Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

I dunno, he sees trade as an adversarial relationship where countries struggle to get the better of each others, and he's been pretty consistent that way. It could really go either way.

'Opening up the door for that', not forcing.

Isn't that an absolutely meaningless statement? Like, AFAIK, nothing is preventing parliament to just privatize the whole NHS this very minute. What exactly would TTIP have changed?

[hector13]

The NHS already has people outsourcing services to the private sector as it is. All TTIP would've done is open that up to foreign competitors.

[Sheb]

I mean, are you asking me if the idea/expression of opening up the door for something (without doing/forcing that thing itself) is meaningless? Because of course it isn't. I typed up a couple of examples showing that but I had to delete them because it read too much like I was explaining something to a child, and naturally I respect you too much for that.

In terms of specifics, TTIP would have reduced protections governments were allowed to utilise to stop foreign companies competing in the national marketplace. The procurement rules could have forced the NHS to contract out services it wanted to keep in house, for example.

Either way, seems it's dead, so I'm happy.

Well, there has been insurance by the Commission and the British Government that TTIP wouldn't force any change to the NHS. What sections are you referring to that would have changed stuff?

[Loud Whispers]

I think you're being over-generous in attributing every about-face Trump has made to Theresa May.

No, I'm directly attributing the U-turns he made that Theresa May attained; you can even see the precious moment where May had to goad him into repeating his affirmation for NATO to the public, as it seems he either preferred to keep his affirmation private to May or forgot. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm being over-generous, I'm being factually correct and wholly accurate, watch it yourself, don't take the word of useless twat- I mean, twitterers.

Criticism to these assertations has been so universal in media, the public, and global opinions you might as well say that it was due to the heroic twitter of James May.

I can't think of a single instance where Trump has changed his mind because of a prog on twitter or from the very same people who he is gearing to undermine. He wouldn't even take hard questions from our Beeb seriously, but he likes our politicians which is equally worrying and pleasing. He is not I think, a reliable ally to the UK, but certainly the alliance is very much beneficial in this time to both nations especially.

I dunno, he sees trade as an adversarial relationship where countries struggle to get the better of each others, and he's been pretty consistent that way. It could really go either way.

There is a difference between seeing trade as an adversarial relationship, and seeing poor trade deals conducted with adversaries. Thus the endless emphasis on Obama and trade deals with China. Besides his constant affirmation that trade is about "good trade deals", the only concrete position he has made, is that he favours bilateral trade deals over multilateral trade deals. Hence why he shut down TTIP and would much rather negotiate trade deals with European countries instead of the European Union.

Isn't that an absolutely meaningless statement? Like, AFAIK, nothing is preventing parliament to just privatize the whole NHS this very minute. What exactly would TTIP have changed?

If parliament privatized the whole NHS this very minute, heads would roll, and I'm not sure that would be entirely metaphorical.
The TTIP removed state barriers to private competition from foreign corporations. Such barriers would include tariffs, subsidies, public services - it would have mandated the dissolution or privatisation of the NHS, unless an exemption was secured, which as the negotiations were conducted in secret the British public would have no way of knowing until the TTIP either killed the NHS or didn't.

Well, there has been insurance by the Commission and the British Government that TTIP wouldn't force any change to the NHS. What sections are you referring to that would have changed stuff?

The EU Commission is as trustworthy as Satan when it comes to listening to the British public and David Cameron fared only slightly better. As you can see, the British got rid of Cameron, and is now trying to rid itself of the Commission. It should come as no surprise then that the Commission and Cameron pinky swearing that the NHS wouldn't be privatised in the secret negotiations was believed by no one, because no one is that gullible.

[Sheb]

So basically it boils down to "We don't have any reasons to think TTIP would have threatened the NHS, but the Commission is evil so they would probably have done it".

As for trade deals, why do you think Trump prefers bilateral to multilateral trade deals? (Although I wouldn't rally call TTIP truly multilateral, since the EU is doing the negotiating. It's bilateral with one side having a very complex ratification system) Why do you think China keeps insisting that the South China Sea dispute be resolved by bilateral treaties rather than multilateral one?

