politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A cartoon ahead of tomorrow’s historic Trump-May meeting in Wa
Comments
-
Donald Trump may do the impossible: uniting the libertarians and the Left.0
-
Quite. I would never buy a 'chlorine-drenched' chicken. But others might quite like to do so.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.0 -
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.0 -
-
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.0 -
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
-1 -
I doubt China has that much interest in Mexicorcs1000 said:
There are many ways this could possibly play out.GIN1138 said:
That's probably what's going to happen though isn't it?rcs1000 said:"
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
But if I was Mexico, and I was being bullied in this way, I would probably be falling into the arms of China.
I'm not going to deny being somewhat scared.0 -
-
Former Mexican President: "This guy is totally crazy and he's going to destroy the world".0
-
It'd hardly be a government of national unity without Scotland!Theuniondivvie said:0 -
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
You've gone for too strong a position. Individuals display myopia.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people in our case.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
People will buy any old shite. Whether because of this truth we should then import even more sickening processed garbage so people can shove yet more crap down their children's throats is however another question.John_M said:
Quite. I would never buy a 'chlorine-drenched' chicken. But others might quite like to do so.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.0 -
Corbyn is proving to be a poor people manager with his 3-line whip on Article 50. A 2-line whip probably would have been a better idea.0
-
Puzzled why people think bleached chicken is unique to the USA - I remember accounts of bleached chicken being sold here, not too long ago. Does the USA allow 20% + added salt water to their meat products?0
-
Ok, own up, who has created this brilliant spoof character? The random capitalisation is a particularly fine touch.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Told you she would be terrific. Think there are many on here no matter who they support should just realise her vision and get behind her in her crusade to take this Country into a lead role in the World.TheScreamingEagles said:Immensely proud of Theresa May.
This is a brutal rejection of Trump's foreign policy approach.0 -
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.AndyJS said:Corbyn is proving to be a poor people manager with his 3-line whip on Article 50. A 2-line whip probably would have been a better idea.
The secret is never to be in the position in the first place.0 -
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.0 -
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?0 -
Not if they were earning £26k a year and are now unemployed as a consequence.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
0 -
Boris Johnson signals shift in UK policy on Syria's Assad
Foreign secretary says UK accepts Syrian leader should be allowed to run for re-election in event of peace deal
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/26/boris-johnson-signals-shift-in-uk-policy-on-syria-bashar-al-assad0 -
Do I detect a hint of Bregret?rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
That should be illegal here, if for no other reason than it's tantamount to passing off. Meantime, let's not bring in any more garbage to add to the utter shite people already feed their children.PAW said:Puzzled why people think bleached chicken is unique to the USA - I remember accounts of bleached chicken being sold here, not too long ago. Does the USA allow 20% + added salt water to their meat products?
0 -
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
'Trying to take on Robert about libertarianism' is a great spectator sport!0
-
Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.chestnut said:
Not if they were earning £26k a year and are now unemployed as a consequence.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.0 -
Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
0 -
(Richard Tyndall where are you? I need your support here.)0
-
Cheap... food... is moraly wrong?
From a socialist? The world has indeed been turned upside down.
0 -
I read that as "Cheap Imported Labour" at first.. would havePulpstar said:Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid. 'd as well! 0 -
Jobabob - 20 years ago though - I heard that out of date tinned food was being reheated by a major supermarket chain. I remember too that premium quality sausage meat from sainsbury's was mostly fat and turkey dust. Perhaps we could have a star system for quality.0
-
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?0 -
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
Education is preferable to bans. Every time.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?0 -
They are Experts. Obvious, really.....rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
They also affect their children.rcs1000 said:
Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?MTimT said:
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
All the evidence- every bit of it - is that increased trade has resulted in increased employment and increased wealth for countries which have control of their own economies. It is only in circumstances where free trade is combined with an artificial fiscal arrangement such as exists in the Eurozone that we see a failure of market forces and large scale unemployment.chestnut said:
Not if they were earning £26k a year and are now unemployed as a consequence.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
Wake up and smell the coffee.0 -
I believe the term 'lean mince' means a reduced level of fat, but 'extra lean mince' isn't a recognised term and can have much more fat than standard.0
-
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
What a paradise!0 -
Including your choice of cheap Mexican vehicles? ;-)MTimT said:
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
Crony capitalism is rife in the EU.foxinsoxuk said:
Do I detect a hint of Bregret?rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
Malmesbury said:
They are Experts. Obvious, really.....rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
0 -
Free trade leads to freer people.rcs1000 said:(Richard Tyndall where are you? I need your support here.)
Countries that sends goods and services across borders are less likely to send soldiers across those borders.
