Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Brexit Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    You'd imagine that places like North Korea and Iran will be less concerned about US sanctions when they realise that the US is even imposing punitive sanctions on Canada.

    Comment


      Canada can survive sanctions a bit better than North Korea. And indeed than Northern Ireland.

      Comment


        I haven't seen much discussion about whether Bombardier was, in fact, in receipt of illegal state aid, but then I've only read a couple of pieces on it. On the face of it, it's hard to see why its bailout would be OK but not, say, GM's, but then nothing I've read has even sought to explore that question.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
          Canada can survive sanctions a bit better than North Korea. And indeed than Northern Ireland.
          My thoughts were more along the lines of "what's the point in doing things that avoid sanctions being imposed, when that's going to happen anyway, to everyone"

          Comment


            I understood, just made a gag about Northern Ireland.

            Comment


              At times like these, it's good to know that UK is part of a powerful economic block that will support her....well, you know....

              Another interesting reading on Twitter is Peter Forster (also a Leaver) who posted a thread with an interesting twist on the Florence speech. Essentially, there is far greater cooperation and work being done in the background to align both positions than we realise and the EU is helping out the UK govt in dealing with its headbangers by agreeing wording of press releases, etc

              Headbangers obviously see this in a different light.

              DAG also published an interesting comment on "realism" centred on Tusk, a rather more discreet figure than others yet important.

              Maybe, we need to look beyond the vociferous, barking attack dogs on both sides

              Comment


                I saw that Peter Foster thread. Interesting about the cooperation. Wonder if Johnson leaked that.

                Comment


                  Probably, coincides with the launch of their so-called free trade group today. Sadly for them, it also coincides with hard evidence of what the USA does to protect its interests and 4000 NI jobs is not high on their concerns list.

                  Lots of bad news coming out of NI at the moment, local farmers really deeply worried. DUP must feel under a fair bit of pressure....

                  Comment


                    EP flexes its muscles.

                    Comment


                      I wish the UK Parliament would.

                      Hilariously, Hannan is now worrying about Venezuela style Labour. Not that it's even true, but it would for sure be impossible without his beloved Brexit. A pal of mine on Twitter is having fun winding up Brexiters with stuff about McDonnell taking the country back.

                      Comment


                        I have to say if hard brexit/no deal happens and Labour ends up taking control of the country, it would be quite hilarious...Socialist siege economy instead of Empire 2.0, I think Dacre would finally die of anger (and not a minute too soon....)

                        Comment


                          My pal is enjoying himself making that point. He's also chucked in getting rid of traitor judges who stand in the way.

                          Comment


                            A colourful comment from the FT.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
                              Ultimately this will be appealed under Chapter 19 of NAFTA (unless the USA walks away from talks and scuttles the agreement totally.) The Canadian government won't cave on this.
                              Could this be a boon to Trump and his isolationist base? Though I see what you said the other day about the mess they're making of NAFTA.

                              Comment


                                https://www.theguardian.com/politics...nsition-period

                                This is what those left behind Brexiters voted for.

                                Speaking at the Foreign Office launch of the privately financed Institute for Free Trade, the foreign secretary urged that the two-year implementation period announced by Theresa May last week be kept short so that Britain was free to strike new trade deals with other countries.

                                “You can imagine what our brilliant companies are able to do … when they are finally – and let’s hope the date is soon upon us without too long a transition period – when they are finally unbound, unshackled,” Johnson told an audience of foreign ambassadors and business leaders.
                                The Foreign Secretary undermining the Prime Minister's more moderate tone of last week, in a speech on Government property. How does that work?

                                But Boris is Boris, eh? A total one off! Oh hang on.

                                Michael Gove and the international trade secretary, Liam Fox, were also present to endorse the new institute, which Fox said showed the moral imperative to lower trade barriers.
                                Oh. Just the Secretary for International Trade. That's reassuring.

                                Guess who else showed up?

                                “I’m looking at [the] high commissioner of Singapore [in the front row],” said Hannan. “They have gone from being half as rich as us to twice as rich as us. What was the magic formula? Just do it. They dropped their barriers.”
                                It's apparently his think tank.

                                I don't recall seeing "Singapore" anywhere on the referendum ballot paper.

                                Comment


                                  They're laughing at you, Blaenau Gwent, Stoke, Barnsley.

                                  Hannan argued that the problem with selling trade liberalisation was a political one. “Free trade brings dispersed gains and concentrated losses,” he said. But he argued that Britain was at an “unfrozen moment” due to Brexit.