IMO, the answer to both these questions is "Because in a bilateral setting they think they can more easily use their bulk to shove better terms through smaller countries's throat". Divide and facefuck if you will. I'm sure he would prefer trade deals with individual countries, because a 18 trillion USD economy got less leverage when negotiating with a 14 trillion economy than with a bunch of smaller economies, none of whom is bigger than 3.5 trillions.

[muldrake]

As for trade deals, why do you think Trump prefers bilateral to multilateral trade deals? (Although I wouldn't rally call TTIP truly multilateral, since the EU is doing the negotiating. It's bilateral with one side having a very complex ratification system) Why do you think China keeps insisting that the South China Sea dispute be resolved by bilateral treaties rather than multilateral one?

The U.S. in general prefers bilateral to multilateral agreements, because we are naturally advantaged by having to deal only with a single partner against whom we usually have a strategically superior negotiating position.  Even when we must do multilateral trade agreements, we prefer dealing with a region rather than the entire world through a vehicle like the WTO, which has a pesky habit of ruling against us on things.

[Loud Whispers]

So basically it boils down to "We don't have any reasons to think TTIP would have threatened the NHS, but the Commission is evil so they would probably have done it".

No, it boils down to the fact that there was no transparency at all in the whole secret negotiations and there is absolutely no way we can risk something as crucial as the National Health Service on the word of Cameron, who we suspected was seeking to privatise the NHS from the backdoor, and the Commission, whose loyalties are known clearly.

The British people have no blind faith and obedience in powerful men. They are still just human, thus I question why you paint such a cruel caricature for citizens to seem foolish - for wanting oversight upon their leaders? For not trusting that which has done nothing to earn such trust? I would say this is a good sticking point for the UK but even the Europeans recognized the risk, it seems only Belgium was willing to be so submissive to aloof plutocrats, which is unsurprising. Seems obvious that the centre of the nation-killer would create people who find transparency and accountability evil lmao

As for trade deals, why do you think Trump prefers bilateral to multilateral trade deals?

I had the rare privilege of talking to an ambassador of South Africa at a labour party meetup once, a good fellow he was - fought long and hard against apartheid. He lamented how during one conversation with a Scandinavian official, he asked the Scandinavian, what was the point in him even talking to him? What was stopping him from simply talking to a Briton, German or Frenchman and having them effect his nations' interests over the entire continent without regard? The answer of course, was that there was nothing. His point was that the EU and entities like it were killing bilateralism. When dealing with nations like Iceland, a nation of only 300,000 people, countries have to meet with the Icelanders and negotiate with the Icelanders. No one has to give a shit about Sweden, they're just a province.
Why does Trump favour bilateralism over multilateralism? I have no firm idea, all I know is his stated goal for the nation-state to remain superior to the global corporate state.

(Although I wouldn't rally call TTIP truly multilateral, since the EU is doing the negotiating. It's bilateral with one side having a very complex ratification system). Why do you think China keeps insisting that the South China Sea dispute be resolved by bilateral treaties rather than multilateral one? IMO, the answer to both these questions is "Because in a bilateral setting they think they can more easily use their bulk to shove better terms through smaller countries's throat". Divide and facefuck if you will.

If the TTIP is bilateral, then the EU is one entity. The EU is not one entity, otherwise diversity is not its strength. A twofold strategy of slow escalation and intimidation with an additional fear of the Taiwan question motivates China, in addition to past fears of foreign nations influencing their nation during their century of humiliation. The EU is in my opinion welcome to divide and facefuck smaller countries, its people will learn the cost was not worth it.

I'm sure he would prefer trade deals with individual countries, because a 18 trillion USD economy got less leverage when negotiating with a 14 trillion economy than with a bunch of smaller economies, none of whom is bigger than 3.5 trillions.

