The Student Room Group

Brexit: China wants UK trade deal ASAP, frustrated with EU's failure to conclude one

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by Magnus Taylor
Great one, ignore MINT and BRIC countries at your peril


I never said that we should "ignore" these countries, simply that we shouldn't make free trade deals with them; unless we're speaking of raw materials.
Original post by generallee
On the contrary I have been many times. An aunt and uncle went to live on Lake Geneva and I must have visited at least a dozen times over the years.

Not sure how extensive their manufacturing base is though. They make high end watches, and Swatch is a mass market company. But even the best Ski equipment tends to be French or Austrian or German. They make their own cable cars I guess?

It is a pretty small (if very successful) economy in global terms.


Sorry for that assumption!

Per capita basis, the Swiss has the highest industrial production in the world.

Throughout the last two decades they have even manufactured their own electric/gasoline carS.

If you look at the household products in a typical Swiss home, most of the appliances will be made in Switzerland.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I'm no Little Englander. I'm also not arguing against trade. However, there's a big difference between fair trade and manipulative government to government deals cooked up to make Osborne and Cameron look good in photo opportunities whilst they pose in front of nuclear sites, with dodgy Chinese investment coming in


IN what way is it dodgy? Because it's Chinese. That would be racism.

As a researcher, surely you should know that you need to back up your claims with impartial evidence. Otherwise you are just the same as the other backward idiots who generalise based on race.
Original post by Wired_1800

I don’t want to highjack this thread (sorry to the OP), but we need to give Corbyn a chance to Lead the party rather than having to fight mutiny every few months.


Leadership is not about being appointed to a figurehead position and expecting the "team" to do as you say. It is about having the personal characteristics necessary to make things happen, even when the "team" does not agree with you, or is unmotivated.

Corbyn has clearly demonstrated that he couldn't lead a cow to market. He fails to respond to criticism, or to feedback, is indecisive and unable to impose himself. Those attributes do not bode well for leadership.
Original post by Casserole
IN what way is it dodgy? Because it's Chinese. That would be racism.


Being against something emanating from China is not racist. Being against free trade with China has nothing whatever to do with the racial characteristics of the Chinese people, but has everything to do with the Chinese political structure and the way it behaves. Surely that is obvious?

It would be extraordinary if we couldn't take advantage of the situation to negotiate a deal that is acceptable and beneficial to the British economy. A deal with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as reported in the Times this morning, also appears both strongly possible and beneficial.

Leaving the EU seems likely to herald the start of a new era of strong British trade with the rest of the world.
Does this mean we import more noodles?

If so, win win tbh
Original post by Good bloke
Being against something emanating from China is not racist. .



Most people who live in China are (duh) Chinese. So the implication is there.

Furthermore, she did not back up her point. She just said it was dodgy, with the only association it being China.
Original post by Casserole
Most people who live in China are (duh) Chinese. So the implication is there.

Furthermore, she did not back up her point. She just said it was dodgy, with the only association it being China.


Don't be childish. In the context of a discussion about trade with China ( a country with an odd political system, aggression and a history of human rights abuses) no sensible person would ascribe racist motives to a dislike of a potential trade deal. There are plenty of political, philosophical and trade reasons for such a dislike.
Original post by Good bloke
Leadership is not about being appointed to a figurehead position and expecting the "team" to do as you say. It is about having the personal characteristics necessary to make things happen, even when the "team" does not agree with you, or is unmotivated.

Corbyn has clearly demonstrated that he couldn't lead a cow to market. He fails to respond to criticism, or to feedback, is indecisive and unable to impose himself. Those attributes do not bode well for leadership.


We should be careful when politicians try to dictate who they want to lead them despite the overwhelming support of the people that they serve.

If the "team" refuses to follow their mandated leader, they should leave the Party and go form another one. The UK is a democratic nation and political parties must reflect the will of the people, who in this case is Jeremy Corbyn for Labour.

In a company, if this happened, it will be either a mass firing of the "team" or the CEO leaves. Since the CEO has a strong mandate to stay and move the company forward, the "team" must follow their CEO or leave the company.

Since Jeremy Corbyn was elected as Leader, the number of Labour members have increased to as high as when Tony Blair was at his peak popularity.

Yes, of course, Corbyn is more traditionalist. People need to give chance to different forms of leadership. Enough of the sort of leadership, where you go from shouting at the Debating Unions of Oxford and Cambridge to shouting in the Halls of Westminster.

Corbyn has barely stayed in the job for 1 year and MPs are trying to push him out to allow the sort of moronic leadership of Ed Miliband, who was so unpopular, the Tories had an easy election in 2015.

Just to put it in context, Gordon Brown won more seats as an unpopular PM than Ed Miliband as the new face of Labour.

Corbyn should be given a chance and then judged later. It is this sort of lazy unintelligent form of politics that is being shown by some of the Remain campaigners in the post EU referendum fallout.
Original post by Wired_1800

In a company, if this happened, it will be either a mass firing of the "team" or the CEO leaves. Since the CEO has a strong mandate to stay and move the company forward, the "team" must follow their CEO or leave the company.


You are completely wrong. It is only politicians who talk of popular mandates. If a CEO is incapable of carrying his team along with him he is an inadequate leader, by definition.

The popular mandate can be summed up by the slogan Eat excrement, a billion, billion flies cannot be wrong.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 50
Original post by Fullofsurprises
I wanted Hilary Benn, but alas, he chickened out.

