UK Politics Thread VIII—Can't Let EU Go

[Novus America]

Clearly given our massive deficit since the 70s we have been getting bad deals since then.

See what is good for certain US corporate interests is not always good for the US.
Many of our own companies actively screw the US and actively work against the US.
Many of our corporations have zero to our country, unfortunately.

i'm not economist but it's my understanding that "defecit = bad" is a very oversimplified and not necessarily correct view of trade. do you think the US was somehow bullied by rando countries into bad deals?

Well a balance of payments is actually a better measure to use but we have a deficit there as well.
But actually no, we were not bullied. We got hit by a case of a bad ideological bug and deliberately made unilateral tariff reductions in the name of ideology.
We were extra fucking stupid. We shot ourselfs in the foot.

But we are at least not doing that as much anymore.
But it has surprised a lot of countries that we changed on that.

And we have a lot of damage to fix. Almost 50s years worth of self destructive idiocy.

[Novus America]

Well it looks like you do have one. Liam Fox.
Does he know what he is doing?
(I do think only putting MPs in charge of departments is odd but eh, limits your options though).

His position was only established in 2016, after the vote to leave. Take from that what you will.

Sure, but still is he a smart guy? A good negotiator? Well versed in trade policy?
Or some random moron who got it in a shady political deal?

Do you trust him to make good arguments and get good deals?

[Fartsniffage]

His position was only established in 2016, after the vote to leave. Take from that what you will.

Sure, but still is he a smart guy? A good negotiator? Well versed in trade policy?
Or some random moron who got it in a shady political deal?

Do you trust him to make good arguments and get good deals?

Liam Fox? He's not very reliable in my opinion.

[The of Japan]

a no deal Brexit would be disasterous for the UK

[Ostroeuropa]

His position was only established in 2016, after the vote to leave. Take from that what you will.

Sure, but still is he a smart guy? A good negotiator? Well versed in trade policy?
Or some random moron who got it in a shady political deal?

Do you trust him to make good arguments and get good deals?

He's a crook who should be in prison along with the other embezzlers in parliament.

He shilled on behalf of Arab dictatorships during Arab spring on the grounds they were good customers.

He supported every interventions overseas suggested.

He is pro-anglosphere to the point he argued NATO reps should have a veto over the EU parliament, which is itself pretty insanely fascistic given his explicit reasoning is MILITARY THO.

He is against the death penalty and argued for its abolition across the world.
He is against abortion. (He is as such, pro-life of a kind that most people demand US conservatives be in order to be consistent.).

He supported more money and more welfare for troops as well as expansions to military equipment when the budget was expanded. (Not bad.).

He is pro-Israel to the point of basically being a shill.

He supports expanding the nuclear deterrant.

He supports selling guns to any foreigners who ask.

He is anti-gay marriage.

He is pro surveillance, pro censorship, and does not believe in freedom of speech.

He supports NHS cuts.

That he was appointed trade secretary is probably because he is a jumped up quasi-fascist arms dealer and we've basically only got guns to sell. (Or more likely, since he has experience selling guns, he's one of the only people around who has experience obtaining deals from foreign governments, and/or, "Sell guns to everyone" is a trade policy all the Tory MPs agree on, whereas another trade secretary might end up doing something silly like trying to obtain a trade agreement which someones financial backer doesn't want to happen.).

[Novus America]

Sure, but still is he a smart guy? A good negotiator? Well versed in trade policy?
Or some random moron who got it in a shady political deal?

Do you trust him to make good arguments and get good deals?

Liam Fox? He's not very reliable in my opinion.

Though I guess he might not be they guy after Brexit.
Sounds like he is a mixed bag. I guess we will have to see. Whoever has that job after Brexit is going to have a lot of work to do, and better do a good job or the UK will have a problem.

[Souseiseki]

"Brexit deal may not be put to MPs until late March, officials say"

absolute bastards

[Phoenicaea]

^ ..how far i may see (few, since the papers are held gelaously), european commission is doing worst-work about it.

i don t judge the uk parter behaviour, because can t be aknowledge, i fell not to know about, i say that it will be noisy for both uk, and eu. it will be deal makers fault, each side.

eu commission is showing incompetent attitude, while it had a relatively good before.

i suppose mess for uk will be less than we say, and for eu will be worse than it, so the two sides of the cahnnel will equally get a cost. without any sensible cause for it.

[The Blaatschapen]

Do you have evidence you are more likely to get sick from ours?

You already buy the non clorinated stuff it so what do we get from that?
Also trade negotiations look at the big picture, not just one item at a time.

If you want us to drop one of our demands you give us something in return.
We do not need a free trade agreement with the UK, so unless it benefits us why should we be interested?

Are you being intently obtuse? The ban is because of poor standards in the US poultry industry, not because eating chlorinated chicken is likely to make you sick. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.

And if you don't think that trade with the 5th largest economy in the world would have benefits for the US then you're clearly just wrong.

Britain is great in financial services.

And we all know that Trump&Co love financial services.

