Trump

[pritch]

The High Court in New York has approved that a court action against Trump may proceed. This is another of the women who accused him of sexual assault and he responded by calling her a liar. She is suing for defamation.

That brings to thirty the number of legal actions Trump is currently facing. Thirty is not a huge number, but that's a lot of court cases. And they are only starting to uncover the shonky shit that was going on while he was in the White House.

And then there's Dominion Voting Machines...

[Viking01]

Reply to post #2865 above.

Again, thanks for the reply. And again, some interesting comments. Like you, I'll keep my reply to the same headings.

1. ECJ Jurisdiction

Your words on trade related matters summarise it nicely. My words were intended to relate solely to EU-UK trading activity (and not to UK domestic law, or say human rights). Re the latter two, I have just cut-and-pasted a snippet that summarise it more succinctly than I could.

In the case of domestic UK law:

"However, the UK's post-Brexit domestic law takes precedence, and cannot be set aside by any directly effective EU law. ... For the most part, section 6 EUWA provides for pre-Brexit EU case law to remain binding on the UK courts when retained EU law is litigated, while post-Brexit EU case law is not binding." 05/01/2021

In the case of human rights:

The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights exist separately from the European Union. ... The UK courts, including the Supreme Court, are not bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union made after 11pm on 31 December 2020.

2. Fishing

Point noted.

I had seen documents relating to reservation of UK fishing quota for local fishers pre-Brexit (2015), but the text content - and quota numbers in their Annex - did not easily translate for me (i.e. some-one not from the industry or hailing from the UK fishing regions).

https://assets.publishing.service.go...rules_2015.pdf

Even the following two UK-sourced articles say little of the importance of fishing to local UK coastal communities:

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ssues-at-stake
https://www.bbc.com/news/46401558

3. Get Brexit Done.

The only comments I'd make are:
- The UK appeared to have more interest in negotiation and writing of an Agreement at a high level (less specific / less detail), whereas the EU sought the opposite (more specific / more detail); hence the EU offers of more time for negotiation and documentation.

- The EU had a better grasp of the scale of the negotiation required (e.g. how many aspects would be impacted, and the potential level of disruption likely to be caused) – quite apart from any desire of wishing the UK to remain within the EU trading bloc. Another reason for wanting to extend the negotiation and drafting phases.

- There was a lack of respect demonstrated by both parties for one another. After the first two years under Theresa May - and possibly a lack of expected progress (gains ?) by the UK by 2018, think that hardened up both sides and drove some of the behaviours seen during 2019 and 2020. Neither side could be said to have come out the end with a glowing score-card.

4. Tax Havens.

The only comment I'd make is that some UK tax firms / lawyers were involved in the drafting of some of the EU Code of Practice on Business Taxation. Recall at least one instance declaring that they had provided text to help prevent some of the intended obligations of the Code from being defeated.

5. Financial Services.

Agree regarding historical role and position of London City. But I'm simply less optimistic than you for the UK future re FS. While the UK FS capability may still exist, some of the financial entities have chosen to relocate operations to the EU simply for sake of perceived ease of operation.

December 2020
The first article below [New Statesman] might need a temporary account.
https://www.newstatesman.com/busines...-disaster-city
https://www.dw.com/en/what-next-for-...ter/a-56101977

End March 2021
Article posted yesterday.
https://www.riskscreen.com/kyc360/ne...nancial-rules/

6. Yellow Hammer.

Points noted. Not able to offer any further comment.

7. Price of Freedom.



8. Removal of Regulations.

Points noted.

The only comment I'd make is that I'd disagree re your last point: "most modern western countries have high health and safety standards for most produce".

I'd simply point to the US, and to (i) its practices re high usage of antibiotics plus its raising practices for chicken and pork (ii) its usage of certain pesticides not accepted in other countries. Expect such US products to be pushed forcibly in negotiation during any future US-UK FTA.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-rspca-brexit
https://www.rt.com/usa/466001-us-reg...-corporations/
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ade-deal-uk-eu

9. Cross Border Traffic.

Points noted.

10. JIT.

Points noted.

12. NI / Eire Border.

And yet, the UK Government still acquiesced to the US.

13. Divorce Payments.

Points noted.

14. FTA's.

Time will tell; I watch with interest over the remainder of 2021 - and into 2022.

China FTA: You are much more confident than I on the likelihood of any future China-UK FTA.

