The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Enda]

Tangent: how well clued-up Parliament is to Northern Irish affairs.

 

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, Enda said:

how about Theresa May stops hiding and puts some meat on the bones

I hope I'm not the only one who isn't particularly keen on seeing Mrs May's meat.

Edited January 26, 2017 by snowychap

[Davkaus]

I didn't have much respect left for Corbyn, but a three line whip to vote in favour of handing power from parliament to the government with no oversight just blows my mind...This is the least effective opposition I've seen since we battered Derby 6-0.

 

[Awol]

53 minutes ago, Enda said:

Sure, grand strategy stuff. The grand view of the empire and all the rest of it.

But imho Parliament is finally getting to the nuts and bolts of this Brexit thing: exactly which regulations is the government willing to jettison to encourage trade outside the EU. Finally. I think it's high time you lot get passed the grand strategy stuff and talk details, especially if negotiations start in six weeks. The vote was six months ago. If it's so easy to strike up trade deals, then get on with it.

By the way if the UK e.g. permits the use of hormones to fatten cattle, I for one am less willing to permit free trade of England's agricultural goods into Ireland. So, in other words, making trade easier with the US can make trade with the EU harder. Same goes with e.g. adopting US fire safety standards or God forbid Chinese pharma standards.

I think it's high-time for less of the grand-standing grand strategy stuff, how about Theresa May stops hiding and puts some meat on the bones.

Empire, grand standing? Lol.

It's not about the poxy Brexit negotiations, I'm talking about the real possibility of major conflict in the world that has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit.

The geo-political environment is changing before our eyes in a way it hasn't since WW2. Powers are rising that utterly reject the liberal world order that has been underpinned by US hegemony, with the support of a few key democratic powers. Those countries are throwing out the rule book that has prevented great power conflict for 70 years - ever heard of the Thucydides Trap? 

The Middle East is on fire and the US is now completely reviewing its strategy to deal with it. Whether we want to or not the UK is going to play a role in whatever comes next.

Russia has changed European borders by force and stolen a part of a neighbour's country for the first time since WW2. That didn't even happen during the Cold War and fundamentally changes the European security environment for the worse.

China's decided to steal and militarise the South China Sea while intimidating its neighbours who are getting nervous and tooling up - most notably, Japan.

America is going to start pushing back in these areas and they won't be doing it alone so there is a political, diplomatic & military strategy and division of labour to sort out. 

Of course both countries can walk and chew gum at the same time and the details of a new trade relationship are important. I'm simply saying there are far more important things to be discussed at the first meeting of a new PM and President, regardless of what you personally think the priorities should be. 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Awol
To add

[villaglint]

@Awol can't disagree with too much of that "kaleidoscope has shaken" speech. 

Only point I would add is the world is very different to WW2 era, connected in a way it has never been before in its history. 

Ergo I would rather go to war with my own government than follow Mr Trump into battle with well anybody. 

[Enda]

@Awol, have to agree that trade deals take a back seat to e.g. the US pulling out of NATO. Fair point.

[Awol]

6 minutes ago, Enda said:

@Awol, have to agree that trade deals take a back seat to e.g. the US pulling out of NATO. Fair point.

Are they really? Fascinating. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

Sure, grand strategy stuff. The grand view of the empire and all the rest of it.

But imho Parliament is finally getting to the nuts and bolts of this Brexit thing: exactly which regulations is the government willing to jettison to encourage trade outside the EU. Finally. I think it's high time you lot get passed the grand strategy stuff and talk details, especially if negotiations start in six weeks. The vote was six months ago. If it's so easy to strike up trade deals, then get on with it.

By the way if the UK e.g. permits the use of hormones to fatten cattle, I for one am less willing to permit free trade of England's agricultural goods into Ireland. So, in other words, making trade easier with the US can make trade with the EU harder. Same goes with e.g. adopting US fire safety standards or God forbid Chinese pharma standards.

I think it's high-time for less of the grand-standing grand strategy stuff, how about Theresa May stops hiding and puts some meat on the bones.

100% agree. Aside from all the In or Out, and all the grandstanding, this is the important bit, the bit the Government and Parliament is basically there for - to responsibly and using g their experience and expertise to work to actually collectively use their wisdom and scrutiny and all the rest of it to work out the best way to proceed, what the aims should be and so on. We had a referendum that was explicitly not binding, that was explicitly "please advise us, Parliament, whether you think staying or leaving is what you want to us do" and so the next step always has to be for Parliament to then work out the best way to achieve that expressed view to the benefit of the nation.