That leverage is only as useful as it is in serving its citizens, it's a shame the EU is not interested in serving Europeans, but rather, ensuring corporations have the best competition. Thatcher got what she wanted, and the City of London's financial firms dominated Europe, Kohl got he wanted, and Germany's industry dominated Europe - how many can say they benefited from this? The simple answer is globalists have no kin to care for. I favour bilateralism because every nation can best determine what they want out of their deal, suited to their country's people and reject if it their terms are not met; with the EU leading you, you must accept these terms whether or not they suit your nation and whether you approve or not, you cannot reject it, that is the obvious price you pay for allowing unelected bureaucrats to decide your trade deals in secret. Gg gj, you leveraged your neck expertly around a noose
Hence why I stand in the opinion it is far better to use one's leverage to benefit one's self, rather than allow someone else to use it to better enrich their self. Thus the EU used its clout to seek a decrease in European food safety standards in direct opposition to what European people want, because it makes things cheaper for corporations, lower environmental regulations for the exact same reason, weaken labour unions for the exact same reason, undermine public services again, for the exact same reason.

“TTIP is already letting big business interests dictate our laws for the worse. This week an EU negotiator has let slip that negotiations on TTIP have helped speed up entry of GMOs and chemically washed beef into the EU market. In our briefing released today we found an example of US officials bullying the EU into dropping plans to ban 31 dangerous pesticides with ingredients that have been shown to cause cancer.
“Just imagine what will happen when TTIP actually comes into effect. Even the most optimistic of citizens must surely doubt the EU’s good intentions on TTIP after hearing how TTIP is already letting big business take over our legislative system. TTIP is about forcing governments to see the whole of society from the viewpoint of big business. Every regulation which is important to society, workers’ rights or environmental protection becomes simply an obstacle to profit.”

The nation state works for the benefit of its nationals, the EU has no nationals, caring only for profit. Oh yeah and then there's that small thing where the EU tried to allow corporations to sue national governments if their profits were threatened.

I really can't think of much the EU has done for the benefit of Europeans. But for the benfit of profit, great, but who profits? Lmao, no country for old yuros, gl hf, but at least corporations got that cheap labour.

[Loud Whispers]

To that end, I find May has commendably managed to secure all she said in houses of Parliament; she got Trump to back down on torture after her speech to the GOP, and now he has deferred to his intelligence advisers that torture does not work. Most relevant to us, she confirmed that the UK and USA were not going to have the frigid relationship it did under Obama, but the roaring relationship that is UK-US relations. Most relevant to the world, she got Trump to completely U-turn on NATO, going from saying NATO is obsolete to being 100% behind NATO.
Moreover, there is one additional thing. The EU placed Guy Verhofstadt on the EU-UK negotiating table. He has no respect for the UK and is determined to ensure we get the worse terms possible. Currently most national leaders of Europe are with us in that they want us to leave ASAP and leave amicably, the presence of hardliners like Guy force us to be cautious, and more importantly, remind people like Guy that we have MAD available - unleash the Trump.

Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and arch European federalist who recently returned from a tour of the US, said that it was now clear that Europe had “fewer friends than ever” in Washington.

I fucking nailed it

On the Brexit deal itself, Mr Verhofstadt struck a small note of conciliation, saying that Britain must face the consequences of leaving the single market and customs union, but that Europe would not seek to punish the UK.

Hurrah! May's efforts were not in vain, and thanks must be given to the Anglophile President for his aid. With that sorted the UK is now that much more ready to depart from the EU! Conciliation with hardliners and hardliners, goodness, how swell the future shall be

[MorleyDev]

An issue I'm wracking my brain over, and this is with Trump, Brexit, the whole shebang (I've had a few drinks so this is not going to be a fully coherent brain splurge).

So, I strongly suspect we are in a period that will, in the future, be referred to as the "Automated Revolution", in the same vein as the "Industrial Revolution". That is, just as the Industrial Revolution killed the cottage careers on an unprecedented scale, we are seeing and will continue to see Automation kill current careers on an unprecedented scale. And, depending on when you start counting, we're barely into this time period.