If you asked me back in 2019, I’d have said that the Chinese were "keen" to enter into trade negotiations (as well as being mindful of the then political situation):

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/201903/1141641.shtml
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/201909/1165532.shtml

But I think that view has well and truly passed by.

Given events such as (i) Huawei 5G roll-back in the UK (ii) Sovereignty / Human Rights – Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan (iii) Threatened UK military provocation – Aircraft carrier in South China Sea (iv) Perceived tighter US – UK political coupling following Brexit completion in 2020.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...mports-tariffs

But possibly more because of: (i) a perceived “old colonialist” attitude – with some residual sour feeling (UK) still hanging over from the days of having relinquished Hong Kong (ii) a marked lack of political respect shown for China on the world stage.

One of my Chinese contacts put it succinctly: "The UK wants to come and trade with us – and to get the associated benefits of trade, but it also reserves the right to come and pi$$ in China’s pool at the same time. Not very smart thinking."

[ Two of the other Five Eye brethren – Canada and Australia – are currently acting likewise. And I watch with interest to see if NZ ends up being drawn in as well. Time will tell. ]

Plus a number of other things have happened while Brexit was in its final throes:

- China now has an FTA in place with the EU. And while the EU might be vocal on topics of “sovereignty” and “human rights” at the moment, I think a degree of pragmatism - with an eye to the importance of EU – Asia trade (abetted by the progressive rollout of OBOR) will mean that the EU will tone down the volume on those subjects in the future.

The EU may well still be vocal in the future, but likely on more pure trade related matters. [ I'm not ignoring future Intellectual Property debate.]

So as the China-EU FTA slowly beds in, I'm left wondering: Why does China really need the UK trade-wise (for financial or physical trading purposes)?

- China and a number of ASEAN nations already have FTA’s in place. And while some of those nations do have territorial disputes with China (the South China Sea), they can – and will – work out their mutual differences between themselves and come to some arrangement. US and UK involvement is simply not required (in fact, quite counter-productive).

- The UK now desires to establish FTA’s with a number of those same ASEAN countries. But with some of those countries having product manufacturing supply chains involving Chinese factories, this will potentially complicate trade negotiation for the UK.

You don’t have to agree with me, and most likely will not on some points. That’s fine with me. Just my 2c worth. Thanks for your earlier comments.

Cheers, Viking

[Edit]

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202104/1220252.shtml

[Viking01]

https://politics.theonion.com/ted-cr...wer-1846553352

[pritch]

If there is anyone who still harbours doubts that Trump is a con man I recommend they read this. It's from the NY Times which is usually behind a paywall, but for whatever reason this seems to be accessible.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/u...donations.html

[husaberg]

Not just those Pritch
His post election ones as well



buried deep in the fine print.

---

ever noticed that when the con has exposed some people conned still will never admit they were conned.

[husaberg]

Nah you've got it all wrong. Again.

I was looking for this earlier today but couldn't find it. It sums up the situation in the USA with regards to freedom of speech and social media.

I never seen this one at the time remember when all those were crying that banning trump of social media platform was destroying free speech
odd those never complained when he said this first

Note the Date

[pritch]

Matt Gaetz arrived in Congress at the same time Trump arrived in the White House. Matt is in a spot of bother. First there was a NY Times story about sex with an underage woman. Seventeen doesn't seem underage here, but in the US the age of consent is 18. Then the floodgates opened, stories of paying for sex, of asking women if they had friends who would shag him and his mates. Showing colleagues nude photos of his "conquests." Some of this apparently involved interstate travel which raises the possibility of sex trafficking charges. The Republican party though are strangely silent so far. It seems Matt has no mates.

One of his partners in all this is currently in jail facing a raft of federal charges. It does seem that he may be singing like a canary.

[TheDemonLord]

I never seen this one at the time remember when all those were crying that banning trump of social media platform was destroying free speech
odd those never complained when he said this first

The irony is that the Sir Winston comment accurately describes the Hard-Left and their attempts to silence speech that they don't like. I used to be able to post numerous Conservatives asking for people who were on the Left or Far-Left to come onto their Youtube Channels and discuss the issues - most of those have been removed now - Steven Crowder's long running series of 'I'm X Opinion, Change my Mind' is a textbook example of this.

The talk of Regulation from Trump is to stop the practice of shadow-banning Conservative ideas and ideals from Platforms. It's also to ensure that the ToS are applied fairly and equally to everyone - Because I can post multiple instances of Verified Check-Mark Twitter users posting things that if you replaced the word "White" with the word "Black" or the word "Jew"....