Hurrah for free trade.0 -
So no food standards?Mortimer said:
Education is preferable to bans. Every time.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?0 -
If only the poor could afford to be socialists!rcs1000 said:
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
What a paradise!0 -
A very good idea along with tougher baseline standards.PAW said:Jobabob - 20 years ago though - I heard that out of date tinned food was being reheated by a major supermarket chain. I remember too that premium quality sausage meat from sainsbury's was mostly fat and turkey dust. Perhaps we could have a star system for quality.
0 -
I'm very comfortable with the law enforcing disclosure. The better the quality of information, the better the market.PClipp said:
Quite right, Robert. Provided they are told what it really is. And what the consequences of eating it are.rcs1000 said:Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.
I'm not comfortable with @chestnut choosing which books I should read, and from whom I should buy goods.0 -
Coming soon to a town near you!Richard_Tyndall said:
Crony capitalism is rife in the EU.foxinsoxuk said:
Do I detect a hint of Bregret?rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
0 -
Woah, you and @Richard_Tyndall agreeing on something. Hell has frozen over.TheScreamingEagles said:
Free trade leads to freer people.rcs1000 said:(Richard Tyndall where are you? I need your support here.)
Countries that sends goods and services across borders are less likely to send soldiers across those borders.
Hurrah for free trade.0 -
No, that happens when @Richard_Tyndall says something positive about the EU.rcs1000 said:
Woah, you and @Richard_Tyndall agreeing on something. Hell has frozen over.TheScreamingEagles said:
Free trade leads to freer people.rcs1000 said:(Richard Tyndall where are you? I need your support here.)
Countries that sends goods and services across borders are less likely to send soldiers across those borders.
Hurrah for free trade.0 -
Er no. Now you are just being silly.rcs1000 said:
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
What a paradise!0 -
Where can I see the speech in full?0
-
Would you prefer people had the choice of cheap food or your definition of good quality food?Jobabob said:
So no food standards?Mortimer said:
Education is preferable to bans. Every time.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?0 -
Surely as a non-executive director with a successful CEO you've been on the other side of that argument before?rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
Plato posted it below... https://youtu.be/ZkdyuOTf5SkCasino_Royale said:Where can I see the speech in full?
0 -
Richard and I agree on a lot of things.rcs1000 said:
Woah, you and @Richard_Tyndall agreeing on something. Hell has frozen over.TheScreamingEagles said:
Free trade leads to freer people.rcs1000 said:(Richard Tyndall where are you? I need your support here.)
Countries that sends goods and services across borders are less likely to send soldiers across those borders.
Hurrah for free trade.
The death penalty, same sex marriage to name but two things.
He'll also appreciate the Douglas Adams themed thread I'm writing for the weekend after next.0 -
I haven't thought much about prescription medicines but I am very much in favour of the decriminalisation and commercialisation of currently illegal drugs.williamglenn said:
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?MTimT said:
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
You are making a big leap into assuming that Trump's discontent over a trade deal with Mexico is somehow lurching into overall protectionism.rcs1000 said:Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
Perhaps, he's just looking for more suitable partners?
A bit like Brexit.
0 -
& Taxation & regulation.Richard_Tyndall said:
I haven't thought much about prescription medicines but I am very much in favour of the decriminalisation and commercialisation of currently illegal drugs.williamglenn said:
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?MTimT said:
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
Very sensible :>0 -
Dumb post. Show me your rationale for flooding the market with shit processed food with sod all nutritional value. Why not just allow salted chicken flavoured rice paper to be sold as chicken? It would be cheap, after all. Robert would argue no need to get the government involved in regulating that.isam said:
If only the poor could afford to be socialists!rcs1000 said:
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
What a paradise!0 -
Obamacare is interesting because although its abolition is wanted by many Congress Republicans, what Trump spoke about sounded more like some tweaks and a name-change. Trump has said it would be replaced at the same time it is abolished, and mentioned some steps like allowing cross-state competition to reduce costs.nunu said:
Yes and Obamacare has the highest approval rating. I think when people realise what they have i.e Obamacare they will fight like shit to keep it.foxinsoxuk said:
Didn't Obama have 60% approval when he left office, compared to the incoming Trump on 40%?another_richard said:
Obama is someone who was well thought of before he had power and will be well thought after he has had power but not when he did have power.isam said:
Jesus, Obama fell off a cliff in 09!DanSmith said:
That kills quite a few narratives.RobD said:Trumps favourability numbers aren't doing too badly
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_jan26
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history
People like the concept of Obama but not the reality.0 -
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/theresa-mays-speech-republicans-philadelphia-full-text/Casino_Royale said:Where can I see the speech in full?