Now, I don't think this, in the long run, is a bad thing. I actually am all for this (why would I work as a computer programmer if I wasn't?). What I'm alarmed by is that the entire Trump/Brexit debacle seems to be fundamentally a platform of protecting and restoring jobs that, quite frankly, cannot be protected or restored. The rust belt will continue to rust, the mines will remain closed, the steelworks will never be unconverted from offices. They are gone, and should remain gone.

The EU has largely seemed to be acting to limit damage done by this, allowing labour to move around where needed and fill jobs that need filling, providing financial support to allow for areas hit by these inevitable job losses to mitigate the damage done by the deindustrialisation of the western world, providing international regulations that benefit industries like the software industry immensely (the EU's data protection stuff is super useful in a global market, and software is inherently a global market), funding international scientific research.... Maybe not as effectively as possible, but they seem to actually be at least doing something other than trying to turn back the hands of a clock that cannot be turned back.

We need something to provide support for people whilst their livelihoods inevitably die, and so far no platform that advocates leaving the EU seems to simultaneously acknowledge what I view as this strong reality. Some of the remain platforms, however, have pushed for ideas like Universal Living Standards that can build on top of existing welfare systems, and will be essential in the inevitable post-industrial future.

So, for someone who thinks industry is dying an inevitable death, and automation is the inevitable future, where amongst the Leave crowd are they presenting effective alternatives to the EU? Because, from that point of view, to me they just look like snake oil salesmen. False promises that cannot be fulfilled, no different from trying to protect/bring back the cottage industries during the industrial revolution.

Even the UK governments talk of focusing on things like automated cars post-EU seems to support this. Such things are career killers in the long term, and seem to be easier to accomplish within the international collaborative scientific network of the EU.

[Neonivek]

We are fast approaching a point where we as a society will have to drastically change how we conduct our economy... OR just allow the rich to prey (pray? dang it English!) on the poor.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: Too long no one read (click to show/hide)

An issue I'm wracking my brain over, and this is with Trump, Brexit, the whole shebang (I've had a few drinks so this is not going to be a fully coherent brain splurge).

Top bants

Now, I don't think this, in the long run, is a bad thing.

If it's inevitable, it doesn't matter what we think. Either we will adapt with the times or like the Qing dynasty refusing to adapt, be outdone by those who did

I actually am all for this (why would I work as a computer programmer if I wasn't?). What I'm alarmed by is that the entire Trump/Brexit debacle seems to be fundamentally a platform of protecting and restoring jobs that, quite frankly, cannot be protected or restored. The rust belt will continue to rust, the mines will remain closed, the steelworks will never be unconverted from offices. They are gone, and should remain gone.

Trump and Brexit are not interchangeable, very different phenomena with different needs, challenges and existences. One is a politician, the other is an event

The EU has largely seemed to be acting to limit damage done by this, allowing labour to move around where needed and fill jobs that need filling, providing financial support to allow for areas hit by these inevitable job losses to mitigate the damage done by the deindustrialisation of the western world, providing international regulations that benefit industries like the software industry immensely (the EU's data protection stuff is super useful in a global market, and software is inherently a global market), funding international scientific research.... Maybe not as effectively as possible, but they seem to actually be at least doing something other than trying to turn back the hands of a clock that cannot be turned back.

Going to need a citation on the EU having done anything to achieve anything asserted. As far as I can see the EU's open border policies have only added millions of unemployed workers who lack higher education, technical skills or basic literacy or comprehension in the local language to an advanced economy. I really do not quite grasp the strategy of supposedly advanced, automating nations, desperately seeking to increase their unskilled workforce by millions, to work in the jobs they intend to make obsolete. That is to say nothing of taxes or demographics in the aged, retiring European populace.

We need something to provide support for people whilst their livelihoods inevitably die, and so far no platform that advocates leaving the EU seems to simultaneously acknowledge what I view as this strong reality.

That might just be because the Leave platform is about leaving the European Union so that we can decide what we want to do in the parliamentary democracy that the UK has grown accustomed to. It's a question on sovereignty, there isn't really much room for debate on future policy. I'm probably being block-headed though, in hindsight I think you're referring to the political parties that supported leave? If so, I apologise for my stupidity. It makes much more sense for the political parties that supported Leave to be scrutinized for their future aims or goals.