And let's not forget Facebook admitting that they fabricated the 'evidence' used to kick Tommy Robinson off the platform....

And here's the kicker:

I know for an absolute fact that you've engaged in multiple attempts to stifle others Speech on this platform. Whereas I, despite the many people I fundamentally disagree with, have Never tried to get anyone banned on Censured for a political Opinion.

I think I've contacted the Mods 3 times in my Tenure here when I felt remarks personally relating to me crossed the line, never for the opinion stated.

You'll also note that I do not Red-Rep people (The last time I did that was more than 3 years ago).

So tell me this: Who is for Free Speech for everyone and Who is for Free Speech just for themselves.

[TheDemonLord]

Again - Trimming out things where there's no real disagreement or where there's not much more to discuss.

2. Fishing

https://www.theguardian.com/business...ssues-at-stake
https://www.bbc.com/news/46401558

Reading through the Guardian article - the devil is in the detail - the acknowledgement that although small in terms of overall industry, for certain communities, it's vital.

3. Get Brexit Done.

On your first point - I would say that this is more a case of the British way of doing things vs the Continental (or specifically - German) way of doing things. In Britain there is very much a long standing tradition of having an overall objective and then letting everyone figure it out - this does produce some interesting results - both positive and negative, whereas the Continental view is very much top-down - everything is received wisdom from up-on-high, with no deviation allowed. This contrast leads me to your second point:

I disagree with the assessment about the EU having a greater understanding - but not for the reasons you've stated - this is more from a position that the EU in it's negotiating position and ESPECIALLY with Theresa the Appeaser was intent on having it's cake and eating it - writing a Treaty to get someone to play by your rules will always favor the group making the rules, the Sticking point for people like me is that fundamentally we don't agree with this.

To link it back - The British want to do things the British way and the Germans wanted to do things the German way. (I'm sure there's a joke about the 1940s in there...)

On the last point - sure, I'll take that everyone behaved badly - What remains for me (heh - Pun intended) was that the initial period of Negotiation was pretty much the EU trying to bully the UK into submission. One look at British Lore will tell you that the Brits are more than happy to dig their heels in over a point of principle and be obstinate Stubborn bastards over it. Once that bridge was crossed - then yeah the UK dug in.

This initial period of disrespect and arrogance from the EU (and Theresa's failure to stand firm) really has lead many to the logical conclusion that the EU has a vested interest in Brexit being a failure and once this conclusion is reached, it taints all the subsequent negotiations as being viewed from that point of view.

Whether you agree with that assesment or not - I thin the Common ground here is that everyone behaved poorly.

5. Financial Services.

And that's fair - will it be the same as before, undoubtedly it won't be identical. It may take time, the UK may decide to incentivize companies to bring their Financial services back to the UK - but in the Long-run, I think the UK will be fine - we always have been fine.

8. Removal of Regulations.

Now, apologies for Quoting myself (as it's a little cheap) - but if I jump into my Time Machine - I can pull up this very discussion point previously:

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131154254

I personally have no problems with Chlorinated Chicken being sold

A: Because of the points above (So long as it's labelled, then I as a consumer can make an informed choice as to whether or not I want to buy it)
B: I don't eat Chicken anyway.

12. NI / Eire Border.

Point Noted

14. FTA's.

Definitely - it will also be interesting to compare a baseline of other countries during the same time period to see whether or not they setup Trade Deals.

China FTA: You are much more confident than I on the likelihood of any future China-UK FTA.

My Apologies - I think you missed the Joke I was making - no I'm not confident at all of a China-UK Trade Deal.

My point was more that China has been operating in a very consistent Manner - which starts with cheap products, then with Trade Deals, then with Chinese Influence on the relationship. I believe China to be playing a very long game in terms of wanting more influence in the West as not only does this give them financial Parity, but it allows China access to a Tap that they can threaten to turn off (and so financially cripple the West) if they do things that displease China.

The hesitance to call what is happening to the Uighurs (a former Marxist one-party state with a supreme leader starts shipping off religious minorities in cattle cars to 're-education' camps, where they are forcibly steralized - I mean, stop my if you've heard this one before) is the most egregious example.

So when I say that China wants a trade deal most of all with the UK, it's not from a position of Benevolence or mutual benefits - but part of China's weilding of soft-power to exert their influence.

[R650R]

The High Court in New York has approved that a court action against Trump may proceed. This is another of the women who accused him of sexual assault and he responded by calling her a liar. She is suing for defamation.

