This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Personally, I think it's rather good:
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/as-your-friend-let-me-say-that-the-eu-...
And I think it's great that he can a) introduce a touch of humour in there without it sounding like it was prepared by a committee, and b) say what he really appears to think without being too careful over the diplomatic niceties.
Also it's always good to see Boris spluttering away, like some blonde Billy Bunter.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/as-your-friend-let-me-say-that-the-eu-...
And I think it's great that he can a) introduce a touch of humour in there without it sounding like it was prepared by a committee, and b) say what he really appears to think without being too careful over the diplomatic niceties.
Also it's always good to see Boris spluttering away, like some blonde Billy Bunter.
25
11
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
"And the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU will advance our values and our interests".
When he says "our interests", just who is he referring to?
"And the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU will advance our values and our interests".
When he says "our interests", just who is he referring to?
10
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Perhaps the next phase of EU expansion should seek to encompass the USA then we'll see how enthusiastic Obama is about the pooling of national sovereignty for "the common good". Of course what he means is its good for the USA for the UK to be in the EU, he doesn't give a stuff about Britain.
Perhaps the next phase of EU expansion should seek to encompass the USA then we'll see how enthusiastic Obama is about the pooling of national sovereignty for "the common good". Of course what he means is its good for the USA for the UK to be in the EU, he doesn't give a stuff about Britain.
21
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I'm starting to think that Boris is a Trojan horse from the remain campaign.
> Also it's always good to see Boris spluttering away, like some blonde Billy Bunter.
I'm starting to think that Boris is a Trojan horse from the remain campaign.
6
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I fail to see how the EU makes Britain stronger.
Unless Obama had been watching Farages savaging of Van Rompuy which was pretty violent.
Apparently Boris is going to renounce his American citizenship, to prove his commitment to Britain. I wasn't aware he was born in New York.
I fail to see how the EU makes Britain stronger.
Unless Obama had been watching Farages savaging of Van Rompuy which was pretty violent.
Apparently Boris is going to renounce his American citizenship, to prove his commitment to Britain. I wasn't aware he was born in New York.
2
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Really?! It's obvious being a member of a larger body gives one more influence on the world stage, surely?
Not convinced about Boris and Farage playing the race card against Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/president-obama-has-a-grudge-against-...
Surely even the Leave people are above that, aren't they?
jcm
Really?! It's obvious being a member of a larger body gives one more influence on the world stage, surely?
Not convinced about Boris and Farage playing the race card against Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/president-obama-has-a-grudge-against-...
Surely even the Leave people are above that, aren't they?
jcm
7
4
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Obama is spot on. It is so easy to forget history. Look what happened in 1914 when Europe was marching towards the cataclysm of war. Britain was focused on the Irish problem and totally blind to the greater danger. America was essentially an 'Isolationist Nation' prior to WW2. Leaving the EU is so negative and such a retro-grade step. Watch how quickly the pound dips if we leave. It's the same old 'sh*ts' in the Tory party who have stirred this pot!
Obama is spot on. It is so easy to forget history. Look what happened in 1914 when Europe was marching towards the cataclysm of war. Britain was focused on the Irish problem and totally blind to the greater danger. America was essentially an 'Isolationist Nation' prior to WW2. Leaving the EU is so negative and such a retro-grade step. Watch how quickly the pound dips if we leave. It's the same old 'sh*ts' in the Tory party who have stirred this pot!
Post edited at 20:48
20
11
In reply to Sean Kelly:
It was part of the election manifesto. I doubt the Tories would have won a majority without a commitment to an in out referendum. The people want a referendum and about time too.
It was part of the election manifesto. I doubt the Tories would have won a majority without a commitment to an in out referendum. The people want a referendum and about time too.
14
2
In reply to Ridge:
“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests” - Henry Kissinger
> "And the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU will advance our values and our interests".
> When he says "our interests", just who is he referring to?
“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests” - Henry Kissinger
9
4
4
7
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
I thought that too, but then I thought well, maybe he's just saying it like it is. You have a finite team of state officials cutting deals, they will prioritise according to the size of the bloc they are dealing with ... Maybe we can somehow jump the queue? Probably not.
I thought that too, but then I thought well, maybe he's just saying it like it is. You have a finite team of state officials cutting deals, they will prioritise according to the size of the bloc they are dealing with ... Maybe we can somehow jump the queue? Probably not.
2
In reply to pec:
Well TTIP is the first step in this direction of linking the two blocs, which will of course involve pooling some sovereignty on the areas encompassed by the deal.
> Perhaps the next phase of EU expansion should seek to encompass the USA then we'll see how enthusiastic Obama is about the pooling of national sovereignty for "the common good". Of course what he means is its good for the USA for the UK to be in the EU, he doesn't give a stuff about Britain.
Well TTIP is the first step in this direction of linking the two blocs, which will of course involve pooling some sovereignty on the areas encompassed by the deal.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
He has proved incapable of influencing policies in his own patch so must be regarded as even more irrelevant outside it.
He has proved incapable of influencing policies in his own patch so must be regarded as even more irrelevant outside it.
3
13
In reply to Lesdavmor:
Total f*cking bollocks. You must have the memory of a fruit fly.
He inherited a country whose economy had just tanked, was fighting at least two wars full on, and was teetering on the edge of the abyss.
Against that backdrop he withdrew from all the unwinnable wars, successfully changed US foreign policy to one of 'don't do stupid sh*t', negotiated peace with Iran, retrieved the economy, introduced Obamacare, normalised relations with Cuba, finally succeeded in starting to wind down Guantanamo, faced down both Saudi Arabia AND Israel, reintroduced the US to many international environmental, energy, human rights and trade talks... He even 'fessed up to his mistakes, as in Libya.
It's unlikely we'll see his like again.
Total f*cking bollocks. You must have the memory of a fruit fly.
He inherited a country whose economy had just tanked, was fighting at least two wars full on, and was teetering on the edge of the abyss.
Against that backdrop he withdrew from all the unwinnable wars, successfully changed US foreign policy to one of 'don't do stupid sh*t', negotiated peace with Iran, retrieved the economy, introduced Obamacare, normalised relations with Cuba, finally succeeded in starting to wind down Guantanamo, faced down both Saudi Arabia AND Israel, reintroduced the US to many international environmental, energy, human rights and trade talks... He even 'fessed up to his mistakes, as in Libya.
It's unlikely we'll see his like again.
50
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
And all this despite often spiteful, probably racist, obstruction from Republicans in Congress.
He always seems to hit the spot in his speeches and has been particularly impressive as his presidency draws to a close with nothing to lose.
Maybe not, but hopefully, if the Republicans implode over Trump, we might at some point.
> Against that backdrop he withdrew from all the unwinnable wars, successfully changed US foreign policy to one of 'don't do stupid sh*t', negotiated peace with Iran, retrieved the economy, introduced Obamacare, normalised relations with Cuba, finally succeeded in starting to wind down Guantanamo, faced down both Saudi Arabia AND Israel, reintroduced the US to many international environmental, energy, human rights and trade talks... He even 'fessed up to his mistakes, as in Libya.
And all this despite often spiteful, probably racist, obstruction from Republicans in Congress.
