Honey Honey

You'll have to elaborate on the difference between by a country and in a country.

I believe member states parliaments did not have a veto over the EU - Japan deal that comes into force this year. It is therefore not multilateral. EU member states cannot create trade agreements which impact laws the EU has supremacy over and they cannot veto trade agreements the EU creates which do not impact domestic laws for which the member state has supremacy over. The EU is not a trade bloc, it has multiple competencies of a state.

Who is trying to do that then? Even no deal is posited as a strategy to bring about trade negotiation.

Adam Smith died a few centuries ago lads The west has moved on from specialisation to highly complex diversification in a global supply chain operation of goods, services and capital. In fact in the mobile phone of every member on here there is most likely a part created or designed in the UK. Complex products don't come from singular countries quite like wine does. The German trade surplus calculation is distorted by the stage in the global supply chain which they sit, rather than specialisation itself. The value added doesn't filter down to ordinary people very well but is mainly redistributed back out across the world to shareholders and non-manufacturing aspects of a business model. For example, if it takes 3 widgets to make a car, 1 widget from Slovakia costing €1000, 1 widget from Italy costing €1000 and 1 widget from Brazil costing €1000 that is an import cost calculated at €3000. The car plant, based in Germany, sticks the 3 widgets together and sends it to Russia for €10000. The trade surplus or value added in Germany is then calculated at €7000. Does this money filter down into the local economy of the car plant? Little. The shareholders from Japan, Dubai, Australia all around the world take their cut. The hedge funds from the UK, the pension funds from the Netherlands. Then the company takes its value added money and spends it in Russia on advertising, on opening a salesroom, providing car finance. The tentacles of globalisation are too complex for the old fashioned business view of seeing everything in terms of national borders. It might have been that way before Margaret Thatcher and co around the world abolished capital controls but money is now recycled in myriad ways creating a system that keeps fuelling itself. Dyson are moving 2 people to Singapore. They haven't manufactured in the UK for over a decade and I might be wrong but I don't think has even paid corporation tax here for years. The role the UK plays in the globalised economic process of a Dyson product is the value added by the 3000 strong engineering design plant, the investments made there and the gainful employment there, that is what impacts the local economy. Any left wing government worth its salt would indirectly make trading with its economy harder by passing progressive laws and taxes that improve human rights, workers rights, animal rights and the enviornment. Trade deals aren't so much about swapping bananas for pottery in the Adam Smith conception of it anymore. It is far more complex now. "Good" trade deals are about the facilitation of more transactions given that governments rightly or wrongly judge an economy by a value of all its transactions.

I guess it would always be in the back of your mind that you are enabling a human rights abuser. However I'm sure we'd find the excuses or ignore it like everyone does when they buy Mike Ashley's sweatshop child labour made £2 twelve pack Donnay socks

"sorry lads I tried"

Two big revelations this week. Firstly it has been revealed in court that years ago the Mike Ashley blew the chance to sell the club to the now owners of Man City by making insulting remarks about Islam, the Dubai royal family and Kevin Keegan. The Times have revealed today that Dennis Wise is working as an advisor for Mike Ashley. He has not only met club hierarchy to offer advice but he has also been asking his contacts to make pro-Ashley statements in the media.

Finished this at the weekend I find Tim Marshall is good at relaying facts about the environment we live in. Prisoners of Geography is a great book. This one too is good it tells you the borders that exist, why, who believes what etc around the world. The downside however is that in his last chapter or two he turns to Brexit and the book suddenly becomes more about his philosophy and what should be done to heal the divides. The book goes from facts to something very different. It's not remain or leave it's just yet another take on what Britain needs. Every man and his dog has an opinion on that, it's not book worthy. Now I am about 80 pages into Yanis Varoufakis account of dealing with the establishment that turned the Greek recession into a depression and a debt colony.

The club's hierarchy loved Pardew right up to the very end. I'm guessing it's just the team who interview players for the website and run the social media accounts.

Even Dummett's dad didn't think he was good enough in the early days to be fair. Might be fake news but I have heard stories that he used to be critical of him when sitting in the stands. In the early days many people wanted him to be centre back, which he was at youth level. I also don't think any fan thought he was good enough. Even now I'd keep him but he isn't top half and looks out of his depth on occasion.

Keegan actually resigned several times at Newcastle he was talked out of most or given promises.

We couldn't hang on to away leads basically. We did lose to Man Utd twice after amassing the lead which swung it somewhat. We blew a lead at Man City to draw 3-3, then we lost away at West Ham and Arsenal. The lead was down to nothing by the end of March then came 2 famous fixtures. Liverpool beat us 4-3 at Anfield after we led 2-1 and 3-2 with Collymore scoring the winner at the death. A couple of weeks later we went to Blackburn, we were 1-0 up then with 3 minutes to go, a Geordie lad called Graham Fenton scored twice for Blackburn. Fans never forgave him and whenever he was seen back in Newcastle he would receive abuse on the street for fucking his home town team over. After that we won a few games but Man Utd just wouldn't falter, that's when Keegan cracked with 2 games to go and had his love it if we beat them rant.

What is that picture of because it isn't 96. I'm guessing it might be 97 when Dalglish was Newcastle manager?

Do many people here get into the Christmas time Darts?

