|
Brexit
Apr 23, 2016 11:16:54 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 11:16:54 GMT
It seems to me that foreign leaders are not supposed to make statements about the internal politics of other countries when they are visiting. Do the Obamas feel that they have to break every rule? First Michelle hugging the queen on the last visit and now Barack telling the British how they should vote about the EU. While I'm by no means an Obama fan, I don't find his comments on the potential effects of a Brexit on the bilateral US-UK trade relationship out of bounds at all. Here's a reasonably good report on the controversy: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talksIf the Americans and certain Brits want to break every rule of diplomacy, they may do so at their own risk. In normal protocol, politicians can say pretty much what they like about other countries when they are at home. To meddle in the politics of a country -- especially an election or referendum -- when you are in the country in question or even in any other foreign country is absolutely inadmissable. I can just imagine the outrage in the United States if a foreign leader came there on an official visit and told Americans for whom to vote in the presidential election.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 23, 2016 12:30:51 GMT
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 23, 2016 12:30:51 GMT
Actually, the queen first put her arm around Mrs. Obama's waist, then Mrs. Obama reciprocated by briefly putting her hand on the queen's shoulder.
As far as the US president's comments, it seems obvious that Mr. Cameron invited him over so that he might make those comments.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 23, 2016 12:46:50 GMT
Post by htmb on Apr 23, 2016 12:46:50 GMT
Of course he did. It was all mutually orchestrated. It happens all the time and you can bet a US president who is running for a second term is seen by the American people as being endorsed by any foreign leader who pays a friendly visit during an election year.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 23, 2016 13:52:38 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 13:52:38 GMT
Implying it and blatantly doing it are two different things.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 23, 2016 14:24:47 GMT
Post by htmb on Apr 23, 2016 14:24:47 GMT
True, but I don't see how it makes all that much of a difference when it comes to politics. It actually seems more genuine to me.
Anyway, who here believes Bixa's statement in reply #31 was off base?
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 23, 2016 15:29:35 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 15:29:35 GMT
Bixa's comments would only be off base if she said she approved of Obama being used as a tool for questionable reasons by a foreign prime minister in difficulty. True, but I don't see how it makes all that much of a difference when it comes to politics. It actually seems more genuine to me. You don't seem to know much about the situation. Obama is supporting the idea of the UK remaining in the EU because it actually weakens Europe rather than making it stronger. The UK has been undermining EU policies and slowing down all decisions since day one, and that's the way the United States wants things to be. If the UK leaves the EU, it will at last be possible for more dynamic policies to be implemented in the EU and not to have a constant dead weight dragging things down. Obama is being the most hypocritical politician imaginable by saying that he supports a strong Europe ("including the UK"), because it is the absolute opposite of U.S. policy in all of the trade negotiations. This said, I prefer the UK to stay in spite of itself. Its government will evolve sooner or later.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 23, 2016 17:36:46 GMT
Post by patricklondon on Apr 23, 2016 17:36:46 GMT
He also has a reasonable answer to the "interference" question by saying that, to the extent that the Leave campaigners are presuming that the US will do the kind of separate trade deal with the UK that they claim, he is entitled to say that he thinks they're in la-la land. My blog | My photos | My video clips"too literate to be spam"
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 24, 2016 1:53:54 GMT
Post by fumobici on Apr 24, 2016 1:53:54 GMT
If the Americans and certain Brits want to break every rule of diplomacy, they may do so at their own risk. In normal protocol, politicians can say pretty much what they like about other countries when they are at home. To meddle in the politics of a country -- especially an election or referendum -- when you are in the country in question or even in any other foreign country is absolutely inadmissable. I can just imagine the outrage in the United States if a foreign leader came there on an official visit and told Americans for whom to vote in the presidential election. So there was nothing wrong in your opinion that Obama offered his opinion when asked, only that the question was asked and answered within a certain political jurisdiction. I find the outrage manufactured and forced. In the current world where words and reportage flow frictionlessly across arbitrary political boundaries, the place where a statement is made is of little or no concern to me, or I'd imagine most people in today's borderless. internet connected marketplace of ideas. If there were outrage about a foreign leader expressing an opinion on some political matter under consideration in the US, I doubt it would involve where the opinion was expressed. It would certainly make no difference whatever to me, ancient, sclerotic diplomatic protocols aside. In any case Obama didn't explicitly either endorse or oppose Brexit, he merely offered an opinion in response to being asked on how one scenario would be likely to play out in the real world.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 24, 2016 5:11:15 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2016 5:11:15 GMT
Embassies exsist everywhere in the world to try to make sure that countries do not annoy each other unnecessarily and to help visiting dignitaries follow the accepted protocol in each country.
