Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Barack Obama: Brexit would put UK at 'back of the queue' in trade talks Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Yeah, I don't get this. How naive do you have to be to think that leaving the EU would stop TTIP?
    When did I say anything along those lines?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    It's literally not. It's a referendum on an international issue.
    If that's your logic, then who is elected US president has much more of an effect on the world stage than this ever could, yet the Americans would be outraged if Cameron went over there and started getting involved in their elections.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It is in the U.S.'s interests for the U.K. to stay in the EU. I don't think it's relevant for me to give a few examples of why, but I strongly disagree that this has anything to do with Obama's 'genuine analysis and opinion of the situation'. The interests of the British people are not relevant in his strategy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    It is in the U.S.'s interests for the U.K. to stay in the EU. I don't think it's relevant for me to give a few examples of why, but I strongly disagree that this has anything to do with Obama's 'genuine analysis and opinion of the situation'. The interests of the British people are not relevant in his strategy.
    Define interests of the British people?




    So many utter morons on this thread (not you aceadria). If Obama who is the president of the U.S. is telling Britain something about America accepting trade deals we should take that into consideration far more than what the mayor of London is saying. Obama may be leaving but the most likely replacement is going to be Hilary Clinton who is markedly similar.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsSheldonCooper)
    No idea why Obama's butting in. It isn't his problem at all.
    Because Britain's place in the world is important to US foreign policy?

    The "butting in" rhetoric is always the sign of a losing campaign. In the Scottish independence referendum, it was a constant refrain from the Scottish nationalists whenever a world leader - like Obama - spoke out about the importance of maintaining a unified United Kingdom. Had it been the other way around, they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops - but instead, it was just sour grapes because they had no-one of that standing backing them. The same goes for the Brexiteers: there is barely a single global figure of any standing that supports their position.

    (Original post by NickLCFC)
    Typical scaremongering. I'm pretty sure it would be in America's interests/main priorities to negotiate a trade deal with a country that has the 5th largest economy in the world. Let's not forget, this comes from a guy who won't even be President by the time we actually leave the EU (if we do).
    Please listen to what Obama actually said. He does address this point.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    If that's your logic, then who is elected US president has much more of an effect on the world stage than this ever could, yet the Americans would be outraged if Cameron went over there and started getting involved in their elections.
    A number of UK politicians have endorsed certain us candidates and plenty of world leaders have reacted with alarm at the idea of trump.

    The former Mexican president has recently said 'there is no effing way we're paying for that wall'.

    My god, how do the Americans tolerate such an intrusion into their democracy?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-politics-live

    Wonder what the leavers have to say about this. Probably the usual rambling about sovereignty, jihadis and immigrants taking our jobs.
    It's funny how the left always criticise the west and USA but when it comes to the EU they prove they will cost up to anyone. The Americans just want their TTIP with all of Europe, he doesn't give two ***** about our future. When did the left suddenly start to give in to big capitalist bullies. I must say, I thought Cameron was going to come out worse whatever the result but so will the left, you proved you are all Tony Blair types, say one thing and do a giant U-turn when you have vested interests
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    A number of UK politicians have endorsed certain us candidates and plenty of world leaders have reacted with alarm at the idea of trump.

    The former Mexican president has recently said 'there is no effing way we're paying for that wall'.

    My god, how do the Americans tolerate such an intrusion into their democracy?
    Have they actually gone over there and stood with Obama and said this though?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    The former Mexican president has recently said 'there is no effing way we're paying for that wall'.
    Seems like a matter of Mexican policy to me.

    Let's imagine David Cameron flying to New York a few days ago and writing a piece in the New York Times condemning Trump and endorsing Kasich. Does anyone seriously want to claim that that would be okay?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _icecream)
    Why is Obama even involved in this? lmao
    Out of interest

    If I set up a new party, (likely yo gain office) where I said we could set up a trade deal with China and they would pay us 10 billion pounds, and the Chinese premier wanted to voice his opinion on this (that there was no way this would happen) would that be acceptable to you?

    If not, why?

    If y,ou would, then that's why.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Seems like a matter of Mexican policy to me.