He always seems to hit the spot in his speeches and has been particularly impressive as his presidency draws to a close with nothing to lose.
> It's unlikely we'll see his like again.
Maybe not, but hopefully, if the Republicans implode over Trump, we might at some point.
16
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Threatening us with the "back of the queue" if we don't bow to US pressure to do what he wants? Maybe he's forgotten how long his term lasts.
Its a real conundrum for my left leaning mates who are all demanding we don't sign the TTIP, yet still want us to remain under the EU.
Threatening us with the "back of the queue" if we don't bow to US pressure to do what he wants? Maybe he's forgotten how long his term lasts.
Its a real conundrum for my left leaning mates who are all demanding we don't sign the TTIP, yet still want us to remain under the EU.
5
4
In reply to Big Ger:
More of a statement of the obvious than a threat really.
> Threatening us with the "back of the queue" if we don't bow to US pressure to do what he wants? Maybe he's forgotten how long his term lasts.
More of a statement of the obvious than a threat really.
Post edited at 00:05
11
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Not obvious.
Why should they "have" to treat the UK differently to say, Japan, or New Zealand?
Not obvious.
Why should they "have" to treat the UK differently to say, Japan, or New Zealand?
1
3
In reply to Big Ger:
How would that be being treated differently ? They just signed the Trans Pacific partnership with Japan, New Zealand and 10 other countries after 5 years of negotiations, building on existing agreements between Pacific Rim countries already agreed more than 10 years ago. And even then that's not even a very comprehensive deal, its mostly just a reduction of tariffs on a selection of goods. Nothing for services.
So yes they'd probably seek a deal but it takes time, they are not going to jeopardize complicated negotiations with much bigger economic blocs just for one small country. Pretty obvious really.
> Not obvious.
> Why should they "have" to treat the UK differently to say, Japan, or New Zealand?
How would that be being treated differently ? They just signed the Trans Pacific partnership with Japan, New Zealand and 10 other countries after 5 years of negotiations, building on existing agreements between Pacific Rim countries already agreed more than 10 years ago. And even then that's not even a very comprehensive deal, its mostly just a reduction of tariffs on a selection of goods. Nothing for services.
So yes they'd probably seek a deal but it takes time, they are not going to jeopardize complicated negotiations with much bigger economic blocs just for one small country. Pretty obvious really.
Post edited at 00:40
8
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
So they could sign the TTIP with the UK without us being in the EU then, obvs. As I say, they have no need to discriminate against the UK and push us "to the back of the queue."
There was also supposed to be a "special relationship" between the UK and US, does that only matter if we do what the US wants?
You really don't like the UK do you?
> How would that be being treated differently ? They just signed the Trans Pacific partnership with Japan, New Zealand and 10 other countries after 5 years of negotiations, building on existing agreements between Pacific Rim countries already agreed more than 10 years ago.
So they could sign the TTIP with the UK without us being in the EU then, obvs. As I say, they have no need to discriminate against the UK and push us "to the back of the queue."
There was also supposed to be a "special relationship" between the UK and US, does that only matter if we do what the US wants?
> So yes they'd probably seek a deal but it takes time, they are not going to jeopardize complicated negotiations with much bigger economic blocs just for one small country. Pretty obvious really.
You really don't like the UK do you?
Post edited at 00:43
10
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Are you really naive ? They are already struggling to deliver TTIP, if the UK leaves the EU and wants to be included in TTIP it'll be another negotiation, and it will probably come much later, and everybody would need to agree again. And it'll be just us negotiating alone with the US and the EU. So yes, back of the queue, and it would take ages.
Special relationship doesn't mean that are going to jeopardize bigger economic interests just for us. If your best friend really wants to shoot himself in the foot despite your repeated friendly warnings, shooting yourself in the head out of solidarity is not going to help anybody.
It seems to be a common theme with Brexiters, anybody who disagrees with them is automatically labelled anti-british.
> So they could sign the TTIP with the UK without us being in the EU then, obvs. As I say, they ahve no need to discriminate against the UK and push us "to the back of the queue."
Are you really naive ? They are already struggling to deliver TTIP, if the UK leaves the EU and wants to be included in TTIP it'll be another negotiation, and it will probably come much later, and everybody would need to agree again. And it'll be just us negotiating alone with the US and the EU. So yes, back of the queue, and it would take ages.
> There was also supposed to be a "special relationship" between the UK and US, does that only matter if we do what the US wants?
Special relationship doesn't mean that are going to jeopardize bigger economic interests just for us. If your best friend really wants to shoot himself in the foot despite your repeated friendly warnings, shooting yourself in the head out of solidarity is not going to help anybody.
> You really don't like the UK do you?
It seems to be a common theme with Brexiters, anybody who disagrees with them is automatically labelled anti-british.
Post edited at 00:53
9
3
In reply to Big Ger:
>So they could sign the TTIP with the UK without us being in the EU then, obvs.
My God, you really do live in dreamland, don't you?
jcm
>So they could sign the TTIP with the UK without us being in the EU then, obvs.
My God, you really do live in dreamland, don't you?
jcm
6
5
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Careful, very soon you'll be told you probably don't like your country
> >So they could sign the TTIP with the UK without us being in the EU then, obvs.
> My God, you really do live in dreamland, don't you?
Careful, very soon you'll be told you probably don't like your country
5
5
In reply to RomTheBear:
Not of necessity no. As we are one of the largest manufacturers in Europe, and one of the most prominent economies, why would we need to be pushed to the back of the queue? Especially when we have such large volumes of trade with the US already in place. (United Kingdom exports to the United States $50.2B)
It's really not in the US's interest to put us to the back of the queue.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4120.html
Except that is unless they need to use the UK as a doorway to the EU.
No. Just you.
> Are you really naive ? They are already struggling to deliver TTIP, if the UK leaves the EU and wants to be included in TTIP it'll be another negotiation, and it will probably come much later, and everybody would need to agree again. And it'll be just us negotiating alone with the US and the EU. So yes, back of the queue, and it would take ages.
Not of necessity no. As we are one of the largest manufacturers in Europe, and one of the most prominent economies, why would we need to be pushed to the back of the queue? Especially when we have such large volumes of trade with the US already in place. (United Kingdom exports to the United States $50.2B)
> Special relationship doesn't mean that are going to jeopardize bigger economic interests just for us. If your best friend really wants to shoot himself in the foot despite your repeated friendly warnings, shooting yourself in the head out of solidarity is not going to help anybody.
It's really not in the US's interest to put us to the back of the queue.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4120.html
Except that is unless they need to use the UK as a doorway to the EU.
> It seems to be a common theme with Brexiters, anybody who disagrees with them is automatically labelled anti-british.
No. Just you.
Post edited at 01:14
8
3
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Your point being? You forgot to add any substance to your post.
> >So they could sign the TTIP with the UK without us being in the EU then, obvs.
> My God, you really do live in dreamland, don't you?
> jcm
Your point being? You forgot to add any substance to your post.
5
2
In reply to Big Ger:
We are one of the biggest economies, but still many times smaller than the EU economy as a whole.
To be put in perspective with :
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html
So yes it is in their interest to not jeopardize or delay negotiation with a much bigger trading partner.
