UK’s Johnson Would Meet Trump To Negotiate Trade Deal After Becoming Prime Minister:

[Gunny]

July 14, 2019
(Reuters) – Boris Johnson, the frontrunner to become Britain’s next prime minister would want to meet U.S. President Donald Trump within the first two months of becoming prime minister to negotiate a post-Brexit trade deal, the Times newspaper reported on Sunday citing an ally of the former London mayor.
“The key to the whole thing is the US. If we get a trade deal with America we will be very quickly in the market for other deals. It encourages others to realize that we mean business,” the newspaper quoted Johnson’s ally as saying.
The former foreign secretary is ready to travel to the United States as soon as possible if he becomes the prime minister to secure a limited agreement before the Brexit deadline of Oct. 31, the paper said.

https://www.oann.com/uks-johnson-wou...ter-the-times/

Looks like someone in the UK has a plan to escape European bondage

[Noir]

Which means he is not expecting the U.K. to be trading under WTO terms?

[Gunny]

Which means he is not expecting the U.K. to be trading under WTO terms?

Unfortunately for you, but not me, you'll have to wait for Drummond to explain the particulars. I don't pretend to understand the UK Government. It's a bigger mess than the US government.

I DO know a bad deal when I see one though. There's also the fact that socialism has never ended up in anything but failure. If Johnson's got a plan to dump Europe and the US can facilitate him in any way, I am all for it.

I can't understand people who aspire to be mediocre.

[Drummond]

Which means he is not expecting the U.K. to be trading under WTO terms?

As is true of many of your posts, Noir, I'm not following you.

People, here, no doubt (as a result of propaganda telling them so) expect the world to come crashing down around our ears, the moment Brexit is finally a reality.

This is, of course, crap.

If we leave without a deal, then WTO rules take over. We'll not get preferential trade perks that we had a right to experience, with the EU, as members of it. BUT, trade will continue ... perhaps not quite as lucratively as before, but, it will.

That's not to say that Member States' bureaucracies won't try to make life difficult, out of sheer spite. No doubt ports such as Calais will contrive some difficulties for us. [But then, what else could we expect of the French, eh ?]

Now ... why shouldn't we replace such newly-troublesome markets with those from friendlier powers, powers able to appreciate that the UK has a right to its own self-determination ?? Eh, Noir ? H'mm .. ??

Thanks to the enlightened policies and attitude of one Donald Trump, Noir, we have the hope of a new, highly prosperous, trading dawn. Exactly how prosperous, we've yet to find out. We shall, though, of course.

We'll do so by throwing off the EU's control-freaking shackles. Yes ... we'll be newly-empowered to do OUR deals, in OUR way !! How they're shaped, just how lucrative they'll be, WE will help control.

That has yet to be determined in detail.

You hate that prospect, don't you, Noir ? Tell me I'm wrong, if you can.

[Noir]

We'll do so by throwing off the EU's control-freaking shackles. Yes ... we'll be newly-empowered to do OUR deals, in OUR way !! How they're shaped, just how lucrative they'll be, WE will help control.

That has yet to be determined in detail.

No. We will be able to make deals under the regulations determined by the WTO.

Im sure you seen (at least clips) of Johnson’s car-crash interview with Neil when he tried to spout the same nonsense that’s in your post, no?

[Drummond]

No. We will be able to make deals under the regulations determined by the WTO.

Im sure you seen (at least clips) of Johnson’s car-crash interview with Neil when he tried to spout the same nonsense that’s in your post, no?

Not only did I see the interview with Andrew Neil, but I have it recorded. I may watch it again.

How was it a 'car crash' .. ?

If I remember correctly, the moment you're referring to was where Boris was being asked a question on Article 24, and Boris showed himself to be well versed on Paragraph 5b ... but not about 5c, which he had to admit he was unfamiliar with.

As to 'car crash' territory .. your bias is showing. It was nothing like as bad as you'd like to paint it (or, as bad as Neil tried to, showing his typical BBC bias). You'll recall that Boris also pulled Neil up on not even being clear about the difference between an Article and a paragraph .. ?

Perhaps you 'forgot' that little detail until now ?

Yes, I think I'll watch it again and refresh my memory. I think you're making more of this than is deserved ...

[Elessar]

No. We will be able to make deals under the regulations determined by the WTO.

Im sure you seen (at least clips) of Johnson’s car-crash interview with Neil when he tried to spout the same nonsense that’s in your post, no?

How deluded can you be? You argue against someone more knowledgeable and articulate than you,
yet insist your myopic view covers both the UK and USA.

Time to sit back and smell the tea.

[Drummond]

Not only did I see the interview with Andrew Neil, but I have it recorded. I may watch it again.

How was it a 'car crash' .. ?

If I remember correctly, the moment you're referring to was where Boris was being asked a question on Article 24, and Boris showed himself to be well versed on Paragraph 5b ... but not about 5c, which he had to admit he was unfamiliar with.

As to 'car crash' territory .. your bias is showing. It was nothing like as bad as you'd like to paint it (or, as bad as Neil tried to, showing his typical BBC bias). You'll recall that Boris also pulled Neil up on not even being clear about the difference between an Article and a paragraph .. ?

Perhaps you 'forgot' that little detail until now ?

Yes, I think I'll watch it again and refresh my memory. I think you're making more of this than is deserved ...

Ok, I've refreshed my memory.

Despite Neil's best efforts, Boris gave a good account of himself. Neil obviously wanted that 'car crash' moment, worked to create it, from a VERY aggressive interview .. but tripped himself up, every bit as he tried to trip Boris Johnson up.

So, to a little detail.

If we trade under straightforward WTO rules, it'll be as a result of Brexit having already happened, in conditions where no 'mitigating' trade conditions existed, as part of any agreed deal.

The point of Gatt 24, much less paragraph 5b, however, would be to negotiate with the goal in mind to reach a special accommodation with the WTO. Paragraph 5b is concerned with scope to continue trading, tariff-free, with the EU, for up to 10 years, following our EU exit. This is something YET to be agreed, if in fact it will be.

Boris is Boris; ever the optimist !! He confounds the BBC's 'doom & gloom' negativity with it.

See this:

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/the-news-...t-help-brexit/

Gatt is an abbreviation for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which came into being after the Second World War. Basically, it is a legal agreement that forms the basis for the trade in goods around the world today.

Gatt 24 is a piece of World Trade Organization law that allows tariff-free trade for up to 10 years while a permanent trade agreement is negotiated.

It applies to goods only - it has no effect on the trade in services or on issues such as regulations and standards.

Gatt 24 has been applied to interim agreements on rare occasions since the WTO was established in 1995, but never for anything as complex at the EU-UK relationship.

Maybe all this explains why the BBC repeatedly single out Boris for their most combative treatment ? Boris thinks he can make progress by invoking that Article's terms, and getting it done 'n' dusted as a 'done deal'. Hopefully he's right.

If he's right .. it counters all of the negativity the BBC delights in disseminating, claiming we're in for very dire times the moment we're out of the EU.

So, Noir, you stick with the fiction that Boris suffered his 'car crash'. You need that fiction, to mitigate other, more illuminating, factors ...

.... don't you ?

[Drummond]

How deluded can you be? You argue against someone more knowledgeable and articulate than you,
yet insist your myopic view covers both the UK and USA.

Time to sit back and smell the tea.

Noir was actually correct, when he said:

We will be able to make deals under the regulations determined by the WTO.

But for some reason, he thinks Boris Johnson was 'bested' in an interview when Johnson himself argued from that very position !

So, he couldn't recall one paragraph's wording (5c). It turned out not to be a pivotal detail, though.

But Noir still wants to demonise Boris Johnson's interview performance. Naturally he does. Anyone, and anything, giving us Brits hope that Brexit won't bring us to disaster, Noir needs to 'rubbish' as best he can.

He has his agenda.

I hope and trust that this snippet of information bears no relevance to Noir's anti-Boris stance .. ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

Johnson was born to British parents on 19 June 1964 in Manhattan's Upper East Side in New York City. His birth was registered with both the U.S authorities and the city's British Consulate, thereby granting him both American and British citizenship.

[Gunny]

Noir was actually correct, when he said:



But for some reason, he thinks Boris Johnson was 'bested' in an interview when Johnson himself argued from that very position !

So, he couldn't recall one paragraph's wording (5c). It turned out not to be a pivotal detail, though.

But Noir still wants to demonise Boris Johnson's interview performance. Naturally he does. Anyone, and anything, giving us Brits hope that Brexit won't bring us to disaster, Noir needs to 'rubbish' as best he can.

He has his agenda.

I hope and trust that this snippet of information bears no relevance to Noir's anti-Boris stance .. ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

Hypothetical (since the whole WTO crap is hypothetical at this point to begin with) ... How much weight does the WTO dictating to a country that just (hypothetically) walked out on a bad deal with the EU?

To quote an old saying: "You can't be first, but you CAN be next ...".

[Noir]

How was it a 'car crash'?

Andrew: You talk about article 5B in your-
Boris: Paragraph 5B Article 24. Get the detail right get the detail right Andrew it’s Article 24 Paragraph 5B.
Andrew: And how would you handle Paragraph 5C?
Boris: I would confide entirely in Paragraph 5B. That is-
Andrew: How would you get around what’s in Paragraph 5C?
Boris: I would confide entirely in Paragraph 5B which is enough for our purposes.
Andrew: Do you know what’s in 5C?
Boris: No.
Andrew: I thought you were a man of detail.
Boris: Well you didn’t even know if it was an article or a paragraph.
Andrew: Well that’s not a detail you told the Tory Hustings
Boris: There’s enough in Paragraph 5B to get us the agreement we want.
Andrew: No, 5C says that you don’t just need the EUs approval, you need to agree with the EU the shape of a future trade agreement and a timetable to getting towards it now can I just point out-
Boris: and why should that, can I ask you-
Andrew: okay I’ll tell you-
Boris: Why this defeatism? Why this negativity?

If you can read that and think it is anything other than a disastrous lack of understanding about how WTO regulation GATT24 will not support a no-deal Brexit as Boris is overtly stating , then I think you need to read it again.

[Drummond]

Andrew: You talk about article 5B in your-
Boris: Paragraph 5B Article 24. Get the detail right get the detail right Andrew it’s Article 24 Paragraph 5B.
Andrew: And how would you handle Paragraph 5C?
Boris: I would confide entirely in Paragraph 5B. That is-
Andrew: How would you get around what’s in Paragraph 5C?
Boris: I would confide entirely in Paragraph 5B which is enough for our purposes.
Andrew: Do you know what’s in 5C?
Boris: No.
Andrew: I thought you were a man of detail.
Boris: Well you didn’t even know if it was an article or a paragraph.
Andrew: Well that’s not a detail you told the Tory Hustings
Boris: There’s enough in Paragraph 5B to get us the agreement we want.
Andrew: No, 5C says that you don’t just need the EUs approval, you need to agree with the EU the shape of a future trade agreement and a timetable to getting towards it now can I just point out-
Boris: and why should that, can I ask you-
Andrew: okay I’ll tell you-
Boris: Why this defeatism? Why this negativity?

If you can read that and think it is anything other than a disastrous lack of understanding about how WTO regulation GATT24 will not support a no-deal Brexit as Boris is overtly stating , then I think you need to read it again.

Very good ! That looks like an accurate representation of that part of the interview to me.

Of course, you need to see the interview to get the full sense of exactly how aggressive Andrew Neil was being at the time. His intention to 'bury' Boris was perfectly clear.

Noir, we need to be clear on one point. GATT wasn't ever drafted, nor does it even exist, to specifically address our issue with the EU. It wasn't even aimed at the EU in the first place. To quote from the LBC link I posted before:

Gatt is an abbreviation for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which came into being after the Second World War. Basically, it is a legal agreement that forms the basis for the trade in goods around the world today.

You are further confusing (as did Andrew Neil, too) any understanding we will reach on our future trading relations with the Brexit 'deal' itself (if we ever do get one that the Commons will be content to ratify !). This was always meant to be a two-tier process, with the second tier following on from completion of the first tier (the 'deal' itself). The Brexit deal covered a lot more than issues of trade.

So even if we crash out minus a deal, there's still that second 'tier' to contend with ... and it's my understanding that the EU is claiming it'll be non-cooperative, as a reprisal. Their position: if we crash out, and, if we fail to pay them the 39 billion they expect (.. and, FOR WHAT ? It was 100 million, until we forced them to think again !) they say they'll agree to nothing about the future.

The real point here is Boris's optimism, and, I think, realism. He believes that the EU will be unwilling to go so far in its lack of cooperation that they'll not enter into those 'second tier' talks .. their 'non-cooperation' stance is one designed to bully us, a hostile negotiating trick to force us into greater compliance. We do a lot of trade with the EU (as the 'Remainers' never tire of reminding us), and just as, at present, we're tied into dependence on what that gives us, so the EU will also find it rather awkward to deal with the sudden trading 'hole' a lack of trade with us will give them. Some of their businesses will suffer disruption, just as ours will.