                                  “It’s not every day a country of our size gets to draw up a new trade policy from scratch,” he said.
                                  There you go. Couldn't normally get away with this shit.

                                  Comment


                                    What are they going to about Trump and protectionists?

                                    Write a stiff letter to themselves, by the look of it.

                                    Comment


                                      the moral imperative to lower trade barriers.

                                      Hmm... If that was the goal, I wonder what the most effective way of achieving that would be? Perhaps a common trade area with many of our biggest trading partners using common standards and regulations thus allowing trade without any restriction or barrier at all.

                                      Does anyone know of any organisation that we could think of joining that would help us achieve this?

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Tubby Isaacs View Post
                                        Could this be a boon to Trump and his isolationist base? Though I see what you said the other day about the mess they're making of NAFTA.
                                        Oh sure. About the only thing he's been relatively consistent about re: NAFTA is that he wants to do away with the neutrally arbitrated appeal process (Chapter 29) because it unfairly penalises the US(?) While not exactly saying this is a line in the sand we will not step over, Canada has said just about everything but. If he really does want to break NAFTA this would be an obvious issue to use as a hammer.

                                        But, it would come at a massive domestic cost. Today Young Justin threatened to cancel an order for Boeing fighter jets. Air Canada and Westjet also have orders in the pipeline for Boeing aircraft which could be rescinded. What's more thousands of parts for the Bombardier C Series itself are supplied by US based companies.

                                        Realistically this dispute may not get much further. It next goes to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which has to determine whether Boeing suffered any material injury as a result of the contract between Bombardier and Delta, who are buying the planes. If the ITC rules against Boeing, then the dispute is over. Demonstrating that it has suffered material injury will be a challenge for Boeing because it no longer builds airplanes that compete with the C Series. In fact it didn't compete for the Delta contract.
                                        Last edited by Amor de Cosmos; 27-09-2017, 23:23.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View Post
                                          Oh sure. About the only thing he's been relatively consistent about re: NAFTA is that he wants to do away with the neutrally arbitrated appeal process (Chapter 29) because it unfairly penalises the US(?) While not exactly saying this is a line in the sand we will not step over, Canada has said just about everything but. If he really does want to break NAFTA this would be an obvious issue to use as a hammer.

                                          But, it would come at a massive domestic cost. Today Young Justin threatened to cancel an order for Boeing fighter jets. Air Canada and Westjet also have orders in the pipeline for Boeing aircraft which could be rescinded. What's more thousands of parts for the Bombardier C Series itself are supplied by US based companies.

                                          Realistically this dispute may not get much further. It next goes to the U.S. International Trade Commission, which has to determine whether Boeing suffered any material injury as a result of the contract between Bombardier and Delta, who are buying the planes. If the ITC rules against Boeing, then the dispute is over. Demonstrating that it has suffered material injury will be a challenge for Boeing because it no longer builds airplanes that compete with the C Series. In fact it didn't compete for the Delta contract.
                                          hah. So what is the fucking point of this then?

                                          If the UK was still a core member of the EU, The EU would threaten to put tariffs on kentucky bourbon and florida oranges, and this would go away.

                                          Comment


                                            If there is a point it'll be within grist of the Donald's mill when he makes his State of the Union address next year demanding a constitutional convention. "Congress won't repeal Obamacare, the courts won't stop immigration, and Canadians are stealing our jobs. I need the power to do the things Americans elected me to do."

                                            Comment


                                              I've said before that a Constitutional Convention is my nightmare scenario, but I honestly do not believe that one designed to create a truly Imperial Presidency would succeed in doing so.

                                              The problem with an Imperial Presidency from the point of view of those who have funded wignut control over many state legislatures is that it can benefit either party, and that the Presidency is the single most difficult instrument of government for the reactionaries to control reliably. Keep in mind that he can't do it himself, nor can he do it with a Congressional majority. The only Constitutional routes to a Convention under Article Five are the vote of two-thirds of the State legislatures or two-thirds of each house of Congress.

                                              Comment


                                                I so hope you're right.

                                                Comment


                                                  Why does no-one ever, ever ask these fucknuts to give examples of areas where trade is being inhibited? Why does no-one ever ask "You say countries are eager to sign trade deals - can you give an example of an industry that would benefit?"

                                                  Once. Just fucking ask ONCE!

                                                  Comment


                                                    If the UK was still a core member of the EU, The EU would threaten to put tariffs on kentucky bourbon and florida oranges, and this would go away.
                                                    To be fair, I don't think they could, or likely would, given that this is formally a dispute between the US and Canada. Any "retaliatory" tariffs from the EU would be illegal.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X