As you said, at best would be treated exactly the same way as Japan or New Zealand, we would have to wait many years and already be in some sort of meaningful economic bloc.
Who are you to tell me I don't like my country anyway ? I actually moved to this country by choice and stayed, despite being far from family, learnt the language, contributed to the economy and paid my taxes, made the effort of acquiring citizenship even though I didn't have to. You really think I'd stay if I thought it was so crap ?
> Not of necessity no. As we are one of the largest manufacturers in Europe, and one of teh most prominent economies, why would we need to be pushed to the back of the queue?
We are one of the biggest economies, but still many times smaller than the EU economy as a whole.
> It's really not in the US's interest to put us to the back of the queue.
To be put in perspective with :
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html
So yes it is in their interest to not jeopardize or delay negotiation with a much bigger trading partner.
As you said, at best would be treated exactly the same way as Japan or New Zealand, we would have to wait many years and already be in some sort of meaningful economic bloc.
> No. Just you.
Who are you to tell me I don't like my country anyway ? I actually moved to this country by choice and stayed, despite being far from family, learnt the language, contributed to the economy and paid my taxes, made the effort of acquiring citizenship even though I didn't have to. You really think I'd stay if I thought it was so crap ?
Post edited at 01:32
7
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
Then we have some agreement.
I'm not the only one to make this observation. You do not seem to like any of the institutions, culture, traditions, or governance of the UK. Maybe you want it to change to be more like where you come from.
> As you said, at best would be treated exactly the same way as Japan or New Zealand, we would have to wait many years and already be in some sort of meaningful economic bloc.
Then we have some agreement.
> Who are you to tell me I don't like my country anyway ? I actually moved to this country by choice and stayed, despite being far from family, learnt the language, contributed to the economy and paid my taxes, made the effort of acquiring citizenship even though I didn't have to. You'd really think I'd stay and deal with the shit weather if I thought it was so crap ?
I'm not the only one to make this observation. You do not seem to like any of the institutions, culture, traditions, or governance of the UK. Maybe you want it to change to be more like where you come from.
4
8
In reply to RomTheBear:
You see, what Obama issued was a threat, a direct threat to UK.
"Do what we tell you or there will be consequences." Not, "We'll have to renegotiate." Not "You will need to establish a new trade agreement"
But, and I quote;
“And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. “The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”
The BACK. Not further down, not half way down. "Do as we say or we'll punish you."
You see, what Obama issued was a threat, a direct threat to UK.
"Do what we tell you or there will be consequences." Not, "We'll have to renegotiate." Not "You will need to establish a new trade agreement"
But, and I quote;
“And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. “The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”
The BACK. Not further down, not half way down. "Do as we say or we'll punish you."
7
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Well yes unfortunately there are a few others like you who think anybody with a different view is anti-British.
But anyway it's utter nonsense, I do love the culture and tradition of this country.
BTW one important bit of British culture and tradition is to treat with respect people with different views, something you are apparently not very good at.
I am sometimes critical of its institutions and governance (as many other Brits, if not most, are), and I am also critical of the institutions and governance of the country where I was born (if not even more so), as it is permitted in a democracy.
> Then we have some agreement.
> I'm not the only one to make this observation. You do not seem to like any of the institutions, culture, traditions, or governance of the UK. Maybe you want it to change to be more like where you come from.
Well yes unfortunately there are a few others like you who think anybody with a different view is anti-British.
But anyway it's utter nonsense, I do love the culture and tradition of this country.
BTW one important bit of British culture and tradition is to treat with respect people with different views, something you are apparently not very good at.
I am sometimes critical of its institutions and governance (as many other Brits, if not most, are), and I am also critical of the institutions and governance of the country where I was born (if not even more so), as it is permitted in a democracy.
8
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Fair enough, and I apologise. I was a bit too hot in my response. Mea culpa.
Fair enough, and I apologise. I was a bit too hot in my response. Mea culpa.
9
In reply to Big Ger:
Tell me, why would they jeopardize relationship and negotiations with other important economic partners just so that we have priority ? If we choose to leave the EU it is OUR choice to start again from zero and renegotiate trade deals, we can't expect to take priority over everybody else. It's fairly common sense really.
> You see, what Obama issued was a threat, a direct threat to UK.
> "Do what we tell you or there will be consequences." Not, "We'll have to renegotiate." Not "You will need to establish a new trade agreement"
> But, and I quote;
> “And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. “The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”
> The BACK. Not further down, not half way down. "Do as we say or we'll punish you."
Tell me, why would they jeopardize relationship and negotiations with other important economic partners just so that we have priority ? If we choose to leave the EU it is OUR choice to start again from zero and renegotiate trade deals, we can't expect to take priority over everybody else. It's fairly common sense really.
1
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
No need to. Why would they jeopardize their relationship with us as a major trading partner, if not just to punish us for not doing as we were told?
> Tell me, why would they jeopardize relationship and negotiations with other important economic partners just so that we have priority ? If we choose to leave the EU it is OUR choice to start again from zero and renegotiate trade deals, we can't expect to take priority over everybody else. It's fairly common sense really.
No need to. Why would they jeopardize their relationship with us as a major trading partner, if not just to punish us for not doing as we were told?
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Bvious
There's no threat, there's no pushing us to the back, we would be at the back by definitio. Same goes for other countries.
Bvious
> So they could sign the TTIP with the UK without us being in the EU then, obvs. As I say, they have no need to discriminate against the UK and push us "to the back of the queue."
There's no threat, there's no pushing us to the back, we would be at the back by definitio. Same goes for other countries.
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
When questioned on this I thought he was quite amusing and quite apposite. Something along the lines 'The Brexiteers are telling you all what the US will do if you leave. I thought you might like to hear the opinion of the US president on the same subject.'
Something like that.
When questioned on this I thought he was quite amusing and quite apposite. Something along the lines 'The Brexiteers are telling you all what the US will do if you leave. I thought you might like to hear the opinion of the US president on the same subject.'
Something like that.
4
In reply to Big Ger:
I don't know why this would be a "punishment", other than a self inflicted one.
If we decide to leave the EU we effectively leave current negotiations with TTIP, which is a treaty between the US and the EU. Doing so we join the long list of sole countries at the back of the queue that have been trying to negotiate (rather limited) trade deals with the US for many years.
> No need to. Why would they jeopardize their relationship with us as a major trading partner, if not just to punish us for not doing as we were told?
I don't know why this would be a "punishment", other than a self inflicted one.
If we decide to leave the EU we effectively leave current negotiations with TTIP, which is a treaty between the US and the EU. Doing so we join the long list of sole countries at the back of the queue that have been trying to negotiate (rather limited) trade deals with the US for many years.
Post edited at 09:23
1
1
2
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
There really is no comparison between signing up to TTIP and joining the EU though is there, to make such a comparison is in the realms of fantasy.
Funny also that many of the pro EU lobby have been rather vociferous in their opposition to TTIP or at the very least sceptical about its benefits.
> Well TTIP is the first step in this direction of linking the two blocs, which will of course involve pooling some sovereignty on the areas encompassed by the deal. >
There really is no comparison between signing up to TTIP and joining the EU though is there, to make such a comparison is in the realms of fantasy.
