealand-eu-and-uk-ftas-herald-healthy-new-competition-for-good-deals/

https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/uk-new-zealand-trade-deal-how-does-this-compare-to-the-eu-deal/

53 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You think?

 

Tell you what I think. All this EU reference is old and completely off topic. Hence BORING.

 

The topic is about what the Trump presidency might mean for the UK. This naturally leads to a discussion about how the UK might mitigate any potential negative effects. One suggestion is to forge closer ties with our European neighbours, so discussion about EU/UK relations is very much 'on topic'.

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Nauseus got an idea! 😃

6 minutes ago, candide said:

Blah blah

 

 

The kind of response that succinctly sums up your knowledge and understanding of the complexities and history of the UK’s relationship with the EU …. well done for that

 

 

10 minutes ago, candide said:

 

I reply for you. I checked the trade deals with NZ and UK had to give more access to agricultural imports than the EU, in exchange for the same access for its products than the EU. 😁

It confirms my initial claim.

https://borderlex.net/2022/07/13/new-zealand-eu-and-uk-ftas-herald-healthy-new-competition-for-good-deals/

https://www.nfuonline.com/updates-and-information/uk-new-zealand-trade-deal-how-does-this-compare-to-the-eu-deal/

Re read my post!

I am talking future not past!

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You lost me, just like you lost the referendum. Now back to  topic?

 

You've lost yourself. I've been on topic all along, apart from allowing myself to be drawn into ridiculous one-liners.

 

You are unable to make a coherent counter argument to the points raised and, therefore resort to emojis and statements which lack any substance such as, "I can stand the pain but not the BS".

1 hour ago, RayC said:

any such deal will almost certainly be worse than one that the EU could strike with the same partner(s).

Worse for the UK and better for Germany and France etc!

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The topic is about what the Trump presidency might mean for the UK. This naturally leads to a discussion about how the UK might mitigate any potential negative effects. One suggestion is to forge closer ties with our European neighbours, so discussion about EU/UK relations is very much 'on topic'.

 

Naturally? You aren't talking about EU/UK relations. You are talking about rejoining.

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Worse for the UK and better for Germany and France etc!

 

If that's the case, why then has the UK 'rolled over' all the trade deals struck on its' behalf by the EU?

14 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

The kind of response that succinctly sums up your knowledge and understanding of the complexities and history of the UK’s relationship with the EU …. well done for that

 

 

 

It was just an idea! 

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

Naturally? You aren't talking about EU/UK relations. You are talking about rejoining.

 

Amongst other things. It is one option and relevant to the discussion.

2 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

 

The kind of response that succinctly sums up your knowledge and understanding of the complexities and history of the UK’s relationship with the EU …. well done for that

 

 

That's exactly what your reply was. How interesting you comment may be, it has nothing to do with the topic I was discussing, which was about trade deals and negotiating power.

 

You made assumptions about the benefits from trade deals made by the EU without any idea of what was in these trade deals. One consistent characteristic was that the EU was giving some access to its market for products in exchange for getting access to the partner's service market, and UK was clearly the main service supplier in Europe, in particular of financial services. The other aspect is that UK was a significant player in the EU and had an influence in the negotiations.

 

Claiming that these trade agreements were made only in favour of France and Germany shows your ignorance about this topic.

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

You've lost yourself. I've been on topic all along, apart from allowing myself to be drawn into ridiculous one-liners.

 

You are unable to make a coherent counter argument to the points raised and, therefore resort to emojis and statements which lack any substance such as, "I can stand the pain but not the BS".

 

You've been on your own pet topic all along. Why should I argue against off-topic "points"?

34 minutes ago, RayC said:

If Trump decides to visit Clacton then he might need to find his own way there. Apparently, Farage doesn't spend much time in the constituency.

 

Time will tell how much time Farage spends in Clacton. I think it was clear to everyone that his standing there was to make sure he became an MP. However, I think it is important to have him in Parliament, he is a good orator, he doesn’t mind asking the awkward questions, and he represents a lot of people in the UK.

 

Reform got 4.1 million votes in the election,14.3% of the votes cast. Labour only got 9.7 million,33.7%. more people voted for reform than voted for the Lib Dems, who only got 3.5 million.

 

Because of the FPTP system, the Lib Dems got 72 seats, but Reform only 5, and Labour 411.

 

Labour got only 23,622 votes for each seat they gained

 

Lib Dems got 48,877 votes for each seat

 

Reform got a staggering 823,522 for each seat.

 

So, in a democracy, I think it is good to have Farage holding the leftie luvvies to account in Parliament.

