shurlock

Rewatching their 3rd goal. Absolutely disgusting defending. It’s 2 v. 5 - the numbers favour us massively yet Jimenez still finds himself unmarked for the cross.

Fair enough. The admission was so bum-clenchingly oblique and tight-fisted (just your style) that I couldn’t tell. We move on.

Nope pal: your post about scrapping TPP and renegotiating NAFTA was made on Tuesday 24 January 2017 -namely after these things had happened (TPP) or Trump had already vowed to make them happen (NAFTA). So much for your prediction. What next? Are you going to come back tomorrow and post today’s lottery numbers

Yep thought it was flat and boring and didn’t go anywhere.

Still waiting for you to clarify which countries voted to leave the EU?

Six months before that, Trump wasn’t even in power. Indeed the outcome of presidential election was still up in the air. As it turned out, the UK wasn’t the priority for the US in the intervening three years. And yes a protectionist is in the White House. By contrast, I lost count of the number of posts in which you giddily seized on every snippet of news to claim a la David Davis that an agreement with the US was being negotiated and details hammered out so it would be locked and loaded, if not ready to come into force once the UK left the EU. Instead fast forward to 2020 and where are we? The UK and US have only just appointed chapter heads. Some prioritisation. You were spectacularly wrong. Let’s also be clear: when you posted in Jan 2017, Trump had either done the things in your post (I.e. cancel TPP) or categorically stated he would do them (i.e. renegotiate NAFTA). A prediction isn’t simply to describe and restate what’s already going on, chump While I struggle to find much evidence on here, I’m sure you’re good at some things John. But prediction really isn’t one of them.

Get Out was good. I’d happily have a film like that every year.

Yes Trump the protectionist (called it pal) has ditched multilateralism and prospective multilateral trade arrangements and replaced them with a host of bilateral, individual-country negotiations. A simple matter of substitution. The point is exactly the same: his priorities have laid elsewhere, not with the UK. But hey they’ve now appointed some chapter heads - I’m sure an accelerated comprehensive FTA is just around the corner

If you’ve been following the news over the past couple of years, trade talks with China have been the overwhelming priority for the administration. And they still are. Not to mention renegotiating NAFTA and going into a protectionist frenzy (which I anticipated). Opening talks with the UK and embarking on preliminaries (even appointing chapter heads - gee whiz) doesn’t require a huge amount of effort or commitment. You really are an easy touch. I would love to have negotiated with you in business pal.

Wow. What prescience John. The UK and US will finally open trade talks. Who would have thought that the UK would want to use Brexit to strike trade deals with countries outside the EU? Literally nobody saw that one coming. Next you’ll be claiming sole credit for predicting that the night follows the day. Black holes are brighter than you pal.

You said they voted to leave the EU which is completely and utterly different.

Or per his MO, he slinks off and doesn't respond because he's made a factual howler.

No I don’t know Les. Can you kindly elucidate?

Les no need to squirm and take yourself so seriously pal Freudian slip Friday?

Les you don't know what free trade means or what the WTO does - so best stay in your own lane and not get too ahead of yourself. I'm also still waiting for the great domino effect of 2016, so I'd hold off any new predictions if I were you pal. One last time: you cannot have truly free trade without regulatory alignment that, in turn, necessitates some form of political integration (unless you want to do a Norway and be bound by regulation that you have had no say in shaping or determining).

I didn’t mention Promes or suggest extrapolating from a single datapoint. Stop embarrassing yourself pal.

This is dopey even by your standards. Of course, past windows are relevant, especially as the same ownership/personnel are in place. They shine light on patterns or trends that might explain what’s going on in the here and now.

Agree - really stepped up during Puel and MP’s time at the club. Things could have been a lot worse without him.

A quick primer on trade for dummies and stupid old duffers. I. If you believe in free trade, then the Common Market is a sideshow. II. Once upon a time, tariffs used to be the main impediment to trade - hence the emergence of the Common Market. However, thanks to global and regional efforts over the past half century, tariffs have fallen to a point where in most cases they are trivial. III. Today the real barrier to trade is regulation - the fact that businesses must deal with overlapping, conflicting and complex regulations whenever they trade across borders. Complying with different rules of the game pushes up the cost of exporting and reduces business activity. IV. Regulatory alignment is a way of reducing these costs. It also seeks to promote competition by integrating a market that would otherwise be fragmented and inefficiently small. Note alignment is a relative concept: sometimes it’s prescriptive; in other cases, it’s very loose, leaving regulatees plenty of discretion on how to meet outcomes. V. Either way, regulatory alignment is inherently political. A country’s regulation says a lot about its values, how it balances risk and safety, price and quality, individualism and collectivism as well as the priority it gives to different stakeholders, including the environment. VI. In other words, getting countries with different preferences to align on a regulatory standard, regardless whether it is loose or prescriptive, implies processes to manage and resolve these competing demands. That could be done by fiat - or it could be done as fairly and democratically as possible. Enter political institutions and impartial enforcement mechanisms to ensure countries are subsequently keeping their word. Invoking the Common Market is basically a giveaway that you’re clueless about trade. Likewise it is clueless to champion free trade without understanding where it necessarily leads you in the 21st century i.e. regulatory alignment when most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked.

Glad to see characteristically strong understandings of how modern trade works

Agree. It really doesn’t need overthinking.

Do you secretly fantasise about Angela Raynor sitting on your face or something - just like you fantasised about Anna Soubry sticking a finger up your bum? Your obsession with female opposition politicians is a bit odd pal.

How about antisemite pal?

Stupid old duffer? Takes one to know one, I guess.