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?

Can you imagine the laughter in Cameron's office when the wonks discussed "back of the queue"?

^Yesterday 23:19 ABetaDad1

Jassy - the priority might change somewhat if their B1, B2, B52, F16 still want to land in the UK.

Is that Brexit policy? To sever other strategic links if other countries don't prioritise us in trade deals, despite their stated policy and approach? Gosh, and we accuse other countries of blackmail.

Many large US corporations have offices in the UK. The major US banks operate out of London which is the centre of global financial markets linking Asia with the US.

Yes, and many have said that London would not remain an attractive EU or EMEA HQ outside the EU. Frankfurt starts to look like an attractive prospect.

The UK has a variety of issues, not just trade agreements, to discuss with the US on a daily basis. The idea that somehow the US can ignore us on trade and expect us to cooperate on other issues is laughable.

Why? That's been the case for a long time now. The idea that all we want from the US is a trade deal, and they want/need much more from us, is equally laughable.

Can't believe you guys are making a meal out of one word, that it's seen as so atrocious for Obama to appropriate swap a single word into British English when speaking to a British audience. I mean, how dare he? Next time you hear an American tourist in London talking publicly about their sore "fanny" make sure you show full hypocrisy by smirking openly at their ignorance.

The Americans prefer to negotiate with large trading blocks. Took many years to get trade deals set up with Japan or China (when their economies were / are bigger than UK). Lord forbid Obama should tell it like it is.

People are fretting over the fact that he has the cultural knowledge to use colloquialisms?
God help us if Trump gets in, I can't imagine himsetting up sensible trade deals with the UK.

lljkk, the whole thing is the wonks on a windup. Cameron is desperate and is like Boo Boo calling on his big mate Yogi Bear to come and help him. Boo Boo whispers to Yogi, try and scare the pants off the people who dare to want to leave the Establishment EU club. Boo Boo tells Yogi, it is no use talking about world peace, climate change and monetary and fiscal policy, because those people don't believe a word the politicians say about that, so Boo Boo suggests it is best to keep it simple and make it about something that all Brits are renowned for - queuing up in an orderly fashion.

But the concept of being naughty and being sent to the back of the queue must be stressed and Obama uses the classic comic line because of the "heavy lift" involved in trade deals.

Boo Boo and his team of wonks are giggling up their sleeves as Obama helps them out.

But, I watched Fox News yesterday, and a US commentator said it had hurt Cameron more than it had helped him, and US papers are now reprorting on the Brits being suspicious about the use of the word "queue" rather than "line".

No one really blames Obama, nearly everyone thinks it is something cooked up by Boo Boo and his team of wonks who are having a right laugh, but who as usual are too clever by half and on whom it has backfired because no one believes in it and the "heavy lift".

It has 2 elements - the EU and Britain

Rubbish. The queue also includes a number of other trading blocs with which the US wants deals - FTAA, MEFTA, TAFTA, TPP and SAUC. It would be reasonable for the US to prioritise all of those over the UK. So, far from being second, we would be sixth in line. And that assumes the US wouldn't put any of the other countries in the queue ahead of the UK.

As American officials have said on TV when asked, America is capable of negotiating more than one trade deal at the same time. There is no queue, where one has to finish before the next one starts.

We haven't got a trade deal with the US at the moment and it doesn't harm us, we both sell each other about $58 billion or £58 billion. If we wanted to, it would be a lot more simple and quicker to negotiate a free trade deal with America than it is for America to finalise a TPP deal with lots of countries and which Trump intends to scrap anyway.

It is a fuss about nothing and is a classic wonk trick of controlling the debate and taking the lead from the Brexit campaign by kicking sand in the eyes of the people over a nonissue.

Trade can of course continue with the US under present conditions, brexit or no brexit.

But the leave camp have suggested that the UK can expand trading with the "Anglosphere" in order to replace lost trading opportunities in Europe. That would require some sort of trade deal, specifically with the US. What had been made clear this week is that this will not be a priority for the Americans - I'm astonished that anyone ever thought it would be, tbh. Negotiating trade agreements is time-consuming and requires significant government resources, which is why most countries prefer to concentrate their efforts on the largest markets. It's not "hating Britain" to say that you will prioritise trade agreements with a large trading bloc over dealing with a country with only 60 million inhabitants. It's basic economic sense.

