Obama, concern for the UK or US?

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

Listening to Obama, I was struck that his language seemed to be about what is good for the US not what is good for the UK. Certainly the former US treasury secretary interviewed on the Today program was very US centric.

His comment about us going to the back of the queue, (and he did say queue instead of line because he was told to) seemed to be a bit of a threat. Is he out of order?

I think what Kate Hoey brings to the table is a Labour endorsement. The Brexit camp has often been regarded as right of center and having a long-standing Labour MP speaking in favour of Brexit illustrates how much this is a cross-party issue. FWIW, the Chair of the Communist Party is also for leaving the EU. Those on the Left who want to leave: LEXIT, its my current favourite homophone.

STIDW, Which elites? The bankers are the ones pulling all the strings.

A research paper commissioned by Goldman:

we believe Turkey will stand out as a solid long-term investment case
within the EM universe once the global backdrop stabilises

Anna you do realise that EM in that quote stands for "emerging market"? It has literally nothing to do with EU membership.

Stupid blundering Boris Johnson.
He had to get personal and write in the Sun that Obama removed a bust of Churchill from the Oval Office:
“Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan president’s ancestral dislike of the British empire"

Why the hell couldn't Boris just say he disagreed with Obama. Daniel Hannan did just that, politely and far more eloquently, but of course was ignored after the Boris gaffe.

If Brexit happens and Boris replaces Cameron as leader, I shudder to think of them trying to negotiate a trade deal with Democratic President Hillary Clinton, who is heavily reliant on African-American votes - and no fan of Tories.

As president, Bill Clinton held a grudge for years against the Tories and he deliberately humiliated John Major, all because of criticism another Tory wrote about Democrats during the US elections.

Hopefully everyone will tire of Cameron/Osborne/Boris and someone more straightforward will get voted in as Tory leader. Liam Fox or Daniel Hannan would be good.

Obama has already said no new U.S. trades with the UK post-Brexut as we are at the back of the queue.

Er, what? Obama has said nothing about 'no new trades', don't be ridiculous. He said that the UK would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal to reduce tariffs and barriers to trade.

He also didn't rule out a treaty down the line - he simply stated it wasn't an immediate priority.

Fabricating makes you look like you're clutching at straws.

The UK doesn’t have a separate trade deal with the US now, because we’re members of the EU.
Our exporters already have to work v hard getting costs down to sell in the competitive US market and would be badly hit if they had to cope with tariffs being added on top.
So, we would need a new deal urgently to replace what we currently have as part of the EU.
That's our priority, but not that of the US ....
Same for our other markets; our trading partners aren't keen to help us out here, because it's a faff for them.

Obama and his likely successor Clinton both said a replacement deal would take 5-10 years, because the issue would be back of the queue for a US President & Congress.
They are more likely to be accurate about this than wishful thinking by randoms on the internet, or by politicians supporting Brexit.

Obama said:
"They’re voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do. I thought, why not hear from the president of the United States what the United States is going to do?"

It's fine for those would pay any price for Brexit & independence, just so long as everyone realises there would be some price, at least in the transition phase.

I've posted this in chat, but think the link is a useful independent reference for people to look at. In the interests of balance.

These people were on R4 news this morning.

fullfact.org/europe/

Looking into misinformation on both sides. It is impartial, so may be better that people on both sides who have their drums to bang and may not be too concerned if their claims are distorted. Indeed they may deliberately distort their 'facts'. Horror of horrors.

They were talking about immigration. There seems to be more immigration from outside the eu. Brexit put forward the claim it would ostensibly reduce immigration from other EU countries. However, Norway have had to agree to free movement and is actually part of Schengen although non-EU. Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein all non EU and no opt out from Schengen (which UK has). So may not have any effect at all to free movement.

Secondly, people talk about police and terrorism co-operation and brexit reducing this. Again Norway, non-EU is part of this.

Shame he didn't think to mention this back of the q stuff when he wanted to invoke the 'Special Relationship' for meddling militarily in other jurisdictions.
Still at least it's all clear now, next time ( OK will prob be another Prez un less something goes down this year) hope out Gvt tells him to go ask the EU instead.

Was it IDS on radio this morning, saying that Obama wanted TTIP as his "legacy" ? And also made a fuss over "queue".

No American president is ever going to rank a trade deal as part of their "legacy." That trade deal will never get noticed by ordinary voters. Neither TTIP nor relations with EU are on this list.

Obamacare? Not quite shutting down Guantanamo. Normalising relations with Cuba & Iran. THOSE are legacy items.

I hope it is a working link.

fullfact.org/europe/

Great link Pangurban, thanks

Thank you very much for all your help for the LEAVE campaign.

  <a class="break-all" href="http://news.sky.com/story/1684878/sky-poll-obamas-eu-warning-counterproductive" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">news.sky.com/story/1684878/sky-poll-obamas-eu-warning-counterproductive</a>

Could you please fit in another couple of visits before Referendum Day.

And we've still got Blair's dire predictions to look forward to.