0 -
It was a first class speech.0
-
Some regulation is always necessary as is some taxation. It is the extent of both that is the point of dissent.Pulpstar said:
& Taxation & regulation.Richard_Tyndall said:
I haven't thought much about prescription medicines but I am very much in favour of the decriminalisation and commercialisation of currently illegal drugs.williamglenn said:
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?MTimT said:
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
Very sensible :>0 -
So you are for the legalisation of all drugs, against compulsion on wearing a seat belt or driving on the left?rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.0 -
Would you advocate that the UK saves itself the bother of having to negotiate free trade agreements by simply declaring a policy of unilateral free trade with the entire globe? Would the advantages of such an approach to consumers and even to businesses, outweigh the disadvantages?rcs1000 said:Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
These are genuine questions - I've read opinions for and against such a radical approach, and am undecided. For example, I appreciate that manufacturers might find themselves competing with both cheap foreign imports and asymmetric barriers to exporting, but on the other hand they would have access to tariff-free supplies of all materials - and consumers would surely benefit from tariff-free imports, especially of food, from the rest of the world outside of the EU customs union?0 -
GDP.....unemployment statistics.....do you really believe the bloke who can't find a place to live for his family because half a dozen transient workers are renting a room each in the homes he'd like cares about these things? The bloke whose hourly rate never rises?Richard_Tyndall said:
All the evidence- every bit of it - is that increased trade has resulted in increased employment and increased wealth for countries which have control of their own economies. It is only in circumstances where free trade is combined with an artificial fiscal arrangement such as exists in the Eurozone that we see a failure of market forces and large scale unemployment.chestnut said:
Not if they were earning £26k a year and are now unemployed as a consequence.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
0 -
So no food standards? Tesco could sell chicken fed on diseased dead chickens, provided the small print said 'food may included recycled suboptimal poultry tissue' ?rcs1000 said:
I'm very comfortable with the law enforcing disclosure. The better the quality of information, the better the market.PClipp said:
Quite right, Robert. Provided they are told what it really is. And what the consequences of eating it are.rcs1000 said:Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.
I'm not comfortable with @chestnut choosing which books I should read, and from whom I should buy goods.
What a paradise!0 -
Hmmm
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.
Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.
However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.
They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/0 -
Surely you're not arguing for the complete abolition of food standards ?rcs1000 said:
Allowing people to make their own decisions, which affect only themselves, is not wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
0 -
I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.
My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.0 -
I think the only things we have really disagreed on are Brexit and Grammar schools. But I am confident you will see the light eventually.TheScreamingEagles said:
Richard and I agree on a lot of things.rcs1000 said:
Woah, you and @Richard_Tyndall agreeing on something. Hell has frozen over.TheScreamingEagles said:
Free trade leads to freer people.rcs1000 said:(Richard Tyndall where are you? I need your support here.)
Countries that sends goods and services across borders are less likely to send soldiers across those borders.
Hurrah for free trade.
The death penalty, same sex marriage to name but two things.
He'll also appreciate the Douglas Adams themed thread I'm writing for the weekend after next.0 -
I agree with that completely. Regulation on drugs, as with food!Pulpstar said:
& Taxation & regulation.Richard_Tyndall said:
I haven't thought much about prescription medicines but I am very much in favour of the decriminalisation and commercialisation of currently illegal drugs.williamglenn said:
Are you against prescription-only medicine and in favour of the commercialisation of heroin and cocaine?MTimT said:
The nanny state that limits my choices and tells me what I should do is wrong.Jobabob said:
Flooding the market with with cheap imported processed food is morally wrong.rcs1000 said:
Yes, and those 65m people would be better served by being allowed to buy from whom they choose. The alternative, that a small number of politicians - lobbied by rich industrialists - choose to protect industries, and push up prices for consumers. Crony capitalism is not just economically efficient, it is morally wrong.chestnut said:
It isn't about you though, it's about 65m people.rcs1000 said:
I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a group of people making a decision for me is better than me making a decision for myself.chestnut said:
Not quite, but we should choose our partners carefully, and we should be selective in the things we trade freely.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
Unlimited, unfettered, anything goes, super-liberalism is stupid.
Very sensible :>0 -
I agree on that on the latter part.Casino_Royale said:I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.
My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.0 -
Well as I haven't said any of that I don't think I need to justify itJobabob said:
Dumb post. Show me your rationale for flooding the market with shit processed food with sod all nutritional value. Why not just allow salted chicken flavoured rice paper to be sold as chicken? It would be cheap, after all. Robert would argue no need to get the government involved in regulating that.isam said:
If only the poor could afford to be socialists!rcs1000 said:
So, only quinoa to be sold in the shops of Britain, a Macdonalds ban.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
What a paradise!0 -
There needs to be basic safety standards*, and compulsory labelling so consumers can make informed choices. After that people should be allowed to commit "suicide by food" if they choose.Mortimer said:
Would you prefer people had the choice of cheap food or your definition of good quality food?Jobabob said:
So no food standards?Mortimer said:
Education is preferable to bans. Every time.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?
