Re: @Loyal Commenter
@Loyal Commenter
"A strong argument, you've got me there."
I know
"Missing my point - in such a deal, the stronger partner (and I'm using population here as a measure, but economic strneght is just as vaild) has the better negotiating position"
And your measuring strength by population. Thats useless. Since trade is in goods and services surely it needs to be based on desire for goods and services. Something we are good at.
"Negotiations with the US are going to involve agreements only on things that benefit the US"
That is not trade and so blatantly wrong that you need to look up reciprocity.
"I don't recall adovcating chlorinated salad. Nice straw man. Chlorinated chicken is not the only issue with US food safety (and in my mind not the worst). I listed some of the others, you ignored them."
Chicken was an example of the crying over food safety. And we wont be reducing our safety below our accepted food safety standards so your argument is trash. I didnt ignore, I burned the whole argument down with chicken as an example.
"Well, you brought them up. Did you have an actual point?"
Yeah, if you missed it you need to research the topic.
"Would you like to back that up with facts? You can't claim simultaneous lack of democracy, and too much democracy from over-representation."
Canada. China. US. And I can argue against their lack of democracy and their requirement to appease the govs in each country. If you cant see a distinction I guess your dont have elections in your country.
"things that they have in excess to their own needs and which China wants. Also, these are things we do not have."
So China is only interested in places with natural resources to exploit? Then you completely ignore trade in services and products. Which would explain why you think we have nothing to offer, and wrong.
"Nope, I beliive it is you who insinuated that we are at a disadvantage from not having a specific trade deal with China (whilst Iceland does). Are you switching your position on this, like you habitually do with your arguments?"
Actually I used China as an example of a trade deal the EU failed at while Iceland who rejected the EU did it. I am not switching any position, it is you banging on about trade deals and trying to claim bad ones if we leave but you do so by discounting this country having anything to trade with. Yet the fact we trade disproves your point. So are you for trade or not? If so then dont talk the country down, look at what we do offer and expand the market from the EU to globally.
"Not for long, once we've left the EU, that will go to Hamburg, Dublin and Zurich"
God the bull stinks but anyway. Even the EU have given up on that fantasy.
"I don't recall remainers harking abck to the days of Empire"
The people who tend to bring up the Empire (you being a good example in these exchanges) are remainers.
"When you are talking about international treaties, scientific cooperation, trade, regulatory alignment, law enforcement cooperation, and the institutions built up around all of those, it does."
Nope. Try again.
"I didn't claim that it did, I pointed out that people advocating it seem to think that the rest of the world is still in the 19th century. The world has moved on, we shouldn't be harking back to some imaginary halcyon days of empire that never actually existed, no matter how large you write it on the side of a bus."
Absolutely. We shouldnt keep bringing up the empire (nudge). Its a poor argument when in an institution based on cold war era thinking.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