I'm a soft remain at the moment, but heavens Obama's posturing hacked me off immensely. If he wants to use economic bullying to pressurise uk citizens then well that makes the US our enemy and not a friend, so that being the case they can vacate the US air bases on UK soil, oh and they can leave Ascension Island and Diego Garcia bases as well. Good luck to the US military maintaining global reach without all that....

Obama was doing his duty - to put America's interests paramount

It's a pity that our PM isn't and instead wants us to be ruled by a foreign power.

The EU doesn't have a trade deal with US, so us not having one after leaving the EU will be no different to now. The EU are trying to negotiate one (for decades) - there is no reason to believe it will happen any time soon either.

It's not as if when we leave we "have" to have one - there isn't one now between the EU and U.S. - I think this fact seems to escape some people.
johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/04/25/president-obama-confirms-in-the-eu-there-is-no-us-trade-deal-and-outside-we-could-negotiate-one/

The EU doesn't have a trade deal with US, so us not having one after leaving the EU will be no different to now.

Thank you LeaveTheRoundAbout, that's interesting.

It's of course correct to say that the UK doesn't have a trade agreement right now,

The point is that the leave campaign has been suggesting that it can replace lost trade with the EU by negotiating new trade deals with other countries, like the USA. It may be possible to do this eventually; Obama's point is that it would not be quick, or easy.

If it were possible to do more trade with the US now, companies would do so. But tariff and (especially) non-tariff barriers make this uneconomic. The point of a trade deal is to increase trade by reducing the costs of market access.

If is perfectly possible for the UK to continue to trade with other countries on existing terms. No one disputes this; but in the absence of new trade deals to replace existing trade with Europe, there would be a significant economic impact.

Mistrigi,
Clearly you are correct. And we have to acknowledge there is a lot of uncertainty about the shape of any furure trqde deals and all the rest.

However,, and is a big however, there is an equL amount of uncertainty about the shape of Europe over the near future. The Euro is in serious trouble on account of the PIGS debt crisis. That has not been resolved. Furthermore the causes of the crisis also have not been resolved. Meanwhile the same rocess thqt allowed Greece to join the Euro by fiddling the accounts to make it "appear" that Greece met the entry criteria is being applied to Turkey and Bulgaria. We have to imagine a Europe in which the economic crisis in Greece is played out across more of the EU.

Separately, the Eurozone is moribund. It shows little sign of growth and indeed the ECB is not applying negative interest rates to force some lending..,Imagine the incertainty of twenty years of economic stagnation across Europe.

Then we look at the migrant crisis. The EU cannot, or is nt willing to, secure its borders with the MENA region. As well as camps like Calais we have to consider the effect on our culture of millions of MENA people arriving in our country bringing with them their culture. A culture that is at ods with everythng we have fought for by way of womens position is society. Imagine a UK in which the rqpes ans sexual assults that happened in Cologne are happening in the UK?

Uncertainty is all around us.

Well, if we are back of the queue for a trade deal, then presumably, they'll also ask us to leave the Five Eyes, unwind the Trident deal, not want our support or dosh in NATO, and will not be upset when we ask them to remove their military bases from UK soil.

I agree with Professor above; a vote to remain is not a vote for the status quo, but for change. I would rather we were in charge of that change, than have it foisted on us by QMV, when the vetoes go.

Separately, the Eurozone is moribund. It shows little sign of growth and indeed the ECB is not applying negative interest rates to force some lending..,Imagine the incertainty of twenty years of economic stagnation across Europe.

It will be interesting to see today's first quarter figures - it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the eurozone will grow as fast as the UK and US this year, since both the US and UK forecasts look set for a downgrade.

In contrast, some Eastern European economies are growing quite fast at the moment, and while southern European economies are still struggling overall, some parts of their economies which are of particular interest to UK exporters (eg the auto sector) are growing rather rapidly. The eurozone has its problems for sure but reports of its demise are somewhat premature.

Report from Athens that Greece may not be able to fulfil financial obligations by mid-May

www.ekathimerini.com/208183/article/ekathimerini/business/greeces-state-cash-is-rapidly-drying-up-again

In contrast, some Eastern European economies are growing quite fast at the moment,

Hardly surprising given the amount of pum priming they ar e getting from the EU... of which we are spending about £55m a day.. How much better off would we be if we were spending that money on our infrastructure instead of giving it to East Europe?,

we are spending about £55m a day

We don't spend that amount because the rebate is deducted before the money is sent to the EU. Some of the money comes back to the UK mostly for farmers & poor areas. So In 2015 our net contribution was £23m a day. Then the EU makes direct payments such as research grants. See;

fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

EU spending is included in our foreign aid target & much of the spending on administration includes services such economic & legal advice, interpreting, translation & negotiating.

IF we leave the EU we would still need to support farmers & poor areas as well as pay foreign aid, professional advice, translation etc. So we wouldn't save that much to spend on our infrastructure.

Hardly surprising given the amount of pum priming they ar e getting from the EU

Countries like Poland undoubtedly benefit economically from being in the EU - that's the point of being an EU member.

But are you seriously suggesting that UK contributions to the EU (which you consistently and intentionally overstate) are a significant factor in, for example, Poland's economic performance? Do you have any idea of the size of the Polish economy, or the rate at which it is growing?