|
Post by mark687 on Sept 11, 2020 13:37:00 GMT
The irony of the biggest export from us to them of it announced so for is malt when at first we wanted a luxury charge on sending them bottled items of the post fermented version Regards mark687
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,811
|
Post by lidar2 on Sept 11, 2020 13:48:22 GMT
U.K. - Japan free trade deal agreed.
A major economic power which clearly has confidence in signing international agreements with the U.K. and with whom we were able to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal very quickly. Of course it replaces & builds on the extensive E.U. - Japan deal we were previously part of, which is presumably why it was possible to agree it in such a short time.
I believe we also had an extensive existing trade deal with another major economic power so this might be a good example for them to follow...
According to BBC website, the lion's share of the £15bn that this trade deal will generate (80% of it) is going to Japan. Of course they were quick to get it signed.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Sept 11, 2020 14:26:03 GMT
U.K. - Japan free trade deal agreed.
A major economic power which clearly has confidence in signing international agreements with the U.K. and with whom we were able to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal very quickly. Of course it replaces & builds on the extensive E.U. - Japan deal we were previously part of, which is presumably why it was possible to agree it in such a short time.
I believe we also had an extensive existing trade deal with another major economic power so this might be a good example for them to follow...
According to BBC website, the lion's share of the £15bn that this trade deal will generate (80% of it) is going to Japan. Of course they were quick to get it signed. The U.K. has a large global trade deficit so on average most deals will benefit the other party more than the U.K. And Japan is an especially successful exporter.
But by this argument a country should only sign Free Trade deals where it has a trade surplus. And that way lies Protectionism.
Of course we have an overall trade surplus from the E.U. too, so I don't say you're wrong in terms of the practical politics. It's in their immediate net interest to do a deal, if trade is what matters rather than other factors.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Sept 12, 2020 15:46:18 GMT
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,811
|
Post by lidar2 on Sept 14, 2020 8:15:09 GMT
I do appreciate that there are other people who thought we were already a 'vassal state' of the E.U. When did I suggest otherwise? Excellent. Then perhaps you could help me to understand what I never have, namely why a trade deal with the U.S. would put us in a state of vassalage but our former E.U. membership did not, even though in both cases we would/did have to abide by agreed common standards/regulation at some level? Would a post-Brexit trade deal with the E.U. make us a 'vassal state' of the E.U.? (For clarity, I don't think that any of them did/would, assuming they are negotiated fairly.) My own 2 pennies' worth on the subject of vassalage - we were never a vassal of the EU when we were a member for the reason that we hade a vote on all EU laws (and a fairly sizeable one due to our population size). In addition, pre-brexit we were also faitrly influential and listened to.
Brexit has, ironically, put the UK in a position much closer to vassalage than membership ever did. For all the sound and fury BJ may create in the short term, the EU will ultimately get its way on the issues that are of most concern to the EU
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,811
|
Post by lidar2 on Sept 14, 2020 8:17:23 GMT
According to BBC website, the lion's share of the £15bn that this trade deal will generate (80% of it) is going to Japan. Of course they were quick to get it signed. The U.K. has a large global trade deficit so on average most deals will benefit the other party more than the U.K. And Japan is an especially successful exporter.
But by this argument a country should only sign Free Trade deals where it has a trade surplus. And that way lies Protectionism.
Of course we have an overall trade surplus from the E.U. too, so I don't say you're wrong in terms of the practical politics. It's in their immediate net interest to do a deal, if trade is what matters rather than other factors.
I agree with you on free trade (that takes me back to A-level economics and theories of comparative advantage) and that even this deal will have some minor economic benefits for the UK, but in the case of this particular deal I think it has been signed by the UK government more for its political and psychological benefits rather than its tangible economic benefits
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Sept 14, 2020 17:27:01 GMT
Boom.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Sept 14, 2020 20:07:02 GMT
The U.K. has a large global trade deficit so on average most deals will benefit the other party more than the U.K. And Japan is an especially successful exporter.
But by this argument a country should only sign Free Trade deals where it has a trade surplus. And that way lies Protectionism.
Of course we have an overall trade surplus from the E.U. too, so I don't say you're wrong in terms of the practical politics. It's in their immediate net interest to do a deal, if trade is what matters rather than other factors.