    Let's imagine David Cameron flying to New York a few days ago and writing a piece in the New York Times condemning Trump and endorsing Kasich. Does anyone seriously want to claim that that would be okay?
    Uhhhhhh, no. This would have potentially grievous effects on Mexico- US relations. The US public have a right to take into account how other countries would take to proposals. If I became Tory leader and said that Kazakhstan was going to give me fifty billion pounds to spend on the nhs because of this amazing trade deal I've negotiated with them and it's complete bogus, do you think that say the Kazakh premier or ambassador should keep quiet?

    in your example yes, why not? In the current example, vote leave has said we can get a better trade deal outside the EU. Obama, who is a trading partner has said we can't. Just because it upsets the delicate sensibilities of Ukippers doesnt mean that people have a right to make claims and be unable to properly scrutinised.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    Have they actually gone over there and stood with Obama and said this though?
    wtf is the difference?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Define interests of the British people?
    Well, historically, Britain has been heavily reliant on trade, especially trade with non-European nations. I appreciate the volumes have changed significantly in the last century (especially since India's independence). But my point, I feel, remains valid: the flexibility to negotiate trade deals is crucial for the British people to see an improvement in their standard of living (or for it to not diminish). In its current form, I don't think the EU is able to adapt accordingly. The primary reason for this is that far too many individual interests are pooled together, which will lead to conflict.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    wtf is the difference?
    A significant one - to travel to the country for the purpose of interfering, and standing beside the country's leader when doing so, is a big step up from making comments to the domestic press in your own country.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Uhhhhhh, no. This would have potentially grievous effects on Mexico- US relations. The US public have a right to take into account how other countries would take to proposals. If I became Tory leader and said that Kazakhstan was going to give me fifty billion pounds to spend on the nhs because of this amazing trade deal I've negotiated with them and it's complete bogus, do you think that say the Kazakh premier or ambassador should keep quiet?

    in your example yes, why not? In the current example, vote leave has said we can get a better trade deal outside the EU. Obama, who is a trading partner has said we can't. Just because it upsets the delicate sensibilities of Ukippers doesnt mean that people have a right to make claims and be unable to properly scrutinised.
    Yes, obviously we ought to take into account the likely American reaction, and American politicians are entitled to discuss what that might be. They are not entitled to come to this country and campaign one way or the other. Obama went beyond a discussion of American interests and started telling us about our own.

    The reason why not is that it is not appropriate for foreign leaders to involve themselves in other countries' democracies. As far as I know, this is pretty generally recognised.

    Incidentally, the Kazakh example is not an apt analogy. One reason why this is particularly annoying is that this is a close ally interfering in our democracy. Kazakhstan is not a close ally.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Well, historically, Britain has been heavily reliant on trade, especially trade with non-European nations. I appreciate the volumes have changed significantly in the last century (especially since India's independence). But my point, I feel, remains valid: the flexibility to negotiate trade deals is crucial for the British people to see an improvement in their standard of living (or for it to not diminish). In its current form, I don't think the EU is able to adapt accordingly. The primary reason for this is that far too many individual interests are pooled together, which will lead to conflict.
    Not so sure on that one. E.g Saudi arms deals. By your definition, that would be acting in britains interests but this would be against The people's wishes and could potentially destabilise the UK in the future,

    Iirc t he EU has more trade deals than any other state or similar entity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    A significant one - to travel to the country for the purpose of interfering, and standing beside the country's leader when doing so, is a big step up from making comments to the domestic press in your own country.
    You do realise global media has changed some what since the telegram?

    We are all massively interconnected. Hilary clintons campaign has shown a huge list of endorsements from foreign leaders which has played a part in her campaign. but this is besides the point- this is about one particular policy- ie remaining in the EU in which a nUmber of claims in which the U.S. is involved have been made.

    The intervention Obama made against Scottish independence is of far less pertinence in comparison.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03...eu-referendum/

    Sensible article in the Spectator.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03...eu-referendum/

    Sensible article in the Spectator.
    Alex Massie has been a Euro shill from the start. This is because he does not want to lose Scotland from the UK, which he thinks will follow from a leave vote.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Yes, obviously we ought to take into account the likely American reaction, and American politicians are entitled to discuss what that might be. They are not entitled to come to this country and campaign one way or the other. Obama went beyond a discussion of American interests and started telling us about our own.

    Campaign....Jesus. One speech.

    Quite often American and UK interests are the same. As vote leave have made claims about what the future relationship with countries such as America would be, then it is only fair that these can be substantiated.


    The reason why not is that it is not appropriate for foreign leaders to involve themselves in other countries' democracies. As far as I know, this is pretty generally recognised.

    Incidentally, the Kazakh example is not an apt analogy. One reason why this is particularly annoying is that this is a close ally interfering in our democracy. Kazakhstan is not a close ally.
    He's stating his opinion, which as a close ally we should heed.

    On your second point...,what? Who better than friends to say , look it's up to you mate, but this isn't going to work. But it's better for some randomer or someone hostile to go yeah it'll be fine.

    Don't forget we have channels like RT in our country. Whether open or not, countries will have an influence on our decision making as a democracy.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 30, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.