Some of the remain platforms, however, have pushed for ideas like Universal Living Standards that can build on top of existing welfare systems, and will be essential in the inevitable post-industrial future.
So, for someone who thinks industry is dying an inevitable death, and automation is the inevitable future, where amongst the Leave crowd are they presenting effective alternatives to the EU? Because, from that point of view, to me they just look like snake oil salesmen. False promises that cannot be fulfilled, no different from trying to protect/bring back the cottage industries during the industrial revolution.

It's an absolute pity. The UK acts wisely but has no favour with PR, whereas even our own future journalists are educated in Universities that despite the UK and adore the EU.

That's an interesting point of view. I agree with your message, I disagree very much that the EU is moving forwards. On the contrary, the EU is retarded. The EU wastes hundreds of millions of euros on airports that serve no one or fail to be profitable. Perhaps this was simply a case of the EU conducting no market research before throwing away hundreds of millions of euros, but as seen in the case of fishing, they just don't care. Whilst little money was spent on scientific assessment or law enforcement, the EU:
*Spent billions of euros helping Europeans build up large fishing fleets, even though conservationists cautioned them that this would result in overfishing.
*Ignored their own study that EU subsidies were responsible for propping up industries that were unprofitable not in the future as a result of automation, but already, today, to continue subsidizing fuel costs for fishing trawlers that were permanently destroying fish stocks.
*Spent tens of millions of euros modernizing giant purse sieners to help fishermen catch endangered bluefin Tuna
*Gave subsidies to boost illegal overfishing, even to people convicted of illegal fishing
*Ultimately ignoring the issue of overcapacity, continuing to subsidize the building and modernization of increasingly efficient trawlers causing overfishing
*Whilst criticizing foreign nations for harmful fishing subsidies, continuing the same practices themselves despite two decades of the knowledge that their policies were destroying the future of the industry and environment. To quote:
*Only one percent of that money can be identified as beneficial to the marine environment. About 65 percent can be categorized as “environmentally harmful."

When European Steel requested that the European Union protect their industry in line with the Americans, the European Union obliged, the steelworks worried that Chinese goods in European markets could wipe out 330,000 European jobs.
What about coal? The EU spent its money determined to ensure that the mines did not close. It now has to face reality that they will remain closed. Then what of agriculture? Ahaha no, not embracing innovation, I love this - get this, far be it that the EU put their budget towards modernizing, nah, 43% went towards making food prices more expensive for Europeans. Top kek
What about the defence industry? Avin a giggle there. Industry and energy? Future looks full of non-competition.

Unlike EU aerospace, the UK is innovating and expanding realistically. Theresa May's education reform brought a fucking tear to my eye, finally we would be in more in line with Singapore in actually providing alternatives for students who feel like they are useless without a Uni degree or students who end up taking useless Uni degrees. I'm sick and tired of so many Ministers talking about reforming education but delivering nothing, this is the exact kind of stuff I've been yammering on about for so long. Honestly the only thing I'm disgruntled about is that I don't think she's gone far enough, Compsci, Mechanics, Plumbing and other advanced technical jobs should also feature their own technical schools, and we should be offering state scholarships to STEM students and easy visas for talented foreign students. This will do so much to ensuring that the future will belong to British youths, at a time when coal mines and steel mills will be shutting down until such time as the world needs them again. So wartime. On the topic of coal, our government has set the date for 2025 to phase out all coal power altogether. All coal mining has already ceased for some years now. If successful, our nation will be the first industrial nation to have no reliance on any coal power whatsoever, except perhaps, for the odd Summer barbecue
On the topic of the Scotland trial for Universal Basic Income, crucially, it is cross party, involving all parties which supported both sides. I wish them success, and if they are successful, an expansion of trials into England and from there, the UK at large. To top it all off, May announced she'll implement £2 BILLION sterling of investment in British tech and research, from Biotech to AI, Robotics and beyond, every year.
I am puzzled then, why is it when Brexiteer Tories propose such things they are unnoticed, whilst the failure of the EU is held aloft as an example to follow? I cannot comprehend this. One thing that I found absolutely fucking shocking, one thing I had not even realized existed, was that David Cameron put a cap on skilled non-EU migrants to enter our country.
This made me absolutely livid because there is no way to view this as in any way advantageous to the UK. Especially in light of David Cameron giving us uncapped unskilled migration I can't fucking believe he had the gall to put a cap on skilled migrants. I can point and laugh that as a Europhile leading Remain, of course David Cameron would support the fucking stupid measure which would ensure the UK is hurt in accordance with all your fears, but then that also makes me livid because I have not seen May take notice of the cap or state she will overturn it. This is a really dumb idea and needs to be left in the past with Ham and Clegg.