That brings to thirty the number of legal actions Trump is currently facing. Thirty is not a huge number, but that's a lot of court cases. And they are only starting to uncover the shonky shit that was going on while he was in the White House.

And then there's Dominion Voting Machines...

Can we just hear about the cases where he gets found guilty... too much white noise all these pending/current cases that go no where.

[F5 Dave]

Yeah Pritch. Fast forward time about 17 months will ya.

[Laava]

Very high chance the fat sack of McDonald pus won't survive 17months.

[husaberg]

[Viking01]

Reply to post #2874 above.

Replying to just a few of the headings.

3. Get Brexit Done.
Agree with much of your summary.

I can understand EU unwillingness to concede much to the UK (for a range of reasons) e.g.

1. The current EU trading implementation was the product of years of negotiation in itself. The EU team will have envisaged a fully fledged EU-UK (re-)negotiation programme needing several years , whereas the UK team wanted a simplified agreement - and to conclude the whole process within 12 months.

This basic difference in viewpoint was never reconciled, and slow initial engagement by the UK team wouldn't have helped matters. In response, the EU position likely was: Why should the EU then act contrary to its own interests - and concede very much to a party that was choosing to leave the EU trading bloc (as opposed to join)? Especially given that that party currently had a large proportion of its external trade with the EU.

2. The EU would have obviously seen some financial advantage in taking their time with negotiations (e.g. an extended period of UK levy contributions; a possible shift by some manufacturing and banking organisations from the UK to the EU bloc in the interim).

3. Some of the Brussels civil service involved in regulating EU trade would have had a vested self-interest in maintaining the status quo (i.e. avoid job losses or of benefits).

I'll concede to displays of EU arrogance during the initial EU-UK negotiation phase itself (e.g. periodic leaks to the media by Juncker ; comments about competence of UK politicians).

But for me, I think the initial negotiation phase spoke more of a general lack of clarity and consensus within the UK political space (i.e. what was Brexit supposed to deliver to the UK in terms of tangible outcomes - and to whom?).

And that these quickly became visible once initial negotiations began:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...uietly-dropped

I'm not a close follower of UK politics, but my understanding was that Theresa May was effectively trying to negotiate a Brexit deal largely to satisfy a specific section of the Conservative Party (the most ardent Brexiteers). Reflecting internal splits within the party.

But given that her final proposal seemed to indicate "continued adherence to EU rules" - implying not only a continued customs union governing trading activity, but also impacting upon some aspects relating to "UK sovereignty " (such as the ECJ and the NI / Eire border which had been key planks of the Brexit Referendum), then perhaps no real surprise that Theresa May's proposal ended up being rejected within the UK Parliament.

Quite in contrast to Boris's subsequent negotiating behaviour (a clear "Exit the EU" - and with a "No Deal" option clearly visible in the background as late as mid December 2020). Before he then quickly changed tack and concluded an EU-UK FTA (marginally better than a "hard Brexit").

5. Financial Services

Your comment "... In the Long-run, I think the UK will be fine - we always have been fine" may well end up being true.

My earlier posts related to loss of income earned from legitimate trading and financing activities, but the Channel Islands and the City have long had reputations for other "finance related" services:

(i) The Channel Islands have often been used by the gentry for hiding their assets and income from UK taxation (as opposed to money laundering);
(ii) Large flows have tended to go through the City itself, with big foreign banks (US, Euro, Middle East, African and Asian banks) pushing all sorts of transactions (e.g. proceeds of crime and illegal activities / tax evasion) through to their UK subsidiaries. From there, proceeds can then get laundered (e.g. via deals, advances, asset purchases, or just straight transfers to certain parties via other City participants).

https://truepublica.org.uk/united-ki...l-crime-scene/

The following link gives an idea of the nature of the issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ney-laundering

This next link is based on the FINCEN leak which exposes how the UK has a high number of shell companies that are used to hide/obscure the money flows arriving at and passing through the banks.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/ho...ring-hub-39963

The FINCEN leak reports also provide some further texture:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54226107

Mind you, money laundering is a truly global pursuit. Though that isn't the perspective you get from official FATF, EU and Basel Committee publications (which try to paint the UK and US as bastions of AML virtue).

8. Removal of Regulations

Chlorinated Chicken - Point noted. But you'll excuse me if I pass (and I never see such product on a NZ super-market shelf).

