Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hrothbern, Mar 22, 2019.
You are either with the redcoats or against them
Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.
Well, generally the Sith, anyway
Apparently the quote belongs to a sith...
I'd rather drop this particular conversation and avoid further personal attacks. Discuss ideas, rather than distract with insinuations about people. If you have a problem with any "conspiracy theory", state it in the appropriate thread.
As for this leak, any news yet of the FCO is going to let the issue die?
I can't imagine that they're going to let an obvious breach of the Official Secrets Act just die without even the merest investigation, even under a government this incompetent.
The Torygraph is running a piece on how Trump is ordering the UK to fall into line about Huawei or face losing "The Trade Deal". 15 years ago, we were up in arms about Blair being Bush's poodle, but at least that was Blair's choice...
Further, Philip Hammond has warned that we will inevitably lose control over a no-deal Brexit, as we cannot control how supplies reach our shores and the related vicissitudes of politics and trade. Who could possibly have foreseen that eventuality?
They seem more worried that there is other stuff leaked, but not yet published.
The UK's Met Police have threatened the press with prosecution.
If true, that is excellent news.
UK can manage quite well without a trade deal because neither UK nor USA law
assumes trade is only permitted if there is an inter-government trade deal.
That's not what trade-deals are about...
There is nothing excellent about going from an open partnership to the worst still workable solution. Items will become much more expensive, trading goods will require a much bigger effort due to bureaucracy and thus waste everyone's time and money, the list goes on and on. Nations don't do these deals just for the fun of it, they make them because they are vastly superior on a general level to just following basic WTO-guidelines.
Politicians do trade deals because they like to grandstand, in many cases that just gets in the way of business.
There's a plan A?
May had plans A, B and C which all seemed very similar, Boris has optimism.
Yes, but May is in the past. Well, sort of. Kindof. I reckon.
Rees-Mogg totally misses the point again
Heheh. The best response there was: "Our entire squad has been enriched by immigration, you thuddingly mediocre ghoul."
It's the exact opposite...
Trade deals generally follow established business and try to simplify things and lower the costs of doing that business to the benefit of both sides.
Outside the politically sensitive areas like weapons or beef it is rarely politicians going out trying to drum up business.
Talking about trade deals, the disgraced former defence secretary and current trade fantasist, Liam Fox, has recently admitted that trade with the US could actually prove complicated to set up. So much for his much-touted dozens of trade deals ready to roll out on Brexit day, eh?
If the business is established, no state to state trade deal is required.
In case you don't know, deals are deliberately made complicated by one party to stiff the other party.
Why do you think there are 500 pages in the so called UK withdrawal agreement?
Possibly because the UK leaving the EU is a dreadfully complicated procedure (in case you didn't know).
If say the business was established but there were tariffs, quotas, standards inspections on it, do you see the benefit to a deal covering some or all of those items?
So the Brexiteers want to make a deal with the US which is going to, as you put it, ‘stiff’ the UK?
That's not how any of this works. Seriously, you can't even get the most obvious concepts right...
As has been mentioned above, there are tarrifs, rules and regulations, an endless amount of them. These sort of deals aren't made because politicians love these kind of deals, they are set up because big business is demanding it. Because anything that stands in their way of free trade makes it far more complicated and expensive for them. No company wants to pay tarrifs, no company wants to pay all sorts of taxes multiple times in different countries, no company wants to go through constant inspections that are different in every single country they might deal with. No company wants to go through 30 different sets of law if they can just abide by one. No company wants to be hindered in its production because necessary resources from foreign countries are stuck in limbo due to controls or regulations. These deals exist because they are a giant advantage to the economy and bigger companies.
As for why there are so many pages?
Uhm, have you, even for one moment, thought about how deeply interconnected the world has become at this stage? Do you know how many different fields and areas there are in life, which all need to be dealt with seperately? Do you have even a remote idea how many pages there are even just in British law about one tiny field of law, much less the entirety of it?
It is blindingly obvious why you need that many pages in such a deal, because there is a giant amount of rules and regulations that need to be untangled. You might as well be saying a merger of two big companies could just as well be done on a piece of paper, and not include a carefully drafted contract with hundreds or thousands of pages. It simply makes no sense and shows a giant lack of knowledge about how the world works. You are trying to force an extremely simplistic view onto a very complex matter.
Separate names with a comma.