It appears that you find this completely useless and wish to completely hand over all relational activity to the multinational corporations that are controlling certain world leaders. I prefer the ancient sclerotic diplomatic protocols, as you call them, to international relations based exclusively on greed and money.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 24, 2016 5:28:45 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2016 5:28:45 GMT
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 24, 2016 5:43:14 GMT
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 24, 2016 5:43:14 GMT
But Kerouac, all international relations are based on greed and money, no matter how suave and diplomatic the various embassy personnel might be.
To give a single contemporary example: WikiLeaks exposed the nefarious machinations of the US against European countries which were attempting to block GMO crops. Further, Spain and the US were in cahoots on this issue and some US diplomats were even working directly for GM companies. No matter how smoothly the silver-tongued devils performed the accepted protocol, it could be said that certain countries were annoying others unnecessarily.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 24, 2016 5:46:31 GMT
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 24, 2016 5:46:31 GMT
Sorry -- it took me so long to write my response, I did not realize you'd posted in the meantime.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 26, 2016 14:40:09 GMT
Post by mossie on Apr 26, 2016 14:40:09 GMT
It would seem Mr Obama has lost quite a few friends here. It is not uncommon to hear people say he should go home, but it is often not put politely.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 13, 2016 18:58:40 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 18:58:40 GMT
The polls are variable, but it appears that the bookmakers are confident. Brexit odds
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 13, 2016 19:36:25 GMT
Post by bjd on Jun 13, 2016 19:36:25 GMT
Not being a gambler, I don't understand what those numbers mean: 8/15 and 7/4.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 14, 2016 11:23:01 GMT
Post by patricklondon on Jun 14, 2016 11:23:01 GMT
Not being a gambler, I don't understand what those numbers mean: 8/15 and 7/4. It reflects what the bets placed with the bookies (i.e., the collective wisdom, if there is any, of the people placing bets) indicate about what gamblers are estimating as the likely outcome and the amount of money they're willing to bet on it. So in this case, one bookie is offering to pay you £15 if you bet £8, and another to pay you £4 if you bet £7 (which would indicate that so many people are wanting to put money on whichever side that is that the bookie is having to "lay off" the risk by, in turn, gambling in the opposite direction). My blog | My photos | My video clips"too literate to be spam"
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 14, 2016 11:39:47 GMT
Post by bjd on Jun 14, 2016 11:39:47 GMT
Thanks, Patrick. I was always useless at math. In the second case (getting £4 if you bet £7), it would be the bookie who loses money? Otherwise, I don't see any point in betting in that case.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 14, 2016 13:45:34 GMT
Post by patricklondon on Jun 14, 2016 13:45:34 GMT
Thanks, Patrick. I was always useless at math. In the second case (getting £4 if you bet £7), it would be the bookie who loses money? Otherwise, I don't see any point in betting in that case. Other way round. The bookie loses if you win more than you bet, gains if you lose. But you get your stake back as well as your winnings. So if you bet at 4/7 (or "7 to 4 on"), you have agreed with the bookie that you have over 100% chance of ending up with 11 (but you might both be wrong, in which case he's got your 7); if you bet at 15/8, you've agreed a 50% of ending up with 23: but how actually likely do you (as opposed to everyone else betting) think any particular result will be? You might be confident enough to put your money on the largest odds, but everyone else might be right and you might be throwing your money away; or you might be willing to accept the very low return of an "odds-on" bet that's more certain. Or you might be a bookie yourself wanting to "lay off" a lot of commitments at high odds by staking a large sum on an odds-on certainty, just in case that person who's put 5000 on a 100/1 chance knows something you don't. It's all a matter of judgement. Don't forget, the bookie's gambling too.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 16, 2016 14:46:41 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 14:46:41 GMT
I am not qualified to talk about the shooting and stabbing of MP Jo Cox other than the fact that is it horrifying and disgraceful, but I thought that this bit of information was interesting. imageshack.com/a/img922/294/GVEwpa.jpg
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 16, 2016 16:51:54 GMT
Post by onlyMark on Jun 16, 2016 16:51:54 GMT
And MORI and the rest got the result of the 2015 UK elections spot on, didn't they? (sarcasm alert). As said after the election - "In the event, the actual results proved to be rather different from those indicated by the opinion polls." (English understatement alert).