Tbh, I think the referendum shows clearly why Corbyn isn't up to it - he's a Leaver, he's always been a Leaver and he still is a Leaver. Why the hell didn't he say so then? If he had an ounce of real guts he would have done. Instead, we were treated to the farce that he was supposedly for Remain, but utter silence from him at nearly every important stage. He's popped up after the result for example to show his opposition to racism and immigrant-bashing, but not to my knowledge during it. He makes tweets and says the odd thing, but generally he hates appearing in the media, he dislikes interviews and he won't participate in most things he is invited to. Do you not think that as a minimum he should (a) be honest about his views and (b) as a basic for a modern leader, engage with the media?

I'm sure he's a decent guy (although it's clear that at times he is still engaged in SWP-style Trot organising and the sneaky internal manipulations that go with that) but he isn't the leader of a national party of opposition, he's a factionalist and he represents a small element, albeit, a well organised one via social media and the disastrous 'instant voting membership for £3' policy sufficient to get him in against the lacklustre people who stood against him.

However, I agree that Labour generally is in disarray and suffering from a chronic lack of leadership across the board, as we saw with Benn and Umunna. The after-effects of cynicism around Blair are also keeping supporters away and potential leaders below the parapet.


You wanted Hilary Benn? Fullofsurprises supporting someone who voted for the Iraq war and supports what in any other politician you would describe as neoliberal economics?
Original post by Fenice
You wanted Hilary Benn? Fullofsurprises supporting someone who voted for the Iraq war and supports what in any other politician you would describe as neoliberal economics?


Neither progressive not leftie are synonymous with consistent or logical, you know.
Reply 52
I would like to know what exactly Angela Eagle is playing at

It is almost as if she is a secret Corbynite who took the rebel crown to make as crap a go of unseating him as was possible without arousing suspicion.

She has demonstrated a total lack of leadership and seems to be entirely at the behest of the very person she said was not a strong leader
Original post by Good bloke
You are completely wrong. It is only politicians who talk of popular mandates. If a CEO is incapable of carrying his team along with him he is an inadequate leader, by definition.

The popular mandate can be summed up by the slogan Eat excrement, a billion, billion flies cannot be wrong.


What I meant by the CEO example was that if the CEO had the mandate of the shareholders and the Supervisory board, but the Executive Board (running the daily operations of the company) clearly don't want him, then the Executive Board may be forced out.

I think that Corbyn should be given some time to show himself.
Original post by Casserole
IN what way is it dodgy? Because it's Chinese. That would be racism.

As a researcher, surely you should know that you need to back up your claims with impartial evidence. Otherwise you are just the same as the other backward idiots who generalise based on race.


Perhaps 'dodgy' isn't quite the right word. I was talking about the background to a deal that is completely in China's interests and not much in ours. I regard that as a dodgy situation.

It's as if the manager of an old people's home is in need of funds for a new extension. He brings in some investors who agree to the loan, provided that an exceptionally high price is charged to the residents for the next 50 years, something they have no control over. The manager is only temporarily in the job and he feels it will make him look good, so he signs on the dotted line and has his picture taken with the investors, who are delighted with the deal. The only people who aren't are the residents, but they have an odd sort of contract which means they and their families have no choice but to pay these extremely high fees going forwards.

Would you describe that situation as 'normal'?
Original post by Wired_1800

I think that Corbyn should be given some time to show himself.


By any sensible criteria, he has had plenty of opportunity to show himself. Leadership opportunities have presented themselves over the referendum, over anti-Semitism, over Andrew Fisher, and over his potential finger on the nuclear trigger. He has failed them all.

I'm sure, though, that those opposed to the Labour party are fairly unanimously pleased at its current self-immolation.
I want a comprehensive guide from every single Brexiter on why this is a sure-fire way of strengthening our economy and raising it to levels greater than it has ever been. Because this isn't.
Original post by Good bloke
Neither progressive not leftie are synonymous with consistent or logical, you know.


The neoliberal smear against Benn is misplaced, he's a decent guy with sound views on many topics. He also (it was thought) had leadership abilities and he has the charisma and sincerity to win many people over, whilst not putting off the sort of middle class progressive voters that Labour also needs to win and who are unlikely to support Corbyn.

I don't think he's a miracle cure or anything, but he would have been a good choice. Angela Eagle and Tom Watson would also both be better than Corbyn. I support many of Corbyn's views, I just think he's shown that he's terrible at communicating them to major groups of the electorate, so even if his base is 250,000 members or whatever the number is that can be attributed to him, it's still not going to mean much when it comes to the general election sadly.
Original post by tanyapotter
Because this isn't.


You forgot to include your sure-fire quide on why you said this.
Original post by Good bloke
By any sensible criteria, he has had plenty of opportunity to show himself. Leadership opportunities have presented themselves over the referendum, over anti-Semitism, over Andrew Fisher, and over his potential finger on the nuclear trigger. He has failed them all.

I'm sure, though, that those opposed to the Labour party are fairly unanimously pleased at its current self-immolation.


Corbyn has had a very tough 9 months. I agree, there are so many issues in the Party that need solving, but Corbyn is flushing them out. However, having to fight everyday to keep his job as Leader will not help matters.

Even a world-class teacher won't be very effective if she is faced with losing her job every single day, she goes to work.

Despite the apparent resentment towards Corbyn, he has won all by-elections under his leadership. This is the same man that people said will shed votes and lose elections.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending