COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

"Brexit Times Five" - Trump, on U.S. Election Result

Hard_Rom said:
The Walloons in Belgium appear to have scuttled the Canada Europe trade deal. If Europe cannot make a trade deal with a country like Canada with it's very European values and bending over backwards to get this deal done, how is it to get any deals done with Britain, a much larger trade partner?

This deal was supposed to be the blueprint for a US Europe deal. Doubt that will happen now. Protectionist Trump, capitalist free trader Republicans or wishy washy Democrats.
Click to expand...

What are the details of this trade deal? What will be traded for free or at a low duty, and in which direction(s) do they flow? I am also curious as to whether national resources and/or strong industries would continue to protected via high duties, or are they done away with in the name of free trade. I don't know much about Canada-european but since you are there and are well versed in this trade deal I'd like to hear your take.
 
oggbashan said:
Predicting the result of a US Presidential Election is based on known statistical science.

Unless the margin is close the polls should reflect what would actually happen on polling day.

BUT - things can go wrong at the last minute. An example:

Back in the 1930s my father was persuaded to stand for election to his local City Hall. He was standing in an area that his party had no chance of winning. The ruling party had recorded at least 65% of the vote in all previous contests. My father's party had reached 27% as their best a decade earlier. He was just standing so that seat wouldn't be uncontested. Neither he nor his party would campaign seriously - concentrating their efforts on seats that might possibly win.

But the sitting councillor was named as the co-respondent in a messy divorce case the week before the election. This was the 1930s in a 'respectable middle-class suburb'. The reaction against him was massive, so much so that there had to be three recounts before my father lost by four votes - to his relief. He didn't want to be a councillor. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

DEWEY WINS


Polling is not exactly a statistical science. It is more to the Chaotic Mathematic of such social sciences as Economics. This is the one thing that the layman fails to understand.

~caveat~

I am in no way one of those people holding out hope against all hope that The Donald will be a Brexit, I'm just a guy who knows the science and the math. We have not yet abrogated human behavior, and lying to protect one's reputation is part of that, just ask any of our two leading candidates and watch them lie to protect themselves...

;) ;) :D
 
LadyFunkenstein said:
What are the details of this trade deal? What will be traded for free or at a low duty, and in which direction(s) do they flow? I am also curious as to whether national resources and/or strong industries would continue to protected via high duties, or are they done away with in the name of free trade. I don't know much about Canada-european but since you are there and are well versed in this trade deal I'd like to hear your take.
Click to expand...

The trade deal between Canada and the EU has taken many years to negotiate. The perceived downside is that multinational companies could theoretically sue national governments if the deal was broken.

But like all EU trade deals and almost all EU legislation it had to be agreed by all 27 countries. 26 were willing to agree but Belgium cannot without consulting its regional parliaments that are split on language basis. The French speaking regional parliament is in dispute with the Dutch speaking regional parliament and wouldn't agree, so Belgium couldn't sign - and that meant the EU as a whole couldn't sign.

In US terms think if all US states except North Carolina wanted to implement a federal law, and they couldn't because North Carolina wanted something else from Washington and until they got it wouldn't sign anything.

Belgium's government is and has been almost dysfunctional for years and that has wrecked the deal between the EU and Canada.
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
DEWEY WINS


Polling is not exactly a statistical science. It is more to the Chaotic Mathematic of such social sciences as Economics. This is the one thing that the layman fails to understand.

~caveat~

I am in no way one of those people holding out hope against all hope that The Donald will be a Brexit, I'm just a guy who knows the science and the math. We have not yet abrogated human behavior, and lying to protect one's reputation is part of that, just ask any of our two leading candidates and watch them lie to protect themselves...

;) ;) :D
Click to expand...


The media and the general public don't read the small print on polls.

The margin of error is usually stated. If the gap between two possibilities is less than that margin of error then the poll predicts nothing.
 
oggbashan said:
The trade deal between Canada and the EU has taken many years to negotiate. The perceived downside is that multinational companies could theoretically sue national governments if the deal was broken.

But like all EU trade deals and almost all EU legislation it had to be agreed by all 27 countries. 26 were willing to agree but Belgium cannot without consulting its regional parliaments that are split on language basis. The French speaking regional parliament is in dispute with the Dutch speaking regional parliament and wouldn't agree, so Belgium couldn't sign - and that meant the EU as a whole couldn't sign.

In US terms think if all US states except North Carolina wanted to implement a federal law, and they couldn't because North Carolina wanted something else from Washington and until they got it wouldn't sign anything.

Belgium's government is and has been almost dysfunctional for years and that has wrecked the deal between the EU and Canada.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Can you share any actual details? What's in the deal? What specifically gets traded cheaply or for free? It's impossible to be for or against something without the specifics.
 
oggbashan said:
The media and the general public don't read the small print on polls.

The margin of error is usually stated. If the gap between two possibilities is less than that margin of error then the poll predicts nothing.
Click to expand...

The margin of error is about what the bookie decides is needed to balance the bets.

It has no standing whatsoever in a chaotic system.

Example: In the People's Republic of North Korea, there is very little, if no, margin of error in the elections because of fear.

It has occurred here and has been given a name: The Bradley Effect.

Voters would not tell pollsters that they would vote against a black candidate. That is why Luntz had a poll question worded not will you vote to leave, but how many people do you know that will vote to leave, and he got it right.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a proposed free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. If enacted, the agreement would eliminate 98% of the tariffs between Canada and the EU.

CETA would also broaden the authority of investor-state dispute settlement where corporations can sue governments. The negotiations were concluded in August 2014 with the agreement to be approved by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and all EU member states.

Critics oppose the treaty on the grounds that it will weaken European consumer rights, including those concerning food safety, and that tariffs are already very low. It has also been criticized as a boon only for big business and multinational corporations, while risking net-losses, unemployment, and environmental damage impacting individual citizens. The proposal has prompted protests in Europe and Canada.

Canada and the EU have a long history of economic co-operation. Comprising 28 Member States with a total population of over 500 million and a GDP of €13.0 trillion in 2012,[18] the European Union (EU) is the world's largest single market, foreign investor and trader. As an integrated bloc, the EU represents Canada's second largest trading partner in goods and services. In 2008, Canadian goods and services exports to the EU totalled C$52.2 billion, an increase of 3.9% from 2007, and imports from the EU amounted to $62.4 billion.

According to Statistics Canada, the EU is also the second largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada, with the stock of FDI amounting to $133.1 billion at the end of 2008. In 2008, the stock of Canada's direct investment in the EU totalled $136.6 billion, and the EU is the destination of 21.4% of Canadian direct investment abroad. According to Eurostat, the EU identified Canada as its third largest destination and its fourth largest source of FDI in 2007.

*A very similar deal to NAFTA including an investor state dispute settlement obligations*

NAFTA Impacts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Impact

Canada

Like Mexico and the U.S., Canada received a modest positive economic benefit as measured by GDP. Many feared declines failed to materialize, and some industries, like the furniture industry, were expected to suffer but grew instead. Canadian manufacturing employment held steady despite an international downward trend in developed countries. One of NAFTA's biggest economic effects on U.S.-Canada trade has been to boost bilateral agricultural flows.[21] In the year 2008 alone, Canada exports to the United States and Mexico were at $381.3 billion, and imports from NAFTA were at $245.1 billion.

A 2007 study found that NAFTA has "almost zero welfare impact on member and nonmember countries". A 2015 study found that Canada's welfare decreased by 0.06% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that Canada's intra-bloc trade increased by 11%.

Mexico

Maquiladoras (Mexican assembly plants that take in imported components and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. These are plants that moved to this region from the United States, hence the debate over the loss of American jobs. Hufbauer's (2005) book shows that income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports from non-border states has increased in the last five years while the share of exports from maquiladora-border states has decreased. This has allowed for the rapid growth of non-border metropolitan areas, such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all three larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa.

The overall effect of the Mexico–U.S. agricultural agreement is a matter of dispute. Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition, such as efficient rail roads and highways, which resulted in more difficult living conditions for the country's poor. Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9 percent a year during the same period.

One of the most affected agricultural sectors is the meat industry. Mexico has gone from a small player in the pre-1994 U.S. export market to the second largest importer of U.S. agricultural products in 2004, and NAFTA may be credited as a major catalyst for this change. The allowance of free trade removed the hurdles that impeded business between the two countries. As a result, Mexico has provided a growing market for meat for the U.S., leading to an increase in sales and profits for the U.S. meat industry. This coincides with a noticeable increase in Mexican per capita GDP that has created large changes in meat consumption patterns, implying that Mexicans can now afford to buy more meat and thus per capita meat consumption has grown.

[Please do not post copyright material without citation, and then limit your excerpts to less than 5 paragraphs, per our forum guidelines.]
 
So neither of you know what is actually in this trade deal, nor how it impacts a given countries current manufacturing and/or exports. Are you for it or against it? How do you decide if you don't know specifics? Go along with your preferred news source and call it a day?

I am astounded at how people have strong opinions despite have very little knowledge.
 
LadyFunkenstein said:
So neither of you know what is actually in this trade deal, nor how it impacts a given countries current manufacturing and/or exports. Are you for it or against it? How do you decide if you don't know specifics? Go along with your preferred news source and call it a day?

I am astounded at how people have strong opinions despite have very little knowledge.
Click to expand...

If you want the full details, google it yourself. The discussions and the paperwork are long and complex. They have been aired repeatedly in the EU over the past few years and this forum is not the place to post tens of thousands of words.
 
Another BREXIT twist



Shell, BP Hold Lure of Higher Payouts After Brexit Hurts Pound

by Rakteem Katakey
October 12, 2016
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...re-of-higher-payouts-after-brexit-hurts-pound

* Sterling’s slump means U.K. shareholders get more cash
* Dividend boost drives up Shell, BP’s London-listed shares


The British pound’s slump to a 30-year low is handing a windfall to U.K.-based shareholders of Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc.

The currency’s decline means the two oil companies are making higher payouts to U.K. investors when they distribute their dollar dividends in pounds. Shell and BP have pledged to prioritize defending their dividends through oil’s biggest downturn in a generation.

The companies have maintained their payouts for the past two years and shareholders who have stayed invested through crude’s slump are likely to get additional cash in the U.K. currency as the pound remains weak following Britain’s June 23 decision to exit the European Union. The potential for higher cash payouts is driving up the companies’ London-listed shares. U.S. investors get no benefit from the currency’s more than 17 percent slide against the dollar in the period, which makes the pound the worst performer among major currencies.

“In dollar terms the dividend has been flat, but in sterling terms the dividend is up quite a bit,” said Iain Armstrong, a London-based analyst at Brewin Dolphin Ltd., which owns shares in both Shell and BP. “It’s a fantastic time to be based in the U.K., being shareholders in these two companies and taking the additional cash.”

Third Quarter

Shell is scheduled to announce it’s third-quarter dividend in dollars on Nov. 1, before setting the pound exchange rate on Dec. 2 and making the payment on Dec. 16, according to its website. BP will announce the same day as Shell, convert to the U.K. currency in early December and pay on the same day as Shell.

The value of Shell’s 47 cents a share second-quarter dividend announced on July 28 has increased by about 8.6 percent from the almost 36 pence it was worth at that time to the equivalent of more than 38 pence. The value of BP’s 10 cents a share payout has also increased more than 8 percent in the period.

Shell is likely to pay about $15 billion in dividends this year, higher than last year’s $12 billion following the purchase of BG Group Plc in February, Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry said in June. BP has paid about $6 billion a year since 2012, according to Liberium Capital Ltd.

Christmas Present

Together with oil’s rise above $50 a barrel, the lure of extra cash has drawn investors to Shell and BP’s London-listed shares, Armstrong said. Shell’s B shares, the most widely traded, have increased 17 percent in London since the Brexit vote compared with a 5 percent gain for the company’s American depositary receipts in New York. BP’s London shares have surged 24 percent compared with a 9 percent gain for the U.S. stock.

Shares of European rival Total SA have increased 7 percent in Paris during the period. In New York, Exxon Mobil Corp. has dropped 2.2 percent while Chevron Corp. gained 1 percent.

About 41 percent of Shell’s B shares holders are based in Britain, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. BP has about 33 percent of its shareholders in Britain, according to the data.

“The sterling is the reason why dividend hunters paid in the British pound are actively interested in these companies,” said Jason Kenney, an Edinburgh-based analyst at Banco Santander SA. “It will be a Christmas present for U.K. dividend investors if the exchange rate remains the same.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...re-of-higher-payouts-after-brexit-hurts-pound

​



​
 
LadyFunkenstein said:
So neither of you know what is actually in this trade deal, nor how it impacts a given countries current manufacturing and/or exports. Are you for it or against it? How do you decide if you don't know specifics? Go along with your preferred news source and call it a day?

I am astounded at how people have strong opinions despite have very little knowledge.
Click to expand...

I'm for it. The NAFTA agreement has generally been good for all. There were some job losses and this does cause difficulty for some. The demise of the US Canada Auto Pact eventually sent my nice paying job back to Michigan. I still am a free trader. Globalization of trade has gone too far to reel it back in now.

This forum is hardly the place to print page after page of technicalities of trade deals. If you like a bit of a read try the Technical Summary.

Technical Summary (Pdf: http://www.international.gc.ca/trad...sets/pdfs/ceta-aecg/ceta-technicalsummary.pdf)

http://international.gc.ca/trade-ag...-comprendre/technical-technique.aspx?lang=eng

Entire Text (careful it may stop IE from responding it is long)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1467909007204&uri=COM:2016:443:FIN#document2
 
oggbashan said:
If you want the full details, google it yourself. The discussions and the paperwork are long and complex. They have been aired repeatedly in the EU over the past few years and this forum is not the place to post tens of thousands of words.
Click to expand...

I simple "I don't know" would have sufficed. I for one have no idea. But I don't go around championing things I know nothing about, as you are clearly doing on this thread. Excuse me for foolishly thinking you may be able to answer a simple question with knowledge and intelligence. It won't happen again. You just mimic what you've been told without understanding what you are saying.
 
Hard_Rom said:
I'm for it. The NAFTA agreement has generally been good for all. There were some job losses and this does cause difficulty for some. The demise of the US Canada Auto Pact eventually sent my nice paying job back to Michigan. I still am a free trader. Globalization of trade has gone too far to reel it back in now.

This forum is hardly the place to print page after page of technicalities of trade deals. If you like a bit of a read try the Technical Summary.

Technical Summary (Pdf: http://www.international.gc.ca/trad...sets/pdfs/ceta-aecg/ceta-technicalsummary.pdf)

http://international.gc.ca/trade-ag...-comprendre/technical-technique.aspx?lang=eng

Entire Text (careful it may stop IE from responding it is long)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1467909007204&uri=COM:2016:443:FIN#document2
Click to expand...

If I ship wholesale goods to Canada I have to pay 5% GST to the Government in addition to duties. If you ship wholesale goods to the US you just pay duty.

How. Is that good for all?

I am not reading your links, I didn't ask for technical info. I asked for a few examples of what types of items will be traded for free, and you can't answer that because you have no idea. Next time just say so.
 
oggbashan said:
The trade deal between Canada and the EU has taken many years to negotiate. The perceived downside is that multinational companies could theoretically sue national governments if the deal was broken.
Not theoretically. Canada, the U.S. and Mexico have quite a few ongoing such court cases. Canada and the US have been fighting over softwood for years in various courts and before a few tribunals.

A US company wants to frack under the St. Lawrence River. Quebec is dead set against that as an example. Unleaded gas for another.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
LadyFunkenstein said:
If I ship wholesale goods to Canada I have to pay 5% GST to the Government in addition to duties. If you ship wholesale goods to the US you just pay duty.

How. Is that good for all?

I am not reading your links, I didn't ask for technical info. I asked for a few examples of what types of items will be traded for free, and you can't answer that because you have no idea. Next time just say so.
Click to expand...

The Technical summary is about as short as you can make it. The deal covers:
•Non-agricultural goods
•Agricultural goods
•Services and investment
•Government procurement
•Intellectual property
•Dispute settlement, institutional and horizontal provisions
•Sustainable development, environment and labour

Its not that huge of a read. A few minutes and you will have a good gist of what it covers.
 
LadyFunkenstein said:
I simple "I don't know" would have sufficed. I for one have no idea. But I don't go around championing things I know nothing about, as you are clearly doing on this thread. Excuse me for foolishly thinking you may be able to answer a simple question with knowledge and intelligence. It won't happen again. You just mimic what you've been told without understanding what you are saying.
Click to expand...

That's a little harsh. It was and is NOT a simple question with a simplistic answer. There have been extensive campaigns for and against parts of the agreement with a lot of heated debate some of it ill-informed. You were asking me to summarise years of debate in the financial pages of the UK newspapers.

It is/was a complex deal with trade-offs between the EU and Canada but in essence it was good for both partners with a few niggles on details about what might happen if there were disputes between the signatories.

It was recommended and supported by ALL national EU governments including the UK. Even that took years of discussion but a small part of Belgium stopped/stalled/wrecked it - choose the word you like. It was a win/win deal - eventually.

Asking me a 'simple question' and expecting a single sentence or two answer is unfair and unrealistic.

The implications of the deal's failure are massive for both the EU and Canada. Many people have tried hard and worked long to make it possible. If the EU cannot agree on something like this, the negotiations on the UK leaving the EU seem almost doomed from the start. They will be far more complex than the proposed agreement between the EU and Canada.
 
LadyFunkenstein said:
. But I don't go around championing things I know nothing about, .
Click to expand...


tumblr_liwjhqjkOm1qe5x4p.gif~c200
 
Transatlanic Trade and Investment Partnership

LadyFunkenstein - you should be able to tell us all about this in simple answers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

What are the advantages?
What are the disadvantages?

Is it likely ever to reach agreement?
If it is, will the EU governments (all of them) sign it?
Will the US administration, whichever party is in power, implement it?

Answers in a few words, please?
 
Last edited:
Hard_Rom said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a proposed free-trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. If enacted, the agreement would eliminate 98% of the tariffs between Canada and the EU.

...
Click to expand...

oggbashan said:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/canada-walks-trade-talks-incapable-eu-172040366--finance.html
Click to expand...

LadyFunkenstein said:
So neither of you know what is actually in this trade deal, nor how it impacts a given countries current manufacturing and/or exports. Are you for it or against it? How do you decide if you don't know specifics? Go along with your preferred news source and call it a day?

I am astounded at how people have strong opinions despite have very little knowledge.
Click to expand...

On re-reading your post all I can assume is that you are incapable of reading.

Hard Rom and I provided links to simple explanations of CETA so you accuse us of ignorance. Your assumption that neither of us know anything about it is based on nothing. My opinion was about the failure of the EU to agree a deal that was recommended by every national government. That is about the EU's internal workings, not the merits of the agreement with Canada.

Look in your mirror first.
 
Last edited:
Hard_Rom said:
The Technical summary is about as short as you can make it. The deal covers:
•Non-agricultural goods
•Agricultural goods
•Services and investment
•Government procurement
•Intellectual property
•Dispute settlement, institutional and horizontal provisions
•Sustainable development, environment and labour

Its not that huge of a read. A few minutes and you will have a good gist of what it covers.
Click to expand...

Non agricultural goods + agricultural goods = everything. You typed that out without understanding how silly that is.

You aren't bright enough to post to me. Please stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

46n2
Cock vs Kunt... plus baseball and politics!
Replies
7
Views
2K
thetiesthatbindme
thetiesthatbindme
SpeareChucker
Woke News
Replies
14
Views
542
Rightguide
Rightguide
butters
russia celebrates trump as the 'destroyer' of America
2 3
Replies
72
Views
955
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
butters
plan C, anybody? trump-loving bros go for plan C after SCOTUS refuses their case, to reinstate trump, for a second time
Replies
7
Views
266
Rockymtnman
R
ishtat
Religio/Ethnic cleansing on the West Bank?
Replies
2
Views
84
Chobham
C
Back
Top