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 16, 2016 22:55:58 GMT
Post by lagatta on Jun 16, 2016 22:55:58 GMT
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 17, 2016 7:07:34 GMT
Post by bjd on Jun 17, 2016 7:07:34 GMT
As long as investigators don't know why the guy murdered this MP, I think it's a stretch to link it to the Brexit campaign.
From what I have been reading, this campaign seems to be a lot more about identity, dislike of change, distrust of politicians -- especially faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, a feeling of a lack of control over England, than any reasoned study of pros and cons of EU membership.
And, as was mentioned on a debate I heard, whenever British politicians wanted to vote in an unpopular law, they claimed the EU required it. Not the best way to make the EU popular.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 17, 2016 10:08:30 GMT
Post by lagatta on Jun 17, 2016 10:08:30 GMT
I certainly wasn't identifying the murder with any position on maintaining membership or leaving the EU - it was simply because the agressor himself claimed to be acting for "Britain first". My point was simply that things seemed to be getting very ugly. And I have no problem understanding why people in the UK might opt for either option.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 17, 2016 10:48:52 GMT
Post by bjd on Jun 17, 2016 10:48:52 GMT
Indeed, after all, the murderer seems to be linked to extreme right politics. As well as being followed for mental illness. Definitely a bad combination.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 17, 2016 11:51:46 GMT
Post by mossie on Jun 17, 2016 11:51:46 GMT
A real tragedy, pity it has been linked to the referendum.
That is going to be a bad outcome whichever way it goes, but many, me included, are totally fed up with the way we have been misled and cheated. Our fishing fleet has been decimated to the benefit of Spain, France , Holland etc. Most things we try to put through are overruled, we feel we don't get a fair deal. I know some things are beneficial to us, but on balance we have massively lost out.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 17, 2016 18:11:46 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 18:11:46 GMT
Indeed, after all, the murderer seems to be linked to extreme right politics. As well as being followed for mental illness. Definitely a bad combination. My memory must be really bad. Other than Lee Harvey Oswald being a "Communist" (yes, the quotation marks are deliberate), how many left-wing assassins/mass murderers have there been over the last century or two? People like Sacco and Vanzetti (anarchists) and the gang who murdered the Russian royal family (Bolsheviks) don't really count. Yes, off topic, I know. Maybe I'll start a new thread.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 17, 2016 18:25:06 GMT
Post by bjd on Jun 17, 2016 18:25:06 GMT
If you want left-wing mass murderers, there are always Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot to name just a few. No shortage of criminals on either extreme of the political spectrum.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 17, 2016 18:31:25 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 18:31:25 GMT
Sorry, but that answer is both simplistic and completely off base. The subject broached by Lizzie is individual murderers/assassins and not just the misguided (and yes criminal) leaders of countries. Otherwise we could add to your list various British sovereigns who slaughtered Indians, Africans and aboriginals and American presidents who massacred native Americans and Vietnamese.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 17, 2016 18:33:14 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 18:33:14 GMT
Yes, that was kind of what I was getting at, Kerouac. And I'd be pleased to be proven wrong.
Edited: OK. Sirhan Sirhan wasn't exactly a right-wing kook. I'll keep adding as I think of them. Manson family. The people who executed Mussolini. The Red Brigade.
Edited yet again: I've fallen down the rabbit hole of political assassinations on wikipedia.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jun 17, 2016 20:14:07 GMT
Post by lagatta on Jun 17, 2016 20:14:07 GMT
If I recall, Sacco and Vanzette didn't kill anyone; they were framed. And the execution of Mussolini wasn't an assassination, though some would call it vigilante justice.
|
|