Funny also that many of the pro EU lobby have been rather vociferous in their opposition to TTIP or at the very least sceptical about its benefits.
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
it was a good line. the main problem for the brexiteers is its Base in fantasy about turning the clock back. we're now a small rich ish country a long way from being a world power.
the special relationship is real but doesn't translate to much hard power. heseltine commented that it didn't feel very special when he was begging the us to stop the funding and arm supply to the ira.
it was a good line. the main problem for the brexiteers is its Base in fantasy about turning the clock back. we're now a small rich ish country a long way from being a world power.
the special relationship is real but doesn't translate to much hard power. heseltine commented that it didn't feel very special when he was begging the us to stop the funding and arm supply to the ira.
2
1
In reply to pec:
I haven't made that comparison so not sure what you are on about.
Well I do think that political alliances are better than trade deals such as TTIP, at least there is some democratic accountability, instead of having large corporations effectively taking countries to corrupt arbitration courts over stuff they lobbied for in trade deals negotiated in secrecy.
But I am not against the idea of creating a strong link the economies of Europe and the US as a first step, as most analysis suggest it would create a lot of job and a lot of wealth, for us but also the rest of the world.
> There really is no comparison between signing up to TTIP and joining the EU though is there, to make such a comparison is in the realms of fantasy.
I haven't made that comparison so not sure what you are on about.
> Funny also that many of the pro EU lobby have been rather vociferous in their opposition to TTIP or at the very least sceptical about its benefits.
Well I do think that political alliances are better than trade deals such as TTIP, at least there is some democratic accountability, instead of having large corporations effectively taking countries to corrupt arbitration courts over stuff they lobbied for in trade deals negotiated in secrecy.
But I am not against the idea of creating a strong link the economies of Europe and the US as a first step, as most analysis suggest it would create a lot of job and a lot of wealth, for us but also the rest of the world.
Post edited at 09:37
1
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
Maybe this is why Obama wants the UK to stay in Europe. He has an agenda to be sure and it's all about protecting American interests.
https://www.rt.com/document/5719f806c4618862678b45b1/amp
Maybe this is why Obama wants the UK to stay in Europe. He has an agenda to be sure and it's all about protecting American interests.
https://www.rt.com/document/5719f806c4618862678b45b1/amp
1
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Well of course the EU and the US will both negotiate to maximise their interest. At least they have equal weight.
> Maybe this is why Obama wants the UK to stay in Europe. He has an agenda to be sure and it's all about protecting American interests.
Well of course the EU and the US will both negotiate to maximise their interest. At least they have equal weight.
3
1
1
2
In reply to Lesdavmor:
He's the most hated president in generations.. You don't become hated by doing nothing, that's basically the ideal republican president.
Healthcare reform massive changes in US foreign policy, trade deals, Iran, Cuba, gay marriage, immigration reform..
He has undoubtably been one of the most active influential presidents in generations, using executive actions when blocked.
Slow to start but his second term has been superb.
Health care reform is huge, he's really changed the lives of millions.
> He has proved incapable of influencing policies in his own patch so must be regarded as even more irrelevant outside it.
He's the most hated president in generations.. You don't become hated by doing nothing, that's basically the ideal republican president.
Healthcare reform massive changes in US foreign policy, trade deals, Iran, Cuba, gay marriage, immigration reform..
He has undoubtably been one of the most active influential presidents in generations, using executive actions when blocked.
Slow to start but his second term has been superb.
Health care reform is huge, he's really changed the lives of millions.
6
3
In reply to Lesdavmor:
Another sound bite..
Try and actually find support for such nonsensical views.
> Fortunately
Another sound bite..
Try and actually find support for such nonsensical views.
1
1
In reply to Lesdavmor:
As others have said Obama has achieved a great deal in the teeth of opposition from the republican right of a ferocity verging on the unhinged.
If anything he has over-achieved. After Bush, I'd have settled for any president who convinced me he had some idea what was actually going on and could construct a coherent sentence.
> Fortunately
As others have said Obama has achieved a great deal in the teeth of opposition from the republican right of a ferocity verging on the unhinged.
If anything he has over-achieved. After Bush, I'd have settled for any president who convinced me he had some idea what was actually going on and could construct a coherent sentence.
Post edited at 15:42
7
1
In reply to Big Ger:
You clearly didn't listen to or read the whole speech. It expressly stated it wasn't a threat it was his opinion and he clearly identified his reasons for both it and giving it. I'm sure he is fully aware of his long his term lasts and that too made him say what he did.
I thought the speech was spot on. Watch 'Inside Obama's White House' for further insight into his struggles with pushing through his policies in case you are in any doubt how hard it had been.
> Threatening us with the "back of the queue" if we don't bow to US pressure to do what he wants? Maybe he's forgotten how long his term lasts.
You clearly didn't listen to or read the whole speech. It expressly stated it wasn't a threat it was his opinion and he clearly identified his reasons for both it and giving it. I'm sure he is fully aware of his long his term lasts and that too made him say what he did.
I thought the speech was spot on. Watch 'Inside Obama's White House' for further insight into his struggles with pushing through his policies in case you are in any doubt how hard it had been.
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
So brexiters now don't like the EU or feel threatened by theUSA! This swashbuckling, deals with everyone on our terms in 6 months vision is looking a bit frayed before we've even had an referendum!
So brexiters now don't like the EU or feel threatened by theUSA! This swashbuckling, deals with everyone on our terms in 6 months vision is looking a bit frayed before we've even had an referendum!
5
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
And he will. As soon as Iran gets nuklear bomb (partially thanks to him)
> ... he's really changed the lives of millions.
And he will. As soon as Iran gets nuklear bomb (partially thanks to him)
1
5
In reply to MG:
Yes that's kind of amazing, they want to leave the EU to "open up" to the world, yes all they do is dismiss, feel threaten by, or even insult the leaders of the other countries we are supposed to create stronger links with after Brexit.
Yes that's kind of amazing, they want to leave the EU to "open up" to the world, yes all they do is dismiss, feel threaten by, or even insult the leaders of the other countries we are supposed to create stronger links with after Brexit.
Post edited at 20:27
5
1
In reply to pavelk:
So you are actually agreeing with me and disagreeing with Lesdavmor.. yet didn't want to say that you did.. So you think Lesdavmor was wrong..
He has been capable of influencing policy, you may not agree with what he has done, but he has been incredibly influential on the national and international stage.
> And he will. As soon as Iran gets nuklear bomb (partially thanks to him)
So you are actually agreeing with me and disagreeing with Lesdavmor.. yet didn't want to say that you did.. So you think Lesdavmor was wrong..
He has been capable of influencing policy, you may not agree with what he has done, but he has been incredibly influential on the national and international stage.
Post edited at 21:44
1
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Spot on.
The Brexiteers are very keen to tell us what the US, China, the rest of the EU etc will do in respect of trade deals favourable to the UK after we leave the EU. The same Brexiteers then claim that foreign leaders are "interfering" in our internal affairs when these foreign leaders dare to point out the faults in their argument.
