6 ms·

I'm surprised that Britain is even behind this, as they might have been a bit nervous about the US response, considering their ongoing Brexit. This is a great

by colde 8y ago

I'm surprised that Britain is even behind this, as they might have been a bit nervous about the US response, considering their ongoing Brexit. This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world. I do think that this is a win for world stability though, trading tends to help relations, which helps stops all sort of unpleasantness. Whether this will be enough i don't know, but it seems like a good step forward.

shaki-dora 8y ago
It’s mostly a win for world stability because it preserves, to a limited degree, the notion that you can mutually agree, put it in writing, and count on the other side fulfilling its obligations as long as you do. Nobody with half a grasp of reality doubts that Iran was fulfilling its end of the nuclear deal. It’s entirely unclear why China, or North K, or really anybody should trust the US Government in the future. That means one of the arguably most important tools to avoid armed conflict was entirely eliminated from the US arsenal. What makes it even worse is that there just wasn’t any reason to do so, beyond some egotistical jingoism. Saudi Arabia is far worse in almost any observable category.
- colde 8y ago
  Absolutely. It's completely stupid to go back on a deal when they were upholding their end. It means that there is no point in any country doing long term deals with the US when they know the next president is just going to tear it up if they feel like.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    IIRC, the whole argument for rejecting the deal is that supposedly there was some hard evidence that Iran was not complying with it as expected. You may think that this purported evidence is BS, but let's not misrepresent positions here.
    - Tomte 8y ago
      Even the current administration admits that Iran is "technically" in compliance. That means theys fulfil all obligations they have signed up to. There is no "real" compliance beyond technical compliance. That's just wordplay. The problem is that the Iran deal is an Obama deal, so it must be wrong, and Iran's compliance is irrelevant.
- benj111 8y ago
  You seem to be getting downvoted, I'm not sure why. Anyone care to justify? Edit: Or just downvote me instead.
fredley 8y ago
> considering their ongoing Brexit One of the big campaigns for Leave was that the EU was dampening our ability to trade with the rest of the World. I guess maybe not then?
- ovi256 8y ago
  Do not mistake campaign arguments for facts. They're more of the "arguments as soldiers" variety. It's rational to only care how effective they are at influencing public oppinion, they're not peer reviewed publications.
  - benj111 8y ago
    Where do you stand morally? You may be right, but it's not right
    - ovi256 8y ago
      It doesn't matter where one stands. If you want to fight against, say, the people that run campaigns, you'll have to fight in their chosen arena, that of public oppinion and elections. It's empirically found effective to use "arguments as soldiers" in that arena. If we chose policies through a peer-reviewed search for truth, we wouldn't have this discussion.
      - benj111 8y ago
        But then it becomes a race to the bottom. So I think you need some enforcement of standards, whether moral or legal.
        ovi256 8y ago
        And to enforce standards, you better win some elections, right ? And how are you going to win them ?
- coldtea 8y ago
  Let's see in 10 years.
rv-de 8y ago
world politics is like a cooperative version of poker where every country is supposed to win occasionally. now trump just decided to just raise all the time and cashing in. but players now realize his hand isn't that strong (no pun intended) most of the time and they will adapt by staying in the game while recoordinating the cooperation. in the end the USA will get a smaller part of the cake than they used to - and that won't improve soon even after Trump due to new arrangements and lost trust.
- growlist 8y ago
  To an extent, capital now seems to route around barriers similarly to how the internet routes around network problems.
benj111 8y ago
Why? This means Britain will actually have one trade agreement by the time it leaves the EU. "This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world" Agreed, it does seem very short sighted. Once a system is in place, and it works, suddenly its very easy to apply that system to any other regime where the US doesn't agree with the rest of the world. Plus what's the point in 'rogue' states coming in from the cold, if the US are going to renage on their agreements.
- sscott 8y ago
  Because it'll be the worse trade deal anybody has signed in the history of the world for Britain.
  - benj111 8y ago
    But it'll also be the best that Britain has, so..... Glass half full, and all that.
morrbo 8y ago
Practically speaking, the UK is completely screwed when it gets to choose who to trade with post-brexit. The deal the US will make with the UK will effectively be too good for the US (US hold all the cards) for the UK to have any form of negotiating power. The US won't "not accept the deal" or "not make a trade deal with the UK" because UK trades with Iran, itt'l be too good for them to pass up. Itt'l be the only thing going that the UK can accept, no matter how bad it is, in an attempt to save face as they can't be seen to go back to trading with the EU especially on worse terms. This is devolving into a Brexit rant, but I can guarantee you that the US doesnt give two shits if the UK trades with Iran, they're rubbing their hands in anticipation of what is to come. UK knows this so is scrambling to do deals with whoever it can as soon as possible. This is my line of thinking anyway.
- rusk 8y ago
  In terms of trade, how is it exactly they can complement each other? The geography is a bit of an issue for actual physical goods, and I'm not sure what the UK produces that the US needs. Luxury cars maybe, but IIRC most of these marques aren't even owned by the UK any more, except for perhaps the high end. Cheap Bentley's for American oligarchs? Services, maybe - but again most of the core banking will move away from the UK post Brexit and even then there's a lot of overlap in competencies between the UK and USA. There's a lot of smart people in the UK for sure, but there's a lot of smart people in the US. I can't help but think the whole idea of a US/UK trade alliance is borne more of anglophone ideology than any kind of practicalities.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Top exports from the UK to the US, in order, appear to be: cars, pharmaceuticals and mechanical power generators, works of art and refined oil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666 Interestingly, the UK exports rather a lot more to the US than it imports from there. Edit: What is worrying is that investment in UK car building has drammetically reduced https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-car-manufacturing-falls-9-investment-plummets https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-car-manufactu...

by colde 8y ago

shaki-dora 8y ago

It’s mostly a win for world stability because it preserves, to a limited degree, the notion that you can mutually agree, put it in writing, and count on the other side fulfilling its obligations as long as you do. Nobody with half a grasp of reality doubts that Iran was fulfilling its end of the nuclear deal. It’s entirely unclear why China, or North K, or really anybody should trust the US Government in the future. That means one of the arguably most important tools to avoid armed conflict was entirely eliminated from the US arsenal. What makes it even worse is that there just wasn’t any reason to do so, beyond some egotistical jingoism. Saudi Arabia is far worse in almost any observable category.

colde 8y ago
Absolutely. It's completely stupid to go back on a deal when they were upholding their end. It means that there is no point in any country doing long term deals with the US when they know the next president is just going to tear it up if they feel like.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  IIRC, the whole argument for rejecting the deal is that supposedly there was some hard evidence that Iran was not complying with it as expected. You may think that this purported evidence is BS, but let's not misrepresent positions here.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Even the current administration admits that Iran is "technically" in compliance. That means theys fulfil all obligations they have signed up to. There is no "real" compliance beyond technical compliance. That's just wordplay. The problem is that the Iran deal is an Obama deal, so it must be wrong, and Iran's compliance is irrelevant.
benj111 8y ago
You seem to be getting downvoted, I'm not sure why. Anyone care to justify? Edit: Or just downvote me instead.

fredley 8y ago

> considering their ongoing Brexit One of the big campaigns for Leave was that the EU was dampening our ability to trade with the rest of the World. I guess maybe not then?

ovi256 8y ago
Do not mistake campaign arguments for facts. They're more of the "arguments as soldiers" variety. It's rational to only care how effective they are at influencing public oppinion, they're not peer reviewed publications.
- benj111 8y ago
  Where do you stand morally? You may be right, but it's not right
  - ovi256 8y ago
    It doesn't matter where one stands. If you want to fight against, say, the people that run campaigns, you'll have to fight in their chosen arena, that of public oppinion and elections. It's empirically found effective to use "arguments as soldiers" in that arena. If we chose policies through a peer-reviewed search for truth, we wouldn't have this discussion.
    - benj111 8y ago
      But then it becomes a race to the bottom. So I think you need some enforcement of standards, whether moral or legal.
      - ovi256 8y ago
        And to enforce standards, you better win some elections, right ? And how are you going to win them ?
coldtea 8y ago
Let's see in 10 years.

rv-de 8y ago

world politics is like a cooperative version of poker where every country is supposed to win occasionally. now trump just decided to just raise all the time and cashing in. but players now realize his hand isn't that strong (no pun intended) most of the time and they will adapt by staying in the game while recoordinating the cooperation. in the end the USA will get a smaller part of the cake than they used to - and that won't improve soon even after Trump due to new arrangements and lost trust.

growlist 8y ago
To an extent, capital now seems to route around barriers similarly to how the internet routes around network problems.

benj111 8y ago

Why? This means Britain will actually have one trade agreement by the time it leaves the EU. "This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world" Agreed, it does seem very short sighted. Once a system is in place, and it works, suddenly its very easy to apply that system to any other regime where the US doesn't agree with the rest of the world. Plus what's the point in 'rogue' states coming in from the cold, if the US are going to renage on their agreements.

sscott 8y ago
Because it'll be the worse trade deal anybody has signed in the history of the world for Britain.
- benj111 8y ago
  But it'll also be the best that Britain has, so..... Glass half full, and all that.

morrbo 8y ago

Practically speaking, the UK is completely screwed when it gets to choose who to trade with post-brexit. The deal the US will make with the UK will effectively be too good for the US (US hold all the cards) for the UK to have any form of negotiating power. The US won't "not accept the deal" or "not make a trade deal with the UK" because UK trades with Iran, itt'l be too good for them to pass up. Itt'l be the only thing going that the UK can accept, no matter how bad it is, in an attempt to save face as they can't be seen to go back to trading with the EU especially on worse terms. This is devolving into a Brexit rant, but I can guarantee you that the US doesnt give two shits if the UK trades with Iran, they're rubbing their hands in anticipation of what is to come. UK knows this so is scrambling to do deals with whoever it can as soon as possible. This is my line of thinking anyway.

rusk 8y ago
In terms of trade, how is it exactly they can complement each other? The geography is a bit of an issue for actual physical goods, and I'm not sure what the UK produces that the US needs. Luxury cars maybe, but IIRC most of these marques aren't even owned by the UK any more, except for perhaps the high end. Cheap Bentley's for American oligarchs? Services, maybe - but again most of the core banking will move away from the UK post Brexit and even then there's a lot of overlap in competencies between the UK and USA. There's a lot of smart people in the UK for sure, but there's a lot of smart people in the US. I can't help but think the whole idea of a US/UK trade alliance is borne more of anglophone ideology than any kind of practicalities.
- arethuza 8y ago
  Top exports from the UK to the US, in order, appear to be: cars, pharmaceuticals and mechanical power generators, works of art and refined oil: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666 Interestingly, the UK exports rather a lot more to the US than it imports from there. Edit: What is worrying is that investment in UK car building has drammetically reduced https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-car-manufacturing-falls-9-investment-plummets https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-car-manufactu...