It should never have been about May and Fox and Davies just on their own initiating a leave process, with scant regard for the views advise and opinion of (for better or worse) the people we all elected to represent us.

Time to be grown up and stop the name calling and grandstanding. Earn your money.

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, Enda said:

Tangent: how well clued-up Parliament is to Northern Irish affairs.

 

He made a slip  and apologised to the family afterwards

 

hardly earth shattering or even news worthy imo 

[Enda]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Are they really? Fascinating. 

Obviously it's hard to disentangle Donald Trump's words from Donald Trump's actual meaning but when he has repeatedly referred to NATO as "obsolete", it's not unreasonable to think he's not going to abide by Article 5 innit.

[blandy]

7 hours ago, Awol said:

Sure, food hygiene is important, no debate about that.

It just seems an odd thing to be focused on (a detail of a potential future trade deal that may be signed two years hence) when the two leaders are still to meet, and may have slightly more pressing issues to discuss.

 

Further to my earlier reply, Trump's been on my radio saying May wants to talk about trade and that his trade secretary hasn't been appointed yet, so he'd have to do the job himself.

things are going well aren't they?

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Russia has changed European borders by force and stolen a part of a neighbour's country for the first time since WW2. That didn't even happen during the Cold War and fundamentally changes the European security environment for the worse.

China's decided to steal and militarise the South China Sea while intimidating its neighbours who are getting nervous and tooling up - most notably, Japan.

America is going to start pushing back in these areas and they won't be doing it alone so there is a political, diplomatic & military strategy and division of labour to sort out. 

Alternatively.

The US has attempted to engineer a coup in a key Russian ally and left a far fight near neo-nazi government in place, forcing the Russians to take control of part of the country in an attempt to restore order and defend its borders from a US economic monster, pushing the Washington consensus and eating nations in the East since promising Gorbachev they wouldn't if he gave them East Germany back. That didn't even happen during the cold war and fundamentally changes the European security environment for the worse.

China has decided to militarise it's naval borders against the gathering of the largest naval force in history - sent there as an intimidatory measure by the US who are encircling it with bases, missiles and troops - many of it's neighbours are being bullied into tooling up to suit US aims, most notably Japan.

American is not going to start pulling back in these areas - and they aren't going to do it alone - it's too expensive - they'll need their allies to ensure that taxpayers in other nations contribute to the US efforts by buying arms from US companies.

On top of that, there is political, diplomatic and military strategy and division of labour to sort out - why on earth they'd involve us in those discussions is a bit of a mystery to me though, I'd imagine we just get our instructions in an envelope along with some information on where we should send the money.

Washington cares about May's opinion on these matters like Manchester United care about Great Barr Falcons.

 

[Awol]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

Further to my earlier reply, Trump's been on my radio saying May wants to talk about trade and that his trade secretary hasn't been appointed yet, so he'd have to do the job himself.

things are going well aren't they?

I saw Trump's speech (boilerplate stuff) and the piece about Ross still awaiting confirmation so he'd have the conversation with May about trade.

I'm pretty sure you would be expecting them to discuss a basket of urgent issues which will include but not be dominated by trade. Correct? 

I get that you're defending a position vis a vis Brexit but don't really understand the specific meaning of your last sentence? 

[villakram]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

Obviously it's hard to disentangle Donald Trump's words from Donald Trump's actual meaning but when he has repeatedly referred to NATO as "obsolete", it's not unreasonable to think he's not going to abide by Article 5 innit.

My TV is obsolete. This doesn't mean I'm going to burn the thing and spend my evenings stamp collecting. I'm more likely to (i) keep the thing, (ii) add a google etc. dongle to make it more relevant, or (iii) buy a new one. You are not alone in being in the option (i) camp. Seems kinda strange to me.

Also regarding article 5, I suggest you read up on WWI and how great powers can get dragged into shit by the local shenanigans of small petty village against village shit in small nations. Must come to defence of all members, e.g., Erdogan?

[Awol]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

Obviously it's hard to disentangle Donald Trump's words from Donald Trump's actual meaning but when he has repeatedly referred to NATO as "obsolete", it's not unreasonable to think he's not going to abide by Article 5 innit.

I think this is his negotiating style, achieve disorientation and confusion through the dislocation of expectation, so increasing the chances of getting what he really wants.  