My conclusion is that I agree with you on the changes to come, but for me I see our current leaders as moving in the right direction whilst the leaders of the EU aren't really moving anywhere at all. Their stagnancy is going to kill them, if their own mismanagement won't do them in first. Like they give a shit when Europeans suffer, they live in their own elite bubbles isolated from ordinary people. Remain, whether it was Miliband, Cameron or Clegg, said nothing of substance in regards to the future. Clegg talked about how the EU gave us "clout" which was really fucking useless of him, Miliband talked about how we should join in EU protectionism, Cameron was off fucking about rejecting skilled migrants whilst opening the door to unskilled migrants... Jesus Christ, Merkel and Cameron should not be interchangeable.

Oh! And a final note, the Remain camp was fairly retarded. All three offered ideological progressivism instead of any actual sense of proper planning, but the current leadership of Jeremy Corbyn sees eye to eye with May. They both have the same strategy for the future. So current Labour party leadership and current Conservative party leadership are getting there, despite both of their parties once supporting the absolute idiot bureaucracy their predecessors championed. Pretty much only Libdems are still being stubborn in the face of progress, which is funny coming from the progressive party xD

Tldr; Remain remains behind.

Though for fucks sakes I need to find the contacts of HOL or HOC ppl or anyone, because bloody hell, what is the sense in reducing skilled migrants? The actual fuck, how did Cameron think this was a good idea? Finest argument against having a political ruling class right there, you can send a boy to Oxbridge but that won't give him common sense.

*EDIT
Neo, you got it right the first time. Rich preying on the poor would be them either hunting the poor, or metaphorically, feeding off the poor in the manner of a predator, a hunting beast. The Rich praying on the poor would I imagine be plutocrats being pious on an altar made up of people-furniture.

[martinuzz]

Meanwhile the ban Trump from the UK thing got support from an unexpected side. Buckingham palace has made it known that they are not happy with the fact the May has invited Trump for a state visit. They feel that May has put the Queen in a difficult position, and say it would have been much better to wait and see what kind of president Trump would turn out to be, before inviting him over.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/trump-visit-will-hurt-the-queen-may-is-told-n9mtdfgwg

[Loud Whispers]

Neo, you got it right the first time. Rich preying on the poor would be them either hunting the poor, or metaphorically, feeding off the poor in the manner of a predator, a hunting beast. The Rich praying on the poor would I imagine be plutocrats being pious on an altar made up of people-furniture.

"Didn't you get my piano?" "Pianos aren't supposed to bleed and scream."

Really makes you think about why people considered it music made with instruments of torture


In other news it has now come to light that Cameron tried to get a Daily Mail editor sacked for being pro-Brexit. Ahahaa get fucked Cameron your only legacy is the Guardian

The Daily Mail mounted a vociferous campaign for Brexit

Christ that is a fantastic word

vociferous
adjective:
Expressing or characterized by vehement opinions; loud and forceful

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Of course, it isn't really about Brexit, it's because they broke Piggate.

I suffer greatly knowing I live in a world where the Daily Mail did at least one thing right.

[Loud Whispers]

Sup fams it's happening
MPs have voted by a majority of 384 to allow Prime Minister Theresa May to get Brexit negotiations under way.