shurlock

Yep. He's played everywhere at club and national level, including winger, fullback and centre-back.

Are you being mischevious, Glasgow?

Stirring stuff, John. If only reality could bend to your second-rate, hackneyed thoughts and assertions. Your understanding of trade, exchange rates and changes in a country's current and capital account, as suspected, is pretty thin. The trade deficit is not a scorecard - it is not inherently good or bad, it can be either depending on the circumstances: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/upshot/the-trade-deficit-isnt-a-scorecard-and-cutting-it-wont-make-america-great-again.html A minor point, your UK numbers are too high: specifically, they omit trade in services and services are the backbone of the UK economy. Further proof of my hypothesis that you can spot a fraud and amateur in these debates by checking whether they focus only on goods trade. Also note that there is controversy over UK-US trade figures. The US actually reports a trade surplus with the UK. That is, UK and US report trade surplus with each other which, of course, is a logical impossibility. None of this changes the the first-order point that obsessing about the deficit alone is a red herring. Still banging on about how the EU has more to lose. I saw a nice metaphor in the FT that puts the situation in terms that someone, like you, who clearly struggles with percentages and abstractions should be able to grasp: Imagine an elephant and a bulldog getting into a fight. In the fight, the elephant loses three pints of blood, the bulldog loses two pints of blood. Note that the elephant loses more blood than the bulldog. Who is worse off afterwards: the elephant or the bulldog, little fella? In concrete terms, UK exports to the EU are around 13% of UK GDP where as EU exports to the UK are only 3-4% of its economy. Still waiting for those prosecco producers and carmakers to ride in and save the day. Lovely list, except that if you and other time-travelling zealots haven't realised, this is the twenty-first century, not the nineteenth century. At least, scousers only live a generation or two in the past. But let's entertain your suggestion that all we need to do is to let the lion roar again and double down on light touch regulation, free trade and laissez-faire economics. Odd then that since Thatcher ushered in many of these changes, so few inventors feature on your little list -never mind that the few dotted islands of world-class excellence in research and business that do exist are surrounded by an ocean of low productivity and low skills. So what about the recent examples in your fantasy narrative: for instance, Tim Berners-Lee, the vocal remainer who invented the WWW while a fellow at CERN, the European research institution which receives plenty of dirty money from the EU. Or Trevor Baylis, who wound up broke and bemoaned how the UK lagged the likes of Germany in their support of engineers and inventors in areas such as IP. You couldn't do a better job of demolishing your own argument, pal.

Agree with most of this.

You’re a businessman, Balders. I’m sure you think both big picture and the bottom line. You need to stop fetishising trade deals for the sake of trade deals and look at what they actually accomplish on a case-by-case basis. Thus, a World Bank study found that Chile’s FTAs with the EU and US were ‘not a big deal…effects are small because the FTA-induced changes are small’. It did acknowledge that the costs of negotiating deals were also small, so at the margins, they were benefical but they were hardly a game changer. Note if you're already one of the largest economies or trading blocs in the world, its difficult, if not impossible to match the size of deal that a small economy can strike (unless you count trading with yourself). You shouldn't parrot Peter Lilley - you're more intelligent than that pal. The state equivalent of every man and his dog can do a trade deal. Take Switzerland’s FTAwith China. On your crude measure, that counts as a blinding success; however, the devil is in the detail and tells a very different story. As Dhingra and Datta point out: “Swiss tariffs on Chinese industrial products, shoes and textiles were removed immediately, whereas Chinese tariffs on Swiss exports are being dismantled in some cases over a 15-year period, while other sectors like machinery and chemical products are keeping their tariffs. As a report by Lalive, a Swiss law firm, makes clear, the agreement ‘is more favourable to Chinese exports’, and a survey conducted by the Swiss Chamber of Commerce two years after its introduction concluded that ‘the FTA is not very attractive.’ In that survey, 89 per cent of respondents claimed that the agreement had had no clear effect so far, and that the biggest problems they faced were red tape, time delays and customs officers’ lack of knowledge. The deal did cover services, but didn’t really extend the already existing WTO services commitments. The most recent Swiss embassy report noted that service exports from Switzerland to China shrank by 0.3 per cent in 2015, dropping 1.3 per cent from the year before, during most of which the agreement wasn’t in force”. Never mind that the deal barely scratched the surface of the China’s deeply protectionist economy: stringent foreign ownership restrictions and licensing requirements, if not open discrimination in areas such as public procurement, all manner of direct and indirect subsidies, high levels of discretion in everything from customs clearance to weak enforcement of intellectual property rights. As Ken Clarke said, pinning your hopes on emerging economies like China is truly Alice in Wonderland stuff. The impetus to do deals among developed countries, on some levels, is much less pressing. Tariffs are already in the low single figures. Much more progress can be made on harmonisation of standards and other nontariff barriers, though as they reflect clear differences in countries preferences (e.g. risk-based regulation vs. the precautionary principle = hello Misselbrook), they are limits to how far they can be overcome. Getting major economies or trading blocs to agree on the appropriate forum to resolve trade disputes and enforce investors rights is always a stumbling block. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the EU has made some progress on these fronts- hence it recently reached a political agreement with Japan on a FTA whereas the US-Japan negotiations have been bogged down. Surprised you missed this news, Balders. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/business/economy/japan-eu-trade-agreement.html https://www.ft.com/content/572fef42-6260-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-japan-dialogue/u-s-japan-fail-to-bridge-gap-on-trade-in-economic-talks-idUSKBN1CL2FM?il=0 Ultimately, study after study shows mo FTA matches the comprehensiveness of the single market, so yes, it is completely rational to spend scarce political and economic capital on deepening and enlarging it. By extension, it makes complete sense for the UK to prioritise a deal with the EU. You don’t get bonus points for nostalgia and delusions of Empire 2.0 in the real world, pal.