Trying to get NATO to meet its own basic treaty commitments is longstanding US (and UK) policy. The nicely nicely approach has repeatedly failed so he's adopted a different route to try and reach the same objective. 

Unfortunately for him it's obviously an empty threat because the Congress, DoD, CIA, NSA et al. wouldn't let the US leave NATO - probably the reason he's dropped the subject. 

[Enda]

21 minutes ago, villakram said:

I suggest you read up on WWI 

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've read multiple books on the topic. While we're giving suggestions to each other, I recommend you read up on dominant strategy equilibria when parties are pre-committed to over-reacting, more commonly referred to as the MAD equilibrium.

But anyway, whether you like NATO or not -- and FYI Ireland is not a member -- you can't argue that Trump's comments don't change the dynamic.

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

The nicely nicely approach has repeatedly failed so he's adopted a different route to try and reach the same objective. 

Maybe you're right, and this is a masterful stroke on his part. Or maybe he's an ardent nationalist who doesn't care for other countries. Or maybe he's an idiot who doesn't have a solid grasp on international affairs. In any case, I agree with your general point that there are more important things for May and The Don to chat about than a free trade deal.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, Awol said:

I saw Trump's speech (boilerplate stuff) and the piece about Ross still awaiting confirmation so he'd have the conversation with May about trade.

I'm pretty sure you would be expecting them to discuss a basket of urgent issues which will include but not be dominated by trade. Correct? 

I get that you're defending a position vis a vis Brexit but don't really understand the specific meaning of your last sentence? 

I'm not "defending a position" re Brexit, no. To re-iterate what I've repeatedly said, I very reluctantly voted remain, I'm not massively bothered about leaving per se. What is of concern to me is that I think May and more so her colleagues are borderline, or clearly, incompetent/ negligent. On the trade thing, I think May is desperate to do trade deals with the US, because Brexit will harm uk trade with the continental EU. So when you, kind of dismissed media comment on potential lower food standards as kind of irrelevant right now I disagreed.

Quote

 the two leaders are still to meet, and may have slightly more pressing issues to discuss. Y'know, stuff like the future of the post WW2 global order and international system, the western alliance, the EU, things like that

May wanting to get in trumps good books to get trade as soon as legally able seems to be top of her list, not something way down a list of issues. You seemed to disagree,

Quote

...Of course the principal of doing a trade deal is still a very important subject, but even then it probably just makes it into the top 5. I'd be amazed if they got down into the detail, not least because that isn't really their job.

I think she is desperate to get good headlines about how we'll be able to trade much more with the US once we leave EU.

The going well comment was about Trump handling trade chats 'cus he doesn't have a trade secretary. It'll not end well.

[edited to add quotes]

[villakram]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've read multiple books on the topic. While we're giving suggestions to each other, I recommend you read up on dominant strategy equilibria when parties are pre-committed to over-reacting, more commonly referred to as the MAD equilibrium.

But anyway, whether you like NATO or not -- and FYI Ireland is not a member -- you can't argue that Trump's comments don't change the dynamic.

Maybe you're right, and this is a masterful stroke on his part. Or maybe he's an ardent nationalist who doesn't care for other countries. Or maybe he's an idiot who doesn't have a solid grasp on international affairs. In any case, I agree with your general point that there are more important things for May and The Don to chat about than a free trade deal.

Where did I argue that he wasn't changing the dynamic? Be careful, you can put an eye out fooling around with straw like that.

Edited January 26, 2017 by villakram

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Enda said:

...In any case, I agree with your general point that there are more important things for May and The Don to chat about than a free trade deal.

There are, but I don't think May particularly wants to. She Will probably agree with him a bit about the 2% part on funding for NATO, but mostly she will just want to be "friends"

[snowychap]

If Trump is true to his word about only being interested in one on one with regard to deals then that confirms the likelihood that TTIP is dead (as Ted Malloch said) and that the US will be unable to reach trade deals with the EU (I guess they'll be whistling and waiting for each country to activate article 50). Would that not suggest that there's a big opportunity to do a deal with the EU that takes this in to account?

It would be a shame if we're hamstrung in trying to make the most of this in and subsequent to Brexit negotiations by either pissing off the EU negotiating team by obviously courting (if not more) the US or by quickly having a deal in place after the two year exit negotiations which effectively bars us from any reasonable access to the single market.