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ade-deal-uk-eu

14. FTA's
As to FTA's negotiated or concluded (signed) during 2020, I'd imagine very few. Due to a reluctance for countries to engage and interact while the Covid pandemic has been active. To develop a global picture, you'd need to compile an inventory of documents (such as the following) and then aggregate:

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/do...doc_118238.pdf
https://aric.adb.org/database/fta <-- See Table 6

China
Given the phases you mentioned for development (growth), I can't see the Chinese life cycle being overly different from several other countries. Other than the fact that it was possibly more highly successful (and in a shorter time period), and that it has also shifted itself up the product value chain as well.

Is that much different as for a number of other countries (e.g. some of the Asian Tigers of the 1990's ? India ? Israel ?)

Given the Chinese proclivity to trade, it's no surprise that China has sought to spread its wings globally within the last 20 years and to widen its trade base (especially with more developed / wealthier western nations whose citizens have more disposable income). But China has obviously distinguished itself further, in that it has also sought:

(i) To develop trading routes and nodes throughout Asia and Europe = OBOR
(ii) To improve its future technical capability via AI / Robotic initiatives = Made in China 2025
(iii) To grow its physical economy via use of a mixed economic model = Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics
(iv) To improve the economic situation of a substantial portion of its population = Increasing Middle Class (wealth).

As an outcome, China has now become a significant economic power in its own right. And a strong economic competitor to the US.

Wherein lies the "problem" for the US. In that China is now able to resist US influence to some extent, as well as surpass western technical capabilities in some areas.

But probably more annoying (for the US), it has been able to do so largely independent of direct US ownership and control of Chinese assets. And placing some restrictions on the actions of western corporations operating in China.

What did amuse me in your story was the transition - whereby now having gained some degree of economic parity, China is supposedly going to start displaying some Jeykll-and-Hyde personality change (supposedly seeking to "turn off some tap" and to "cripple the West"). The obvious question to that assertion is simply "why ?".

In contrast, the US has had plenty of practice in this respect, having been doing this all across the globe the past 50+ years (often in conjunction with the IMF and the World Bank). Simply in order to maintain its own economic position and to preserve its western lifestyle. And where the US has been unable to dominate some specific country militarily (i.e. via invasion or military bases), it has often resorted to some combination of:

(i) Attempted regime change
(ii) Financial sanctions - such as restrictions to the US banking systems, USD, or to bank credit
(iii) Pressure on the local currency
(iv) Indirectly encouraging the target to take out foreign currency loans (via the IMF or WB), and then imposing austerity conditions and forcing state asset sales if repayments faltered.

One should not assume that China has the same social or political objectives as the US, nor that it will adopt the same operational model.

I think you must have been reading too many western based think-tank reports recently.

Uyghurs
You feel free to get excited by western media stories about Muslim Uyghur persecution in Xinjiang, but excuse me if I don't join you. Simply because there is more than enough information online to present a much truer picture of the situation on the ground, and the motivations of the various actors involved e.g.

https://off-guardian.org/2019/07/23/...f-the-uyghurs/
https://journal-neo.org/2018/10/05/c...entioned-part/
https://consortiumnews.com/2021/02/2...against-china/
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/05/w...rk-fall-china/

In some respects, similar to the Chechen situation in the Russian southern provinces in the early-to-mid 1990's . In that case, both the US and Saudi were involved in providing funds and fighters to stir up the local Muslim populations.

Soft Power
I was also amused by your comment about "soft power". Is it only OK when it is wielded by western states (our traditional friends - like the US, the UK, Germany, France, etc), but it is not OK when it is wielded by their economic competitors (like China, Russia)?

The US has been bleating about its loss of reputation ("soft power") in the age of Trump, due to events such as:

(i) US Covid management
(ii) conducting a trade war with China, disrupting global trade and supply chains
(iii) the Trump administration's hard nosed position re EU NATO funding
(iv) willingness to sanction the EU, where it had sought to engage with either Russia or China.

But this has simply been the latest in a long line of events since at least year 2000, and spanning both Republican and Democrat administrations. Events such as:

(i) starting and progressing a list of wars ("7 wars in 5 years") costing some $ 6 Trillion
(ii) pushing the rapid expansion of NATO across eastern and southern Europe
(iii) causing the 2008 GFC, which then rippled out across the whole world
(iv) an ongoing lack of US willingness to allow certain states to decide their own political future, and initiating "colour revolutions".

It should therefore be no surprise that China - with its focus on trade and on OBOR projects - has increased its "soft power" (despite all the adverse western media commentary), while that of the US has declined.

[sugilite:Me]

Just one senator did not vote for stronger child sex trafficking, can you guess who, huh, huh???