I agree with you on free trade (that takes me back to A-level economics and theories of comparative advantage) and that even this deal will have some minor economic benefits for the UK, but in the case of this particular deal I think it has been signed by the UK government more for its political and psychological benefits rather than its tangible economic benefits Which made me wonder - as I understand it, this deal replicates and extends (a bit) the E.U.-Japan deal we were formerly part of and, as a start to having our own trade policy, the Government wanted to do that for all the E.U.-'Third Country' deals we won't be part of any more. But if the E.U.-Japan deal isn't that important in economic terms, are any of them? The only other E.U. deal I can think of is the one with Canada because it's recent and has been referenced in relation to our own talks with the E.U.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Sept 18, 2020 17:19:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Sept 27, 2020 16:56:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ela on Sept 29, 2020 17:37:45 GMT
Not a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Sept 30, 2020 11:55:58 GMT
Presumably you didn't notice The Guardian later corrected the headline to "material from anti-capitalist groups" and mentions they made this correction - right at the very end of the article:
"schools were told not to use material from anti-capitalist groups; as opposed to being told not to use anti-capitalist material as stated in an earlier version."
There is a big difference and this undermines most of the content, but never mind, every click has value.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 12:21:34 GMT
Presumably you didn't notice The Guardian later corrected the headline to "material from anti-capitalist groups" and mentions they made this correction - right at the very end of the article:
"schools were told not to use material from anti-capitalist groups; as opposed to being told not to use anti-capitalist material as stated in an earlier version."
There is a big difference and this undermines most of the content, but never mind, every click has value.
Especially if it allows people to see what they want to see.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Sept 30, 2020 13:04:43 GMT
Presumably you didn't notice The Guardian later corrected the headline to "material from anti-capitalist groups" and mentions they made this correction - right at the very end of the article:
"schools were told not to use material from anti-capitalist groups; as opposed to being told not to use anti-capitalist material as stated in an earlier version."
There is a big difference and this undermines most of the content, but never mind, every click has value.
I did notice. Yes there is a difference. No it doesn't undermine "most of the content".
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Sept 30, 2020 13:05:30 GMT
Presumably you didn't notice The Guardian later corrected the headline to "material from anti-capitalist groups" and mentions they made this correction - right at the very end of the article:
"schools were told not to use material from anti-capitalist groups; as opposed to being told not to use anti-capitalist material as stated in an earlier version."
There is a big difference and this undermines most of the content, but never mind, every click has value.
Especially if it allows people to see what they want to see. If some people saw what they wanted to see they would be seeing something quite different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 13:19:42 GMT
Especially if it allows people to see what they want to see. If some people saw what they wanted to see they would be seeing something quite different. ? ? ?
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Sept 30, 2020 14:46:12 GMT
If some people saw what they wanted to see they would be seeing something quite different. ? ? ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 15:10:18 GMT
Which is? Surely there must be something else you can copy and paste to aid your explanation. Otherwise, I'll stick to my reasoning that the 'Government Watch' thread is merely a place for you to illustrate your political beliefs by quoting articles written by others, and you are then rude and dismissive to anyone who disagrees.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Oct 1, 2020 8:07:56 GMT
Not the government thank god, but for the many not the flu Jeremy?
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on Oct 1, 2020 8:14:38 GMT
Presumably you didn't notice The Guardian later corrected the headline to "material from anti-capitalist groups" and mentions they made this correction - right at the very end of the article:
"schools were told not to use material from anti-capitalist groups; as opposed to being told not to use anti-capitalist material as stated in an earlier version."
There is a big difference and this undermines most of the content, but never mind, every click has value.
Is there any evidence of any teacher actually using ‘material from anti-capitalist groups’? This feels like yet another bogeyman to explain why young people are less conservative. The government can’t fathom why that is so assume its indoctrination. First they blamed uni lecturers, now schools. Of course it could be the £40k+ worth of debt it costs to go to uni, or the complete shortage of entry level jobs meaning every single vacancy and grad scheme gets hundreds of applications, or young people being entirely priced out of the housing market. Maybe start giving young people reasons to support the current system rather than having a McCarthyist moral panic.
|
|