Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Brexit spin: we’re still in the EU, therefore we (for the next 8 months) are in discussions with the US about a deal.
Trump-lover spin: look at his amazing policy of getting a trade deal, Obama never did that (carefully ignore the fact that the trade deal is only needed because Trump’s tariffs backfired on him)
It doesn’t sound like he’s re-opening TTIP, and given that it’s Trump he’ll probably change his mind tomorrow and claim that he never said anything....
So after three days of rolling out the red carpet, meeting the Queen, having May fawn all over him, all our “special relationship” got was some advice to sue the EU.
Juncker pops over to Washington for a day and all of a sudden there’s an end to a potential trade war and talks are progressing?
Speaking to The Guardian news website, Bart Oosterveld at the Atlantic Council thinktank called the agreement the "resumption of some basic dialogue", and said agreements on LNG and soybeans were not hugely significant.
"The avoidance of disaster is not a success," he said.
His full quote, if you follow the link to the Guardian, was:
“The avoidance of a disaster is not a success. What I think we saw is the resumption of some basic dialogue. Individual items like soybeans and LNG [liquefied natural gas] are not massively significant. I don’t think the EU would agree to a major revision of trade terms without steel and aluminium being taken off the table first.”
Trump’s played to his base of fuels and farmers, and he can take that back to the Midwest.
Juncker‘s managed to get a retraction of the threatened trade tariffs by conceding very little of any meaning.
Win win for both sides, and shows how diplomacy can work if you understand the other party.
Brexit spin: we’re still in the EU, therefore we (for the next 8 months) are in discussions with the US about a deal.
Trump-lover spin: look at his amazing policy of getting a trade deal, Obama never did that (carefully ignore the fact that the trade deal is only needed because Trump’s tariffs backfired on him)
Yes, we are still in the EU and legally unable to ratify any UK-only post-Brexit deal, even if we reached an agreement at this point in time.
You compared Obama to Trump on an EU-USA trade deal, so here's a few questions, given the premises ('fact', lol) in your statement:
Did Obama (and/or USA whilst Obama was president) ever try and do a trade deal with the EU, e.g. TPIP ?
Did it get approved/ratified/agreed by both sides?
Did Obama 'need' to do this deal, due to a tariffs backfire also?
If 'No' to the above, why was he doing a deal at all?
Can't Trump be doing a deal for the same reasons as Obama tried, rather than due to your premises?
IF this new deal is ratified, would Trump have been more successful than Obama, wrt an EU-USA trade deal?
Originally posted by Old Greg
I admit I'm just a lazy, lying cretinous hypocrite and must be going deaf
Comment