Looks like you've put your foot in it there MUFC

The government would fall within 48 hours of fumbling into no deal whilst it also can't get no deal through by design. I'm not sure all of the fuss is warranted. Some have said since day one that we should be prepping for no deal as a negotiation strategy. The largely remain establishment killed it within the first 2 months after the referendum. It has been resurrected by the remain mindset government to get the ERG to vote through May's deal. The ERG have no idea how little power their views have.

Yellow vests in Britain is at the moment largely far right sort of stuff. A fashion for the Tommy Robinson street protesters who have a history of taking to the streets anyway. It's a long way off becoming more but never say never.

It is more than just internal party conflict. David Cameron promised the referendum to the public in order to win votes and was also seeking a means to end the immigration headache he was receiving at the polls. Cameron remember couldn't even win the 2010 election outright. Socially liberal conservatism did not have reach as most social liberals didn't get their values from private schools and posh universities where Tory economics is patched onto social liberalism.

That is just facts of what procedural positions we no longer partake in, there are also procedural positions and competencies parliament would take on, be it domestically or in international bodies. How do you weigh up the difference between the two sides without making assumptions about their potential economic cost or benefit or bringing your own societal values into the weighting? You have to. We all do and that is what the debate has contained for years. That is why it is so polarizing, there is no right or wrong answer. That's politics in general. I also don't quite understand mentioning the WTO as a comparison in the grand scheme of your argument either when you are calling for a referendum on whether or not we should actually start FTA negotiations. After weighing everything up if you think we are better off in then that is fine but don't pretend there is nothing to be weighed up and without assumption and values.

The future is uncertain by definition. There can be no facts of the future in the present so it is wrong to expect anything other than why something is ambiguous. It has been too laborious for me to bother doing here for the last 2 years but if you extend your news sources you'll find it anyway. What I am refuting is the whole way you are extending certainty beyond its limit, loading everything with the kind of hyperbole you would call fabrication when it's attributed to a position you oppose. You ask for facts but the very statement that this is the biggest error in the countries history requires subjective quantification against historical events, how do you get facts out of that? I personally consider that time one million men were slaughtered and many more wounded for a difficult to justify stalemate war to be worse than leaving a political union, that's my opinion it is not a fact. Things were said in the campaign that did not come to fruition. In other words, the same as every election we've ever had an ever will have until we have regulation. But let's have another before that regulation? In the current situation you had your first chance to express your changed opinion in 2017 when you voted for Corbyn over the lib dems. The people's vote is snidey as it is full of supporters pretending their whole raison d'etre is nothing to do with remaining having fucked up the general election.

The reason I can't get behind your facts argument is that although I can accept new facts may have changed your personal judgment, your posts are repeatedly and predominately filled with assumptions, predictions and emotion. Facts are often lacking or sometimes flimsy and posited in a manner that wrongly denies ambiguity over a matter. I'll give you an example. Earlier you said Norway doesn't want us in the EEA having read an article by a backbench pro-EU MP, however she directly contradicted the Norweigen Prime Minister's opinion on the matter. There is major ambiguity at play in Brexit and people must still choose based on predictive assumptions and personal values. That will show in any 2nd referendum. You can append facts to the whole or start your position from them but ultimately there is so much ambiguity that as soon as your entire position is under the microscope facts no longer suffice. You are still to give significant weight to things that aren't facts or things which aren't set in stone, largely adopted from those spouted by people you trust or which confirms a bias. There are still positives and negatives to be weighed up according to values. By and large the people's vote support appears to be driven by panic from assumptions or the loss of identity from certain held values. It's really snidey at heart but might address the consitutional deadlock within the establishment. The far right can't get through FPTP and the returning voters who abandoned or refused to take up politics under Blair would go back to never voting again.

Maybe for the status quo neo-liberals on the left. Yet when backed into needing to make a choice there are situations in which they will vote for Corbyn even if it gives him power. Whether certain actions can get through when he is in power is something else. Are you aware that the "UK's biggest mistake ever" comes across as both ludicrous and condescending to swathes of people? It deligitimises the main point of your own argument given that the intent is to win people over. The Corbyn dilemma is that he has to distance himself from people like you whilst simultaneously holding your support. It's a juggling act in which eventually he's probably going to drop the ball.

"Worst" is quite subjective and depends on your own measurements and preferences. It is probably the weakest government in practice, but then it's a hung parliament on a confidence and supply ticket so on paper it always was the weakest anyway. I don't understand what is astounding about Labour not being ahead? They achieved their highest vote % for a long time by fudging the main issue of the day at GE2017 and avoiding their own day of reckoning. Which Blairite policies do you have in mind that would entice someone away from the Tory party without having a knock on effect of their own current vote? It's easy to pin everything on Corbyn and absolve oneself of blame. Reality out there is that the Labour party is riddled by association with war criminals, hasbeen politicians and condescending attitudes to leave from its grassroots chattering class who are for the Corbyn cause a political loss in an opinion diverse country. Whilst Corbyn tries to channel hatred towards exploitation by businesses and the super rich, the grassroots chattering class and the Blairites are busy stripping potential voters of their sense of agency and their right to an observation. Corbyn's power is precariously balanced as the creeping people's vote risks knocking him off the fence and exposing fault lines in support.