Martin
> When questioned on this I thought he was quite amusing and quite apposite. Something along the lines 'The Brexiteers are telling you all what the US will do if you leave. I thought you might like to hear the opinion of the US president on the same subject.'
> Something like that.
Spot on.
The Brexiteers are very keen to tell us what the US, China, the rest of the EU etc will do in respect of trade deals favourable to the UK after we leave the EU. The same Brexiteers then claim that foreign leaders are "interfering" in our internal affairs when these foreign leaders dare to point out the faults in their argument.
Martin
5
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I don´t think has been incredibly influential. I remember his grand speech some seven years ago in Prague where he promised many things in his international politics. He has not fullfiled much of it
> He has been capable of influencing policy, you may not agree with what he has done, but he has been incredibly influential on the national and international stage.
I don´t think has been incredibly influential. I remember his grand speech some seven years ago in Prague where he promised many things in his international politics. He has not fullfiled much of it
1
1
In reply to Ridge:
And when he says values I wonder who's values?
The boardrooms of corporate USA that's who.
I don't remember America asking us to go to the back of the queue when they were seeking support to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh no, then we were to stand, shoulder to shoulder with the Americans and suffer the tragic consequences for the next 10 years.
Go home Obama. You've served your greedy, corrupt and morally bankrupt country well. The sooner you sink into obscurity the better.
I'd rather take my chances going it alone and struggle for a while than listen to you and your sycophants telling us we can't survive outside of the dysfunctional screwed up mess that masquerades as a political and economic union.
> "And the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU will advance our values and our interests".
> When he says "our interests", just who is he referring to?
And when he says values I wonder who's values?
The boardrooms of corporate USA that's who.
I don't remember America asking us to go to the back of the queue when they were seeking support to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh no, then we were to stand, shoulder to shoulder with the Americans and suffer the tragic consequences for the next 10 years.
Go home Obama. You've served your greedy, corrupt and morally bankrupt country well. The sooner you sink into obscurity the better.
I'd rather take my chances going it alone and struggle for a while than listen to you and your sycophants telling us we can't survive outside of the dysfunctional screwed up mess that masquerades as a political and economic union.
6
4
In reply to Gone for good:
As I say in the other thread;
Whoops, TTIP and the EU is certainly causing some furore amongst my left leaning friends. They want to be in the EU as it means that even if we elect a Tory government Brussels can over-ride them, but they do not want American firms having privitisation inroads to the NHS, and American companies having the right to sue our state for interfering with their ability to make profits.
As I say in the other thread;
> Controversy over TTIP has also threatened to become a leftwing rallying point in the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. While the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has committed to supporting a vote for the UK to remain in the EU, he has strongly criticised TTIP, saying it risks signing away public services. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist recruited by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, to advise the Labour party, earlier this month went as far as saying the UK could be better off leaving the EU if TTIP was signed.
Whoops, TTIP and the EU is certainly causing some furore amongst my left leaning friends. They want to be in the EU as it means that even if we elect a Tory government Brussels can over-ride them, but they do not want American firms having privitisation inroads to the NHS, and American companies having the right to sue our state for interfering with their ability to make profits.
> The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is being negotiated between the EU and US, may contain a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). This would allow investors and companies to sue countries when they introduce laws that restrict their business practices. A report by the UK's parliamentary environmental audit committee (EAC) said: "EU states must retain their right to regulate, but a TTIP treaty text that enshrines such a safeguard will be meaningless if the prospect of ISDS [investor state dispute settlement] litigation produces a chilling effect on future regulation-setting."
1
1
In reply to pavelk:
Like what?
Iran deal
Cuba relations back..
All but closed down Guantanamo
Pulled combat troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan
He's done a hell of a lot. For many, I suspect you, he could never do enough. But he has been incredibly influential.
> I don´t think has been incredibly influential. I remember his grand speech some seven years ago in Prague where he promised many things in his international politics. He has not fullfiled much of it
Like what?
Iran deal
Cuba relations back..
All but closed down Guantanamo
Pulled combat troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan
He's done a hell of a lot. For many, I suspect you, he could never do enough. But he has been incredibly influential.
6
3
In reply to Gone for good:
Can you give me a single quote from what Obama has said that amounts to telling us "we can't survive outside........". It seems to me he has simply tried to correct the impression given by the Brexiteers that relationships with the US will improve if we leave. Since the US will be one side (the more influential side) of that relationship, I think what he has said is well-timed and very pertinent.
It's very difficult to see how UK on its own would get a better trade deal with the US than what will eventually emerge from TTIP, particularly if it's a Tory government negotiating on our behalf. We would then have the disadvantage of being the smaller partner, as well as, I fear, a lesser ideological inclination on our side to challenge the powers of global corporations. And Obama is surely right to point out that, for the US, negotiations with the UK would take second place to negotiations with the EU.
By the way, most Americans who think that "the sooner Obama sinks into obscurity the better" don't believe he has "served his country well" in the slightest - that was a very odd comment of yours.
Martin
> Go home Obama. You've served your greedy, corrupt and morally bankrupt country well. The sooner you sink into obscurity the better.
> I'd rather take my chances going it alone and struggle for a while than listen to you and your sycophants telling us we can't survive outside of the dysfunctional screwed up mess that masquerades as a political and economic union.
Can you give me a single quote from what Obama has said that amounts to telling us "we can't survive outside........". It seems to me he has simply tried to correct the impression given by the Brexiteers that relationships with the US will improve if we leave. Since the US will be one side (the more influential side) of that relationship, I think what he has said is well-timed and very pertinent.
It's very difficult to see how UK on its own would get a better trade deal with the US than what will eventually emerge from TTIP, particularly if it's a Tory government negotiating on our behalf. We would then have the disadvantage of being the smaller partner, as well as, I fear, a lesser ideological inclination on our side to challenge the powers of global corporations. And Obama is surely right to point out that, for the US, negotiations with the UK would take second place to negotiations with the EU.
By the way, most Americans who think that "the sooner Obama sinks into obscurity the better" don't believe he has "served his country well" in the slightest - that was a very odd comment of yours.
Martin
1
1
In reply to Martin Hore:
relegate our interests.
Unless we try we will never know.
particularly if it's a Tory government negotiating on our behalf. We would then have the disadvantage of being the smaller partner, as well as, I fear, a lesser ideological inclination on our side to challenge the powers of global corporations.
So how do 28 governments come to agree a trade deal that will have differing levels of impact upon their respective economies. Which is one of the fundamental flaws in the EU and will one day cause it's unravelling. Britain going alone will be the beginning of the end of the EU.
And Obama is surely right to point out that, for the US, negotiations with the UK would take second place to negotiations with the EU.
There's a difference between second place and back of the queue.
You conveniently missed the greedy corrupt morally bankrupt bit.
> Can you give me a single quote from what Obama has said that amounts to telling us "we can't survive outside........". It seems to me he has simply tried to correct the impression given by the Brexiteers that relationships with the US will improve if we leave. Since the US will be one side (the more influential side) of that relationship, I think what he has said is well-timed and very pertinent.
How about go to the back of the queue? Is that not implying that we would suffer years of hardship because the good old u s of a would relegate our interests.