 

 

Just now, RayC said:

 

If that's the case, why then has the UK 'rolled over' all the trade deals struck on its' behalf by the EU?

 

The UK rolled over existing EU Trade deals. Not UK Trade deals struck by the EU.

 

Which was the simplist thing to do until such times as the UK sorted out it's own trade deals.

 

The most significant trade deal so far is the CPTPP which comes into effect next month. Which will be a major stumbling block in any backdoor attempt to rejoin the EU.

5 minutes ago, candide said:

That's exactly what your reply was. How interesting you comment may be, it has nothing to do with the topic I was discussing, which was about trade deals and negotiating power.

 

You made assumptions about the benefits from trade deals made by the EU without any idea of what was in these trade deals. One consistent characteristic was that the EU was giving some access to its market for products in exchange for getting access to the partner's service market, and UK was clearly the main service supplier in Europe, in particular of financial services. The other aspect is that UK was a significant player in the EU and had an influence in the negotiations.

 

Claiming that these trade agreements were made only in favour of France and Germany shows your ignorance about this topic.

 

Pot calling. 10 o'clock high! Tally ho. 

40 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Re read my post!

I am talking future not past!

The future is hypothetical, the past is fact. Fact is that after 4 years this hypothesis has not been verifed. 😃

Edited November 8, 20241 yr by candide

22 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Pot calling. 10 o'clock high! Tally ho. 

He chose to reply to my post about it, didn't he? 😁

34 minutes ago, candide said:

The future is hypothetical, the past is fact. Fact is that after 4 years this hypothesis has not been verifed. 😃

Re read your own posts and look at what you asked/implied!

3 hours ago, candide said:

When  you are small or medium sized you have a lower negotiating power than when you are big.

 

For example, if Trump imposes tariffs on the EU, and the EU retaliates in a similar way  it will significantly impact the U.S. economy. If UK imposes tariffs on U.S. imports, it will not be significant.

 

8 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Re read your own posts and look at what you asked/implied!

Ok. The second part of my post was also hypothetical.

14 hours ago, sungod said:

 

So he's in it for himself, that much is clear.

If (when) we rejoin, it seems that adopting the Euro will be a condition.  Might take a while for people to get used to, but inevitable in the long-run.

19 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

You've been on your own pet topic all along. Why should I argue against off-topic "points"?

 

Rinse and repeat:

 

"The topic is about what the Trump presidency might mean for the UK. This naturally leads to a discussion about how the UK might mitigate any potential negative effects. One suggestion is to forge closer ties with our European neighbours, so discussion about EU/UK relations is very much 'on topic'." (Potentially rejoining the EU forms part of a discussion of EU/UK relations so, again, very much 'on topic').

 

Over to you.

19 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Time will tell how much time Farage spends in Clacton. I think it was clear to everyone that his standing there was to make sure he became an MP. However, I think it is important to have him in Parliament, he is a good orator, he doesn’t mind asking the awkward questions, and he represents a lot of people in the UK.

 

Reform got 4.1 million votes in the election,14.3% of the votes cast. Labour only got 9.7 million,33.7%. more people voted for reform than voted for the Lib Dems, who only got 3.5 million.

 

Because of the FPTP system, the Lib Dems got 72 seats, but Reform only 5, and Labour 411.

 

Labour got only 23,622 votes for each seat they gained

 

Lib Dems got 48,877 votes for each seat

 

Reform got a staggering 823,522 for each seat.

 

So, in a democracy, I think it is good to have Farage holding the leftie luvvies to account in Parliament.

 

 

 

It is a bit disingenuous to focus solely on the 2024 election when highlighting the anomalies caused by FPTP. No government has won more than 50% of the vote since 1935. The current Labour government has as much of a mandate to govern as any other elected under FPTP.

 

Notwithstanding that, I am in total agreement with you about the unfairness of the FPTP system. Unfortunately, the UK electorate did not share our view and rejected PR. I would think that support for PR has increased over the past decade - although I have no empirical evidence to  support that claim - but whether those of us who favour PR are now in a majority is unlikely.

 

Imo Farage has been one of the most important political voices in the UK this century. Without him, I doubt that there would have been a Brexit referendum, so his influence is clear. However, if The Guardian article is factually correct, then, to date, Farage has spent a risible proportion of his time since the election in Clacton. If he wishes to voice his support for overseas causes and politicians that is his perojective, but it should not be at the expense of his constituents. Farage is not a minister, so his focus should be the same as any other MP i.e. on the needs of his constituents.