Still not answering the question - how deep was that agreement? Which areas did it cover? Given its unequal negotiating position, how much did Chile have to give up? You seem fundamentally confused how trade agreements work.

You still don't get it. Most FTAs have little impact on export volumes unless they involve deeper forms of trade integration, my original point. You were unable to rebut this, so went full on, sectionable MLG, compiling vacuous lists. How comprehensive have Chile's deals been? Let's start with that. Take your time pal. You don't want to screw up again.

And? Seems as if Buctootim has listed things for you. Ultimately you seem forget the mother of all trade agreements, the slew of initiatives that the EU has overseen to enlarge and deepen the single market, creating the largest and most comprehensive trading bloc in the world. It pîsses over every other trade arrangement on virtually every conceivable measure. Given that distance matters critically to trade, it's bit of an omission, isn't it? Sometimes the most cunning plan is staring you in the face, Baldrick. I don't feel we're quite ready to remove the training wheels just yet if you hope to last more than 5 seconds in a debate with potato face O'Brien. Keep plugging away.

Stop insulting people's intelligence. At least, have the decency to provide a full quote instead of being a weasel. (my emphasis in bold) And there's this beauty to conclude Davis discussion of trade where the emphasis is on what will be done: Negotiated in full. Understood in detail. Sounds pretty sewn up to me. Just a formality as we wait for the agreements to take effect upon departing the EU. So yes after the referendum result (did I say immediately after?another desperate fabrication of yours), Davo raised expectations with claims that are either wilfully disingenuous or wishful thinking or utterly ignorant. Critically we are now 13+ months on -and thus inside Davo's 12-24 month window, regardless of which start date -4.41am on June 24, July 13 or September 9- you vainly gristle over.* Yet there's no evidence that any serious progress has been made against thrse targets. But hey Davo still has 11 months to pull a rabbit out of the hat and meet the more conservative end of his claim. Look forward to reconvening again on September 9 2018. Of course, there is a slight hitch in all this: the overwhelming consensus is that the UK cannot begin negotiations, let alone complete in full them till it's obligations with the EU formally come to an end, thus rendering Davo's little fantasy entirely moot. Speak volumes. Really hurts to admit you've made a complete hard Brexit of yourself, doesn't it pal? *Its 12-24 months, not 18-24 months as you repeatedly claim. Then again it contradicts your argument, so better to make things up.

Davis said 12-24 months from September 2016. I trust you can read and add up. 13 months on, I thought we might have some good news by now. No evidence of that yet though, pal. Now only 11 months to get the rest done. Davo said so after all. Tick tock...

The Hun are trying to destroy us. Can't we use one of those many cards we hold? https://www.ft.com/content/8f331a3a-b289-11e7-a398-73d59db9e399 #twoworldwarsandoneworldcup

So you’re another one who erroneously equates success with quantity. The evidence suggests that most FTAs make little difference to export volumes in the absence of deeper trade integration -the latter of which is very complex and time-consuming. Halfwits can wave agreements around as proof of success but their value is often little more than symbolic. It may be news to you; but there’s a reason why difficult things are, how do I put it, difficult. As noted before, nontrade barriers are often the real culprit since import tariffs are already low in many cases. Thus, efforts such as extending mutual recognition of technical standards can play an important role in facilitating trade. Here, yet again, the reality is complex than crude, bombastic statements like “the EU has only one deal with a top 10 world economy”. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-555_en.htm (as a small but illustrative case in point). Don’t get me wrong: the EU can be cumbersome and this is not only attributable to the inherent complexity and ambition of the initiatives it is trying to oversee. Institutions can be improved and reformed. But again in the real world of trade-offs, not the fantasy land of many Brexiters, there is no cake which can be simulataneously had and eaten. Negotiating trade deals on behalf of 28 countries may take more time: the flip side is that it gives those countries far more clout than they would enjoy if they were to negotiate individually. Two desirable goals -speed and influence- are in mutual conflict. Welcome to the real world Baldrick. Of course, it would be easy to resolve this by overriding member states preferences and relaxing rules on unanimity; but then that would be undemocratic. What is it that you want? Am still undecided whether this is another symptom of shoddy logic and wishful thinking by Brexiteers or just pure, rank hypocrisy.