> It's very difficult to see how UK on its own would get a better trade deal with the US than what will eventually emerge from TTIP,
Unless we try we will never know.
particularly if it's a Tory government negotiating on our behalf. We would then have the disadvantage of being the smaller partner, as well as, I fear, a lesser ideological inclination on our side to challenge the powers of global corporations.
So how do 28 governments come to agree a trade deal that will have differing levels of impact upon their respective economies. Which is one of the fundamental flaws in the EU and will one day cause it's unravelling. Britain going alone will be the beginning of the end of the EU.
And Obama is surely right to point out that, for the US, negotiations with the UK would take second place to negotiations with the EU.
There's a difference between second place and back of the queue.
> By the way, most Americans who think that "the sooner Obama sinks into obscurity the better" don't believe he has "served his country well" in the slightest - that was a very odd comment of yours.
You conveniently missed the greedy corrupt morally bankrupt bit.
>
1
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Well as well as the EU to deal with he's got China, India to deal with and the rest of SE Asia (and the world) to deal with. So the fact that the UK has consciously decided to make itself smaller and less important doesn't really help push you to the front of the queue.
Tough luck - a reality check has not told you what you wanted to hear.
Well as well as the EU to deal with he's got China, India to deal with and the rest of SE Asia (and the world) to deal with. So the fact that the UK has consciously decided to make itself smaller and less important doesn't really help push you to the front of the queue.
Tough luck - a reality check has not told you what you wanted to hear.
2
1
In reply to Gone for good:
What part of this do you not understand?
Let's go with a simple analogy. You walk into a village bakery and there are five people stood in a line waiting to be served. You know the baker, sometimes have a drink with him, but does give you the right to push in three places?
> There's a difference between second place and back of the queue.
What part of this do you not understand?
Let's go with a simple analogy. You walk into a village bakery and there are five people stood in a line waiting to be served. You know the baker, sometimes have a drink with him, but does give you the right to push in three places?
2
1
In reply to Mike Stretford:
If you're Michael Gove, you'll expect to go to the front and get mates rates, because you're a unique little snowflake.
If you're Michael Gove, you'll expect to go to the front and get mates rates, because you're a unique little snowflake.
5
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Well this is what you said
"Well TTIP is the first step in this direction of linking the two blocs, which will of course involve pooling some sovereignty on the areas encompassed by the deal. "
Sounds like you're trying to make some sort of camparison to me.
> I haven't made that comparison so not sure what you are on about. >
Well this is what you said
"Well TTIP is the first step in this direction of linking the two blocs, which will of course involve pooling some sovereignty on the areas encompassed by the deal. "
Sounds like you're trying to make some sort of camparison to me.
3
In reply to pec:
Why ? What are you on about ? Comparing with what
> Well this is what you said
> "Well TTIP is the first step in this direction of linking the two blocs, which will of course involve pooling some sovereignty on the areas encompassed by the deal. "
> Sounds like you're trying to make some sort of camparison to me.
Why ? What are you on about ? Comparing with what
Post edited at 10:51
1
In reply to Ridge:
He was addressing a UK audience so it's obvious who he is referring to, the US and the UK. As others have pointed out and you imply, he, and the next US president will actually be concerned by US interests, but I don't see how stating that obvious fact helps the Brexiter's argument.
> "And the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the EU will advance our values and our interests".
> When he says "our interests", just who is he referring to?
He was addressing a UK audience so it's obvious who he is referring to, the US and the UK. As others have pointed out and you imply, he, and the next US president will actually be concerned by US interests, but I don't see how stating that obvious fact helps the Brexiter's argument.
1
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Hardly "years of hardship". I'm sure we can survive without a trade deal with the US. It's just that we would be better off with one - as long as it's one that serves our interests (which is not inconsistent with it also serving theirs - trade deals are not zero-sum games). No, this doesn't count as evidence that Obama thinks, or said, that we "can't survive" outside the EU which was your statement that I suggested you needed to justify.
It's difficult, but worth striving for. Which is presumably why so much effort has been invested in trying to achieve it.
The EU may unravel. I agree our leaving would act as a catalyst. But I don't think it would be in anyone's interest if it happens. In my lifetime we have seen European nations make huge strides towards resolving differences in their economic interests through co-operation and negotiation. It's not been easy. It's not been perfect. But what has been achieved is quite remarkable considering that the way these issues were "solved" previously almost invariably meant war. Do you really want Britain to be the catalyst that sparks the break up of the EU?
Not if the queue is of two people. Which could be what he meant. But I think he was just pointing out that it's in US interests to prioritise trade deals with the bigger markets first. And UK on its own isn't one of them. I agree that he probably intended to say "queue". If it was an off the cuff remark he would probably have said "line". It would be very quick thinking for an American to say "queue" in an off the cuff remark. But then he is the one of the most intelligent US presidents in my lifetime.
And just what is the difference between "served your greedy, corrupt and morally bankrupt country well" and "served your country well" except what the former says about your own attitude to the US, which I'm not sure is relevant.
Martin
> How about go to the back of the queue? Is that not implying that we would suffer years of hardship because the good old u s of a would relegate our interests. Unless we try we will never know.
Hardly "years of hardship". I'm sure we can survive without a trade deal with the US. It's just that we would be better off with one - as long as it's one that serves our interests (which is not inconsistent with it also serving theirs - trade deals are not zero-sum games). No, this doesn't count as evidence that Obama thinks, or said, that we "can't survive" outside the EU which was your statement that I suggested you needed to justify.
> So how do 28 governments come to agree a trade deal that will have differing levels of impact upon their respective economies. Which is one of the fundamental flaws in the EU and will one day cause it's unravelling. Britain going alone will be the beginning of the end of the EU.
It's difficult, but worth striving for. Which is presumably why so much effort has been invested in trying to achieve it.
The EU may unravel. I agree our leaving would act as a catalyst. But I don't think it would be in anyone's interest if it happens. In my lifetime we have seen European nations make huge strides towards resolving differences in their economic interests through co-operation and negotiation. It's not been easy. It's not been perfect. But what has been achieved is quite remarkable considering that the way these issues were "solved" previously almost invariably meant war. Do you really want Britain to be the catalyst that sparks the break up of the EU?
> There's a difference between second place and back of the queue.
Not if the queue is of two people. Which could be what he meant. But I think he was just pointing out that it's in US interests to prioritise trade deals with the bigger markets first. And UK on its own isn't one of them. I agree that he probably intended to say "queue". If it was an off the cuff remark he would probably have said "line". It would be very quick thinking for an American to say "queue" in an off the cuff remark. But then he is the one of the most intelligent US presidents in my lifetime.
> You conveniently missed the greedy corrupt morally bankrupt bit.
And just what is the difference between "served your greedy, corrupt and morally bankrupt country well" and "served your country well" except what the former says about your own attitude to the US, which I'm not sure is relevant.
Martin
1
1
1
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
He promised world without nuclear weapons besides. Instead of it he eased another belligerent coutry to get them.
He promised peace at Middle East. There is nothink like that.
Not a great statesman, but a big tolker, in my opinion
> He's done a hell of a lot. For many, I suspect you, he could never do enough. But he has been incredibly influential.