We need a thread talking about leaders who have come out in favour of Brexit, I may start one. What advantage do Marine le Pen and Vladimir Putin see in a brexit?

Here is Pippa Malmgren, a US economist who lives in Britain, as far as I remember, and who served under President Bush as an economic adviser saying that the Brexit vote is an antiestabishment vote and that the Establishment (the Oval Office) are trying to maintain the status quo.

She is asked by the BBC about the use of the word "queue" instead of "line" (at about 2:20 into the stream) and the BBC says "how does this work when it comes to how Downing Street could influence the speech that the US President is making".

Pippa replies, what we all know based on our knowledge of the teams of wonks,

"well I think that is precisely what has happened. Downing Street has basically said do us a favour and just say a couple of words about why this is not a good idea. It is just designed to shore up the Prime Minister's position"

We haven't got a trade deal with the US at the moment and it doesn't harm us, we both sell each other about $58 billion or £58 billion. If we wanted to, it would be a lot more simple and quicker to negotiate a free trade deal with America than it is for America to finalise a TPP deal with lots of countries and which Trump intends to scrap anyway.

Only if the US fancies prioritising doing one, as you've pointed out. Which they've said they don't right now. Down the track - well, have you looked at the list of countries with which the US currently has a bilateral trade agreement? One suspects a UK-US FTA would be a fuckload more complex.

I wonder how the current balance of trade would be affected if TIPP goes through and trade with EEA countries becomes cheaper and easier for the US - and Britain finds itself outside the deal.

I recognise that Obama and Clinton's interventions that they would not in fact prioritise a US-UK trade deal somewhat undermines the blindly-optimistic-it-will-all-be-brilliant-and-everyone-will-do-what-we-want approach of some Brexiteers by providing a counterpoint to the oft-repeated claims that 'of course the US will prioritise a deal, we're special!'

'the UK can expand trading with the "Anglosphere" in order to replace lost trading opportunities in Europe. That would require some sort of trade deal, specifically with the US.'

No it doesn't. The US doesn't have a ledger where it stops our products entering America. If we make good products that are better priced than US products and that US ctizens want, then they are fre to buy them, just as IKEA for example is free to sell its stuff in America. If we reorient our exports and if we produce what the American market wants, we can sell there. The US is not a socialist paradise where Chairman Mao checks on goods coming in to the country.

And anyway, trade will not drop off with the EU, because as the Brexit campaign was saying before they were sidelined by the "back of the queue" wheeze, the EU sells more to us and we do to them and Germany, which is the dominant player in the EU, sells more to us than we do to them. The Brussels bureaucrats and teams of wonks are indeed stupid, but German business people aren't and they will make sure that trade is not affected.

'Only if the US fancies prioritising doing one'

We are probably better off without one that is formalised, because everybody knows that the US holds all the cards and even though Trump rails at the "stupid people" who negotiate trade deals for the US, you can bet your boots, they are not as stupid as our lot of wonks. The US will get a better deal out of it because they hold the cards and have the power.

Boris mentions that we can't sell our beef to the US, but that is probably because of the BSE issue. But beef exports are probably a tiny part of our exports and there are many more important things that we do sell to America.

We have lived with an informal trade arrangement and just as Trump is not prepared to sacrifice American sovereignty in these trade deals, then we are probably better off having an informal arrangement than one that allows our wonks to hand over more of our sovereignty in something like TTIP while claiming that Cameron got another great deal like the one he secured after traipsing around every European capital and having the door slammed in the face of him and the wonks.

claig I think we all know how trade works (I'm an economist working in manufacturing industry: it's my job). The UK will be no more or less free to trade with America - which begs the question of why, if it's so easy to increase trade with the US, companies haven't done so already? In the case of my employer, products that are destined for the US, Canadian and Mexican markets are mainly produced in America, because otherwise the costs of market access are too high. This is precisely why you would need a trade agreement - to reduce the cost of market access.

Trade with the EU certainly would drop off, unless there was an agreement to remain in EFTA. Companies' margins on exports to the EU would be affected (though this might be offset temporarily by sterling devaluation), and eventually large manufacturing companies serving primarily EU markets - like my employer - would need to look at moving production capacity to the EU.