So, Gatt 24 has meaning and relevance. Yes, we may need the EU's agreement on future trading relations ... but, as Boris well knows, it's very much in the EU's interest to obtain the proper understanding about how that'll work. This is why paragraph 5c isn't the 'big deal' that Andrew Neil tried to vandalistically make it out to be.

'Why this defeatism ? Why this negativity ?'

That's what Boris asked of Andrew Neil [you confirm that yourself !]

It was an excellent question, one asked by an interviewee who was putting his interrogator firmly on the spot, confounding your 'car crash' allegation !!

Not only of Neil, but more generally, the BBC.

So tell me, Noir. How do you account for your own negativity on this ? What is it that drives YOURS ?

Final point: the EU just appointed Ursula von der Leyen as their EU Commission President. She wasted no time in declaring she was willing, if we asked for it, to extend the deadline for agreement beyond October.

What does this tell you ?

It surely tells you that Boris's optimism in expecting the EU to work towards greater pragmatism has a good basis to it. The EU likes to bully us. But Boris is aware of the nature of that tactic, and he knows to view it with realism; and, he's doing so.

His so-called 'car crash' of an interview, much to the dislike of Andrew Neil and yourself, showed as much.

Oh yes, and also: I'm still waiting for you to launch into any attack on Jeremy Hunt. WHY concentrate so much on Boris Johnson ?

[Drummond]

OK, Noir & folks. I've managed to find a video of the interview Noir and I are discussing.

Normally I'd go to the BBC's 'iPlayer' ... but this is useless for showing clips to anyone located beyond the UK's territory. I think this YouTube one will play internationally.

See for yourself, folks, just how combative Andrew Neil was being. It wasn't an interview so much as an outright attack on Boris Johnson, even to the point where Neil interrupted Boris's answers time and again, before he'd even finished giving them. A hostile argument on Neil's part, not a proper interview ....



[Sorry, but you need to open this in YouTube itself, so use the link, when you'll have to, where it says 'Watch this video on Youtube'. Tried to post as a video in the normal way, but the screen display isn't working as it used to ....]

[Noir]

When Boris was asked to expand on the detail of the plan that *he presented* as a way to move forward after Brexit, he was found to be completely lacking in knowledge of anything other than a single paragraph of the article that *he* said was relevant - to the point where he was literally completely ignorant of the following paragraph which stipulates conditions to be paragraph that he was apparently interested in.

Having this ignorance exposed, and then complaining that it’s exposer is “negativity” and “defeatism” is an expected response from someone with an ego like Boris, and he knows it’s exactly what his supporters would like to hear, for some reason unknown to me.

[Drummond]

When Boris was asked to expand on the detail of the plan that *he presented* as a way to move forward after Brexit, he was found to be completely lacking in knowledge of anything other than a single paragraph of the article that *he* said was relevant - to the point where he was literally completely ignorant of the following paragraph which stipulates conditions to be paragraph that he was apparently interested in.

Having this ignorance exposed, and then complaining that it’s exposer is “negativity” and “defeatism” is an expected response from someone with an ego like Boris, and he knows it’s exactly what his supporters would like to hear, for some reason unknown to me.

Still no critical comments against Jeremy Hunt, Noir. Not one. Oh, well ....

You're stating that 'he was found to be completely lacking in knowledge of anything other than a single paragraph of the article'. What nonsense !! What, apart from paragraphs 5b and 5c, was covered in Neil's questioning ? What possible basis do you have for judging what other parts of Gatt 24 Boris Johnson knew, or didn't know ??

Noir, kindly represent your argument with some actual honesty. All we DO KNOW is that Boris failed to know about just one paragraph. ONLY that. You cannot, reputably, claim any more than that without evidence to do so.

Boris believes that 5b covers his position. Do you know that it doesn't ? 5c covers a point of procedure which Boris is sure that the EU will find it in their interests to comply with to both their, and our, trade requirements.

Andrew Neil ... and, you, too ? ... prefer to rubbish matters to the point where negativity rules. That's not Boris's position. What makes you, and not Boris, right in this ?

Forget talk of 'ego', which you're making just to denigrate him. Nothing makes you better qualified to assess the realities in play than professional politicians such as Boris Johnson can do.

And if you want to continue your attacks on Boris (and, still, NOT Jeremy Hunt ? ...), be kind enough to tell us your real reason for it.

I ask: does Boris's right to hold dual nationality have anything to do with it ? [Boris Johnson was born in New York, so can claim American citizenship, if he ever chose to].