He promised world without nuclear weapons besides. Instead of it he eased another belligerent coutry to get them.
He promised peace at Middle East. There is nothink like that.
Not a great statesman, but a big tolker, in my opinion
1
In reply to pavelk:
Sadly, given that you will not be able to cite a single sentence, written or spoken - ever - where Obama promised either of those things, then your opinion is pretty worthless tbh.
Sadly, given that you will not be able to cite a single sentence, written or spoken - ever - where Obama promised either of those things, then your opinion is pretty worthless tbh.
1
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Well I'm even more confused now. How does your view of whether the US is "greedy, corrupt and morally bankrupt" affect your vote in the EU referendum? Or do you just mean it will make you disregard Obama's views. I would have thought much of what Obama has achieved, notably in health-care reform, has been in the teeth of opposition from the "greedy and morally bankrupt" elements in US society. He can hardly be tarred with the same brush. Of course, if it was George W still in the White House...............or Trump.
Of course, if you feel that the whole of US society is "greedy, corrupt and morally bankrupt" then we can have no meeting of minds.
Martin
> It will be relevant when I get to the ballot box.
Well I'm even more confused now. How does your view of whether the US is "greedy, corrupt and morally bankrupt" affect your vote in the EU referendum? Or do you just mean it will make you disregard Obama's views. I would have thought much of what Obama has achieved, notably in health-care reform, has been in the teeth of opposition from the "greedy and morally bankrupt" elements in US society. He can hardly be tarred with the same brush. Of course, if it was George W still in the White House...............or Trump.
Of course, if you feel that the whole of US society is "greedy, corrupt and morally bankrupt" then we can have no meeting of minds.
Martin
Post edited at 15:01
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
"To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.
To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.
And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.
Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.
The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.
And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people.
But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules. That's why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences.
Just this morning, we were reminded again of why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles. This provocation underscores the need for action –- not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.
Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response -- (applause) -- now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.
Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon. My administration will seek engagement with Iran based on mutual interests and mutual respect. We believe in dialogue. (Applause.) But in that dialogue we will present a clear choice. We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all.
So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed. (Applause.)
So, finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said it seeks a bomb and that it would have no problem with using it. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.
So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.
We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year. (Applause.)"
And the result? Words and words...
"To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.
To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.
And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.
Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.
The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.
And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people.
But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules. That's why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences.
Just this morning, we were reminded again of why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles. This provocation underscores the need for action –- not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.
Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response -- (applause) -- now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.
Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon. My administration will seek engagement with Iran based on mutual interests and mutual respect. We believe in dialogue. (Applause.) But in that dialogue we will present a clear choice. We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all.
So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed. (Applause.)
So, finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said it seeks a bomb and that it would have no problem with using it. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.
So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.
We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year. (Applause.)"
And the result? Words and words...
1
1
In reply to pavelk:
Most of that has happened (or not happened wrt terrorists with nuclear material). What is you complaint that he didn't go to war with Iran?
Most of that has happened (or not happened wrt terrorists with nuclear material). What is you complaint that he didn't go to war with Iran?
2
In reply to pavelk:
He didn't promise that... You are the liar here. He said he'd pursue ratification, not ratify it.
". We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. " and what did he do?
He said we'd move towards disarmament, we'd engage with Iran.. if you go through that speech you can put CHECK or TRIED TO next to a lot of those statements.
As I said people like you will never be happy no matter what he did.
> He promised world without nuclear weapons besides. Instead of it he eased another belligerent coutry to get them.
> He promised peace at Middle East. There is nothink like that.
> Not a great statesman, but a big tolker, in my opinion
He didn't promise that... You are the liar here. He said he'd pursue ratification, not ratify it.
". We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. " and what did he do?
He said we'd move towards disarmament, we'd engage with Iran.. if you go through that speech you can put CHECK or TRIED TO next to a lot of those statements.
As I said people like you will never be happy no matter what he did.
Post edited at 16:58
2
In reply to pavelk:
I think if you read that speech rather than just cut and paste from it, you will see that what he is advocating is pretty much spot on what he achieved with Iran - leaving them the capability for developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, rewarding them for eschewing development of nuclear weapons by lifting sanctions, and putting in place an inspection regime that ensures they keep their word.
So, where is your antipathy coming from? Do you support Saudi Arabia, or is it Israel? Because anyone who is willing to cross either of those - let alone both, as Obama has - is pretty much OK in my book.
I think if you read that speech rather than just cut and paste from it, you will see that what he is advocating is pretty much spot on what he achieved with Iran - leaving them the capability for developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, rewarding them for eschewing development of nuclear weapons by lifting sanctions, and putting in place an inspection regime that ensures they keep their word.
So, where is your antipathy coming from? Do you support Saudi Arabia, or is it Israel? Because anyone who is willing to cross either of those - let alone both, as Obama has - is pretty much OK in my book.
Post edited at 16:57
1
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Well if you go back and read our posts my point should become apparent but I'll save you the trouble, here's the salient points :
Me : Perhaps the next phase of EU expansion should seek to encompass the USA then we'll see how enthusiastic Obama is about the pooling of national sovereignty for "the common good"
You : Well TTIP is the first step in this direction of linking the two blocs, which will of course involve pooling some sovereignty on the areas encompassed by the deal.
Me : There really is no comparison between signing up to TTIP and joining the EU though is there, to make such a comparison is in the realms of fantasy.
You : I haven't made that comparison so not sure what you are on about.
Me : Sounds like you're trying to make some sort of camparison to me.
You : Why ? What are you on about ? Comparing with what
So in summary, whilst I appreciate you're not suggesting that joining the EU and signing up to TTIP are equivalent, you clearly stated that TTIP was a "first step in this direction" and that it did "involve pooling some sovereignty.
It therefore seems reasonable for me to assert that it "sounds like you're trying to make some sort of camparison" (though not an equivalence) to which I still maintain "there really is no comparison".
I hope that clarifies matters.
> Why ? What are you on about ? Comparing with what >
Well if you go back and read our posts my point should become apparent but I'll save you the trouble, here's the salient points :
Me : Perhaps the next phase of EU expansion should seek to encompass the USA then we'll see how enthusiastic Obama is about the pooling of national sovereignty for "the common good"
You : Well TTIP is the first step in this direction of linking the two blocs, which will of course involve pooling some sovereignty on the areas encompassed by the deal.
Me : There really is no comparison between signing up to TTIP and joining the EU though is there, to make such a comparison is in the realms of fantasy.
You : I haven't made that comparison so not sure what you are on about.
Me : Sounds like you're trying to make some sort of camparison to me.
You : Why ? What are you on about ? Comparing with what
So in summary, whilst I appreciate you're not suggesting that joining the EU and signing up to TTIP are equivalent, you clearly stated that TTIP was a "first step in this direction" and that it did "involve pooling some sovereignty.
It therefore seems reasonable for me to assert that it "sounds like you're trying to make some sort of camparison" (though not an equivalence) to which I still maintain "there really is no comparison".
I hope that clarifies matters.
4
In reply to pec:
Not really, it still makes absolutely no sense, I wasn't trying to compare anything really, not sure what is your point.
> I hope that clarifies matters.