* I understand the reason that US chicken is soaked in chlorine is to wash off the surface bacteria from faecal contamination during poor slaughterhouse practice. The test swabs are thereby clean, though deeper contamination untouched.0 -
Just popped in after dinner at an overpriced restaurant in Chelsea and upon a quick skim I see people are in favour of tearing up our trade deals with Africa because unit labour costs are cheaper over there.
Have I got that right?0 -
No I would make the wild argument that expert regulators should set sound standards for food, drugs, white goods etc. Mad as that may seem!Mortimer said:
Would you prefer people had the choice of cheap food or your definition of good quality food?Jobabob said:
So no food standards?Mortimer said:
Education is preferable to bans. Every time.Jobabob said:
Children can't vote. Sadly they can be stuffed full of cheap processed crap by their parents. Damned right we should protect them as much as possible.rcs1000 said:
Lots of people are stupid.Jobabob said:
Lots of people are stupid. Should we make it easier for them to render their children stupid too by making it even easier to buy cheap processed garbage with no nutritional value?rcs1000 said:
How does it not increase everyone's freedom?brokenwheel said:
Your freedom perhaps.rcs1000 said:
So, the UK shouldn't have free trade deals with anywhere poorer than them.chestnut said:
You can't have a common set of rules on tariffs etc, without common rules on minimum wages, labour regulations, business and property taxes etc etc.rcs1000 said:"Trump said to eye 20% border tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall" - says the FT
That - obviously - fails the "non-discriminatory" requirement of the WTO Treaties. The whole point about the WTO is that it establishes a common set of rules and prevents the big from bullying the little. I cannot see how the US remains a signatory to the treaties if it goes down this route.
We will all lose from the end of the age of free trade.
The playing field isn't level.
And nobody richer than the UK should have a free trade deal with us.
It's very simple. Government policy that increases my freedom to make my own choices is good. Free trade deals do that.
So we should prevent them from making stupid decisions? If they can't be trusted where to buy their chickens from, how can they be trusted to choose the right politicians?0 -
Mail front page is a mixed bag for the government.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/8247482293508710400 -
Cheers.TGOHF said:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/theresa-mays-speech-republicans-philadelphia-full-text/Casino_Royale said:Where can I see the speech in full?
0 -
Once free of the ECJ we don't need a bill of rights and we've done without one for a millennium . Seems logical.TheScreamingEagles said:Hmmm
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights, sources suggest
Theresa May is preparing to abandon plans for a British Bill of Rights after Britain leaves the European Union, Government sources have suggested.
Ministers have confirmed that the Government's plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been shelved until after Brexit.
However sources told The Daily Telegraph that the plans may now be abandoned entirely because Brexit will significantly strengthen the sovereignty of British courts.
They also highlighted the Brexit judgement by the Supreme Court earlier this week which made clear that Britain will no longer be subject to European Court of Justice rulings after Brexit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/26/theresa-may-preparing-abandon-plans-british-bill-rights-sources/0 -
Hip hop?williamglenn said:Mail front page is a mixed bag for the government.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/824748229350871040
https://youtu.be/Q0IGepU7ICc0 -
OT but Rabbit on the KR is just excellent. Decent Bachhus on the wine list too.TOPPING said:Just popped in after dinner at an overpriced restaurant in Chelsea and upon a quick skim I see people are in favour of tearing up our trade deals with Africa because unit labour costs are cheaper over there.
Have I got that right?0 -
Dropping bombs on people until they agree to adopt our systems of governance has not actually proved to be a very successful strategy in recent years.TheScreamingEagles said:
I agree on that on the latter part.Casino_Royale said:I'm not sure what I think about May's speech with a nod to end liberal interventionism.
My views are far closer to Blair's and Osborne's in the UK aiming to shape the world around us, rather than isolationist.0 -
Nothing in Trump's rhetoric suggests he is looking for more suitable partners. He is looking to screw over weaker countries (which compared to US is everyone).chestnut said:
You are making a big leap into assuming that Trump's discontent over a trade deal with Mexico is somehow lurching into overall protectionism.rcs1000 said:Do you know what happened the last time the world lurched into protectionism? I ask because that was a hell of a lot worse than the current situation: you know the situation where a record proportion of the population is employed.
I would also point out that those developed countries with the fewest trade barriers (like Switzerland, which has a FTA with China) are the ones with the lowest levels of unemployment.
Perhaps, he's just looking for more suitable partners?
A bit like Brexit.0