We have lived with an informal trade arrangement and just as Trump is not prepared to sacrifice American sovereignty in these trade deals, then we are probably better off having an informal arrangement

Actually I take back what I said about all of us understanding trade because you evidently don't. The big issue for UK companies exporting to the US is not the relatively simple issue of import tariffs, but non-tariff barriers such as customs procedures and regulatory issues. These are precisely the sorts of issues that will need to addressed - in a formal trade agreement - before trade can be significantly increased.

'which begs the question of why, if it's so easy to increase trade with the US, companies haven't done so already?'

Because there is a downturn in the world economy and our products are overpriced compared to America as everybody knows who has ever bought a CD or DVD in America and found out that it is dollar to the pound price here. It requires resources to increase production and increase marketing budgets and the market in the US is not haelthy at the moment, and firms are working to capacity in current export markets which means that ROI does not make expansion profitable at this point in time. In any free trade deal with America, competitive, capitalist America will "clean our clock".

'but non-tariff barriers such as customs procedures and regulatory issue'

We will have to follow their regulations because they call the shots. What "customs procedures" prevent Google, Starbucks, Microsoft, Amazon et al trading well here and vice versa.

The real benefit of free trade deals are to remove state restrictive practices over privatisation and in the public sector and that is why America wants a free trade deal because they will "clean our clock"and our wonks won't know what hit them.

Claig: I watched Fox News yesterday.

You see, that is a mistake. I remember seeing Fox News for the first time. You could have picked my jaw up off the floor. I was used to regarding the news as a fairly balanced conveyer of the news. Fox news was deplorable. A very loaded and biased show. Lots of scaremongering and distortions during the Obamacare debate.

Actually, the fragrant Dan Hannan was over there saying how dreadful the NHS is. You know the one. The one Stephen Hawking has to state he wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for the NHS. I'm sure Hannan has no problem with Obama speaking as he was quite happy to speak out in relation to Obama care in the US. And he was an MEP, not even a member of Westminster.

bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=136316

articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/15/world/fg-britain-health15

Monsanto wants to be able to expand its GM food sales etc and any free trade deal negotiated by our teams of wonks will allow that and our consumers will have to put up with it and we will be told what a great deal the teams negotiated for us without asking us if we agreed.

Pangurban1, that is an interview that Hannan did with Fox News in 2007 when Glenn Beck, the Establishment phony conservative who backs Cruz over Trump was still employed by Fox before they ended his contract.

I watched Fox News yesterday about the "back of the queue" Cameronian press conference.

And anyway, trade will not drop off with the EU, because as the Brexit campaign was saying before they were sidelined by the "back of the queue" wheeze, the EU sells more to us and we do to them and Germany, which is the dominant player in the EU, sells more to us than we do to them. The Brussels bureaucrats and teams of wonks are indeed stupid, but German business people aren't and they will make sure that trade is not affected.

That's a bit simplistic as it ignores two major factors - that services (and financial services) make up a large part of our exports and Frankfurt would be the major winner from an exodus from the City to relocate European/EMEA headquarters within the EU, so it's in Germany's interests not to do a deal that would be advantageous to us in that area; and that politically Germany (and France) have mainstream parties fighting anti-EU insurgencies. It is in their political interests to make leaving the EU look messy and painful.

'so it's in Germany's interests not to do a deal that would be advantageous to us in that area;'

Yes I agree, but that is what we rely on our teams of wonks for - straight ouuta Compton, straight outta Oxbridge - to come up with a deal that opens up the free market in services instead of just allowing the Germans to export manufactured products to us and France to build our nuclear power plants. We should negotiate something good in return. As Monty Python said "what have our wonks ever done for us?" and we are paying for them out of our tax while they are being run rings around and are traipsing all over Europe and as Boris said, being told to "bog off".

Put Boris in charge of trade, then we'll see some action. They won't tell him to "bog off", it's much more likely to be the reverse!

Can you imagine our country being led by Boris, Gove and Farage? No one would be able to pull a fast one over us again as they repeatedly do to Cameron.Instead of Cameron grovelling in late night dinners in Brussels, we would keep them waiting "at the back of the queue" outside a locked door in London.

Common sense restored for a change!

"Can you imagine our country being led by Boris, Gove and Farage?"

I'd rather not thanks.

Gove is deranged, Boris is a racist bully boy and Farage is a joke.

'Gove is deranged, Boris is a racist bully boy and Farage is a joke.'

But surely that is better than Cameron.