No worries here. There will be a trade deal on some things

[The Blaatschapen]

Clearly given our massive deficit since the 70s we have been getting bad deals since then.

See what is good for certain US corporate interests is not always good for the US.
Many of our own companies actively screw the US and actively work against the US.
Many of our corporations have zero to our country, unfortunately.

i'm not economist but it's my understanding that "defecit = bad" is a very oversimplified and not necessarily correct view of trade. do you think the US was somehow bullied by rando countries into bad deals?

Those cheap consumer goods are on the other side of the balance

Smartphones, cars, other electronic gadgets, all possible to be imported into the US thanks to trade deals.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

"Brexit deal may not be put to MPs until late March, officials say"

absolute bastards

The more urgent something is, the less debate there is on it. And less debate means less disagreement. Intelligent strategy if you ask me.

[The Blaatschapen]

"Brexit deal may not be put to MPs until late March, officials say"

absolute bastards

The more urgent something is, the less debate there is on it. And less debate means less disagreement. Intelligent strategy if you ask me.

Intelligent, sure.

But, don't we want parliament to properly debate and ponder on such big decisions? Rather than making a snap decision because they have to?

Seriously, this is like having to write a paper in college, for which you have two years, and then decide in the last week before the deadline, to start writing it.

[Thermodolia]

several american congressmen saying they're going to try sink any future deal with the UK if we fuck up the good friday agreement and have a hard border on northern ireland.

i will admit this is one issue on which, as far as i can tell, remain seems to have been wrong. maybe it was squirreled away in some article i didn't read, but i can't recall any of us ever warning about this. we knew the US would fuck over the UK in any deal but i never thought they'd be using trade deals to directly attempt to dictate our foreign policy like this or that the irish-american lobby would get involved. in retrospect looking at other trade deals i suppose it's not that strange, but still, what a bummer. it should be readily apparent now, if it was not already before, that the idea the UK will just split off from the EU and make a series of amazing deals was a myth. it should also be extra apparent, now that both the US and india have their eyes on forcing the UK to compromise on its border and we're still debating the problems involved with tarrifs and the WTO, that the idea the UK will rise like a phoenix and "take back control" of its borders and trade was also a myth.

e: oh and the solution to this is for the countries of europe to group together to form a more cohesive bloc to avoid being isolated and bullied into submission by the larger economies. the united states economy already dwarfs the united kingdom's. as india continues to grow and china becomes more emboldened this will become progressively worse, until the UK is sitting alone trying to LARP as euro-singapore while it is wedged between the united states, the european union, india and china.

e2: oh yeah i forgot the US was the guarantor of the good friday agreement - good fucking luck to the people that unironically suggest just scrapping it and sending in the army to deal with the consequences.

Also, US trade deals are fucking horrible things, used by the US to enforce their own bullshit laws on other countries.

Not really seeing the problem

[The Blaatschapen]

Also, US trade deals are fucking horrible things, used by the US to enforce their own bullshit laws on other countries.

Not really seeing the problem

Me neither. Using your influence to change the world for ( at least in one's own vision) the better, is not wrong. It's pretty much "with great power comes great responsiblity" in action.

[Thermodolia]

"Brexit deal may not be put to MPs until late March, officials say"

absolute bastards

They just want a no deal Brexit

[Thermodolia]

Not really seeing the problem

Me neither. Using your influence to change the world for ( at least in one's own vision) the better, is not wrong. It's pretty much "with great power comes great responsiblity" in action.

I agree. I think the we, US and the west, should use trade deals to inact change across the world. For example we should tell China that we aren’t going to trade with them until they get their act together on the environment and democracy.

I think we should use trade as a way to bring nations up to speed on civil, political, and worker’s rights and better care of the environment

[Trumptonium1]

Woke up to the news that the Brexit deal will not be put in front of parliament for another month. Fucking lulz.

Not that it makes any difference, no deal is the only option left.

Parliament has no majority for anything (apart from no no deal, but leaving the EU has a bigger majority than no no deal, so we can't stay just because we don't want no no deal) and the public has no majority for anything either. There's plurality support for no deal, but it's a relatively small minority of two in five. Faced with a necessary choice, May's withdrawal agreement is the most popular option, but still net disapproval of 4 points. But it doesn't have parliament support.

There's no other option on the table other than no deal. Unless one side yields and votes for May's deal, which is admittedly more popular with people as a compromise option.

[Souseiseki]

Me neither. Using your influence to change the world for ( at least in one's own vision) the better, is not wrong. It's pretty much "with great power comes great responsiblity" in action.

I agree. I think the we, US and the west, should use trade deals to inact change across the world. For example we should tell China that we aren’t going to trade with them until they get their act together on the environment and democracy.