A telltale sign of a complete amateur or fraud in this area is someone who blindly counts up the number of trade deals without interrogating their depth, focuses only on tariffs at the exclusion of nontrade barriers and reduces trade to trade in goods rather than trade in goods and services. Other things being equal, deeper and more comprehensive trade deals which encompass nontrade barriers and services take significantly longer -and larger entities with greater clout, in turn, stand a better chance of securing concessions in these highly contested and protected areas. Try viewing the world in its complexity rather than through the eyes of a provincial micro-businessman, John. And yes I know you read my posts, snitch

18 months? Wrong. Twelve months have now passed since Davis own imposed date: where are all those wonderfully negotiated deals? More horse****

I have no idea pal. I don’t think they particularly care - or at least, they care far less than you and the Jihadists think they do. What they do care about is defending the integrity of EU rules and institutions.

Gabby's been out of the side for a while, so not sure he counts as a shining light in the same way Lemina does. Thought it was very poor defending for his first goal - who gets the time to dribble towards goal, turn, then dribble away from goal before turning again and getting a shot off? It has FIFA written all over it. Not sure Gabby and Long worked particularly well in the first half, though it was reassuring to see more than one player in the box when we put a cross in.

No more than the government of the day here wants the EU to be a success. What is clear is that Juncker and co. don't want the integrity of the four freedoms which is the bedrock of the single market watered down.

Per Davo: https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html

Has been very consistent for nearly 18 months now yet still gets written off. People automatically assumed he'd give way to Stephens when VVD returned and more recently would be replaced by Hoedt, even though he's raw and new to the league. Not only that he's been entrusted with the captaincy. Can tell he's a pro's pro.

Have people fallen out of love with Jokanović at Fulham? German managers also come with quite a distinctive way of playing.

Others may have done so; but I’ve always felt that forecasts without proper context and humility do more harm than good. Point estimates are particularly pernicious. Never mind the the way in which forecasts were communicated was highly cynical. Much of this can be traced to the campaign playbook of Lynton Crosby and George Osborne whose primary instinct is to use fear over the economy to bludgeon voters into submission. If you read Tim Shipman’s account, many Labour politicians involved with the Remain campaign were deeply uncomfortable with this approach. Brexit proved them right, though the Tories -both Brexiteers and Remainers- don’t appear to have learned any lessons as they assume they can defeat Corbyn with similar tactics.

Think that’s a fair comment - the fullbacks tend to be a lot more decisive. Having Tadic and Redmond in front of them, by contrast, just leads to procrastination and overelaboration. Also use a system that allows Lemina to drive forward as he tends to be direct and dynamic on the ball.

Germany not too different from the turn of the last century? The EU wanting to destroy the UK? Why don’t you think with your brain instead of your emotions. Better still why don’t you take ownership for your decision instead of whining and covering your ears. Read some history while you’re at it. Cheap xenophobia only makes you look even more of an unhinged zealot. Perhaps you shouldn’t have been played for a fool and accepted all the fairytales you were told: how the UK held all the cards in negotiations; how the UK would enjoy the same level of access to the single market inside the EU as outside it; how an EU trade deal would be the easiest to get in human history; how the UK was going to sow up major trade deals around the world within 12-24 months of the referendum result. The list goes on. By contrast, those who’ve tried to inject some realism and accountability into matters in order to avoid the most damaging consequences of Brexit have been routinely accused of talking Britain down and undermining the cause. Ultimately the EU is playing hardball just as the UK has been laying down red lines. It was the UK, if I recall, that threatened to reduce cooperation on security or treat EU citizens living in the UK as bargaining chips. The EU’s main crime, it seems, is insisting on the UK abiding by the same rules as everyone else with respect to the four freedoms, that it cannot have membership like access without membership like burdens (in practice, the UK has carved out numerous opt-outs and privileges which other member states don’t enjoy but that’s another story). But keep telling yourself that the EU is trying to destroy the UK. The more you do so, the more you can luxuriate in your Euroscepticism and tinpot nostalgia -all while avoiding any responsibility or questioning of your bizarro faith. Hence your thing for disaster porn. I’d pity your pathology if it didn’t affect the rest of us.

Show me where I’ve been peddling impending financial catastrophe? I’ve been as critical as anyone of outlandish forecasts. You might want to get your facts straight before talking s**t.

You need to lay off the disaster porn pal.