Not really, it still makes absolutely no sense, I wasn't trying to compare anything really, not sure what is your point.
Post edited at 19:32
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
You must have a very interesting group of friends.
> Do you support Saudi Arabia, or is it Israel? Because anyone who is willing to cross either of those - let alone both, as Obama has - is pretty much OK in my book.
You must have a very interesting group of friends.
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The deal with Iran is toothless - there is no effective control of Iranians (like unannounced inspections of some facilities)
Becaude of that it´s quite likely Saudi Arabia is seeks it´s own nuclear weapons. May be they already got them from Pakistan. Since the speech North Korea carried another two or three nuclear tests. Russians improve their nuclear pogram and test new generation of (poissibly) nuclear missiles as well as China, Iran and perhaps India. Terrorists are closer to nuclear material than ever before. It doesn´t seem to me as big success.
I have some symphaty for Israel and I don´t like Saudi Arabia. I have no hostility to Barack Obama, just think his words do not match his deeds too much
The deal with Iran is toothless - there is no effective control of Iranians (like unannounced inspections of some facilities)
Becaude of that it´s quite likely Saudi Arabia is seeks it´s own nuclear weapons. May be they already got them from Pakistan. Since the speech North Korea carried another two or three nuclear tests. Russians improve their nuclear pogram and test new generation of (poissibly) nuclear missiles as well as China, Iran and perhaps India. Terrorists are closer to nuclear material than ever before. It doesn´t seem to me as big success.
> So, where is your antipathy coming from? Do you support Saudi Arabia, or is it Israel? Because anyone who is willing to cross either of those - let alone both, as Obama has - is pretty much OK in my book.
I have some symphaty for Israel and I don´t like Saudi Arabia. I have no hostility to Barack Obama, just think his words do not match his deeds too much
1
In reply to pavelk:
Firstly, your analysis seems over pessimistic. I don't know whether Pakistan gave the Saudis a weapon or not but I'll you this, if it hasn't been tested then it doesn't work.
I disagree about Iran. Obama has allowed them to rejoin the polity of nations, to start trading again - Iran has a huge middle class, not too interested in Islam, who can remember what prosperity and Western values felt like and want them back. I suspect that no Iranian politician will be strong enough to re-impose pariah state status again for the sake of the possible development of nuclear weapons.
And what, exactly, did you expect Obama to do? Start WWIII by nuking every potential nuclear state to avoid WW IV? I think he's achieved an enormous amount, but he doesn't walk on water - and he doesn't do stupid sh*t either.
Firstly, your analysis seems over pessimistic. I don't know whether Pakistan gave the Saudis a weapon or not but I'll you this, if it hasn't been tested then it doesn't work.
I disagree about Iran. Obama has allowed them to rejoin the polity of nations, to start trading again - Iran has a huge middle class, not too interested in Islam, who can remember what prosperity and Western values felt like and want them back. I suspect that no Iranian politician will be strong enough to re-impose pariah state status again for the sake of the possible development of nuclear weapons.
And what, exactly, did you expect Obama to do? Start WWIII by nuking every potential nuclear state to avoid WW IV? I think he's achieved an enormous amount, but he doesn't walk on water - and he doesn't do stupid sh*t either.
3
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
Then you need to think about it a bit harder, I couldn't have made it clearer for you in my post above.
Then in that case your first response ("well TTIP is the first step . . . "etc) makes no sense as a response to my first post ("perhaps the next phase of EU expansion . . . " etc).
If you can't see why your response to my post implies that you're making some degree of comparison between joining the EU and signing up to TTIP then what on earth were you trying to suggest?
> Not really, it still makes absolutely no sense, >
Then you need to think about it a bit harder, I couldn't have made it clearer for you in my post above.
> I wasn't trying to compare anything really, >
Then in that case your first response ("well TTIP is the first step . . . "etc) makes no sense as a response to my first post ("perhaps the next phase of EU expansion . . . " etc).
If you can't see why your response to my post implies that you're making some degree of comparison between joining the EU and signing up to TTIP then what on earth were you trying to suggest?
4
In reply to pec:
Simply suggesting that the US don't seem to mind sharing sovereignty if it benefits them, which would be the case with TTIP.
Nowhere on this thread I have suggested that ratifying TTIP is comparable to joining the EU though, you just made this up entirely yourself and came up with some convoluted illogical explanation to justify yourself, instead of simply admitting that you just misread.
> Then you need to think about it a bit harder, I couldn't have made it clearer for you in my post above.
> Then in that case your first response ("well TTIP is the first step . . . "etc) makes no sense as a response to my first post ("perhaps the next phase of EU expansion . . . " etc).
> If you can't see why your response to my post implies that you're making some degree of comparison between joining the EU and signing up to TTIP then what on earth were you trying to suggest?
Simply suggesting that the US don't seem to mind sharing sovereignty if it benefits them, which would be the case with TTIP.
Nowhere on this thread I have suggested that ratifying TTIP is comparable to joining the EU though, you just made this up entirely yourself and came up with some convoluted illogical explanation to justify yourself, instead of simply admitting that you just misread.
Post edited at 23:29
2
In reply to pavelk:
Yet they do.. you just refuse to accept it..
> I have no hostility to Barack Obama, just think his words do not match his deeds too much
Yet they do.. you just refuse to accept it..
In reply to RomTheBear:
So at last you finally see a degree of connection, I was starting to feel like I was banging my head against a brick wall with your comments about having no idea what I was getting at.
I know you never said it was directly comparable and I acknowledged that, but you clearly stated it was a “first step towards it”, go back and read it, you really did say that which implies there is a degree, albeit small, of similarity.
I've quoted your own words several times, I'm not making anything up and the only logical conclusion to your first response to me is that you think there is some similarity, otherwise, as I said above, your response makes no sense at all.
I'm not misreading anything, I've gone over it enough times for your benefit. You made an implication which I said was in the realms of fantasy and then you went all obtuse, pretending you didn't see any link even though anyone who can read could see it.
Anyway, I think having gone over this ad nauseum and finally got you to see/admit you do get it now, its time to move on.
> Simply suggesting that the US don't seem to mind sharing sovereignty if it benefits them, which would be the case with TTIP. >
So at last you finally see a degree of connection, I was starting to feel like I was banging my head against a brick wall with your comments about having no idea what I was getting at.
> Nowhere on this thread I have suggested that ratifying TTIP is comparable to joining the EU though, >
I know you never said it was directly comparable and I acknowledged that, but you clearly stated it was a “first step towards it”, go back and read it, you really did say that which implies there is a degree, albeit small, of similarity.
> you just made this up entirely yourself and came up with some convoluted illogical explanation to justify yourself, >
I've quoted your own words several times, I'm not making anything up and the only logical conclusion to your first response to me is that you think there is some similarity, otherwise, as I said above, your response makes no sense at all.
> instead of simply admitting that you just misread. >
I'm not misreading anything, I've gone over it enough times for your benefit. You made an implication which I said was in the realms of fantasy and then you went all obtuse, pretending you didn't see any link even though anyone who can read could see it.
Anyway, I think having gone over this ad nauseum and finally got you to see/admit you do get it now, its time to move on.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...