I think we should use trade as a way to bring nations up to speed on civil, political, and worker’s rights and better care of the environment

bring nations up to speed, or twist their arms into doing what you've decided is right? if they started demanding you change your civil or political rights in exchange for trade deals and started using their economic clout and political inertia to attempt to force it on you you'd be absolutely seething. we can see this in practice - not a day goes by where someone in the UK does not scream to the heaven's about how the ECHR is tramping their sovereignty when it brings them "up to speed". but when it comes to the UK or canada declaring they've definitely got it right this time and yet again appointing themselves as the bastions of light who must enlighten the backwaters no one bats an eye, despite the fact we're still cleaning up the mess from the damage cause the last two times they did it. i am sick of reading about the constant bullshit the US has pushed and is still pushing onto the rest of the world, ourselves included, and i won't abide by continuing to allow them to do it. every paper i read has some "and then the west swung their chlorinated chicken around and pressured/forced everyone into going along with whatever great idea they had this time" section in it. but they'll keep doing it, they'll keep being successful, and we'll just have to hope that whatever they decide is their next great crusade doesn't turn out to be something we hate and will fuck us for centuries to come. "but we're right!", right?

but, maybe, just maybe, it might be tolerable if they just admitted that they are rabid cultural imperialists. but they won't.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Fuck it let me do brexit, be great craic.

[Trumptonium1]

Me neither. Using your influence to change the world for ( at least in one's own vision) the better, is not wrong. It's pretty much "with great power comes great responsiblity" in action.

I agree. I think the we, US and the west, should use trade deals to inact change across the world. For example we should tell China that we aren’t going to trade with them until they get their act together on the environment and democracy.

I think we should use trade as a way to bring nations up to speed on civil, political, and worker’s rights and better care of the environment

Brexit is about a pivot to the east, trading WITH China and India, not bringing the UK closer to the US.

Literally nobody, not even the most ardent Brexiteers, wanted Brexit to result in a closer US-UK relationship. There was and is a lot of continued touting of CANZUK and perhaps free movement there, but that's not the US.

[Souseiseki]

I agree. I think the we, US and the west, should use trade deals to inact change across the world. For example we should tell China that we aren’t going to trade with them until they get their act together on the environment and democracy.

I think we should use trade as a way to bring nations up to speed on civil, political, and worker’s rights and better care of the environment

Brexit is about a pivot to the east, trading WITH China and India, not bringing the UK closer to the US.

Literally nobody, not even the most ardent Brexiteers, wanted Brexit to result in a closer US-UK relationship. There was and is a lot of continued touting of CANZUK and perhaps free movement there, but that's not the US.

are you sure? there were plenty of people talking about the US a year or two ago. maybe that was just them hoping that trump would give us a nice deal to try lessen the impact of your fuck up amazing idea though.

[Trumptonium1]

Brexit is about a pivot to the east, trading WITH China and India, not bringing the UK closer to the US.

Literally nobody, not even the most ardent Brexiteers, wanted Brexit to result in a closer US-UK relationship. There was and is a lot of continued touting of CANZUK and perhaps free movement there, but that's not the US.

are you sure? there were plenty of people talking about the US a year or two ago. maybe that was just them hoping that trump would give us a nice deal to try lessen the impact of your fuck up amazing idea though.

Yes, a free trade agreement.

You know, the same one that was meant to be signed with countries other than the US itself. i.e. no special deal to the US

That's why nobody on the leave side understands what the squealing morons mean by "cHlOrInATeD cHicKEnS" as it's maximum strawman.

[Salandriagado]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's the only response that absurd statement deserves. Which trade agreement, precisely, do you think was anything other than unambiguously in




To the US, or to US corporate interests?

Clearly given our massive deficit since the 70s we have been getting bad deals since then.

Erm, no? Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I ask again: name a "bad" trade deal.

See what is good for certain US corporate interests is not always good for the US.
Many of our own companies actively screw the US and actively work against the US.
Many of our corporations have zero to our country, unfortunately.

Yes, that was my point.

[Salandriagado]

Can you name a single US trade agreement from the last 50 years that hasn't included such things?

Well obviously said rules do not apply to the WTO, which we signed.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements
Here is a list of our current non WTO agreements.

But I do not know the exact terms of each of them of course.

Erm, yes, they do.

[Souseiseki]

are you sure? there were plenty of people talking about the US a year or two ago. maybe that was just them hoping that trump would give us a nice deal to try lessen the impact of your fuck up amazing idea though.

Yes, a free trade agreement.

You know, the same one that was meant to be signed with countries other than the US itself. i.e. no special deal to the US

oh well then, i can't be fucked hunting for some tory politicians that have been slobbering over the US so i'll drop that specific point for now.

That's why nobody on the leave side understands what the squealing morons mean by "cHlOrInATeD cHicKEnS" as it's maximum strawman.

sorry, but i can't believe this. i have been reliably informed that leavers knew exactly what they were voting for and comprehensively understand all of the possible effects of brexit. therefore, they should know the US reputation for international predation and why people are worried that they might use our weak position to push food deregulation on us. i would also expect these scholars to be reading the news enough to know that chicken specifically has become a stand in for these concerns. so i'm not sure why you'd say they don't understand what people mean when they say it. they should understand it well and fine.