How it Works2 mins ago
Obama Vs. Trump And The Odd Reaction Of Middle England
Remember when President Obama talked of Britain possibly being put to the back of the queue of we left the EU?
Middle England collectively lost their minds.
Now, Trump has similarly stuck his oar into our business, and the same folk are twisting themselves up into an orgy of delight.
Are they giant gammon-centric hypocrites?
http://
Middle England collectively lost their minds.
Now, Trump has similarly stuck his oar into our business, and the same folk are twisting themselves up into an orgy of delight.
Are they giant gammon-centric hypocrites?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Skimming the article it seems to say that Donald Trump *could* threaten to drop plans for a trade deal with Britain... and that the US President *could* publicly urge the PM to abandon her Chequers Brexit plans. I guess there are many things folk could imagine Trump *could* do.
Judging from the video he seems to stress that it's not for him to say, although he does point out the obvious fact that the present plan isn't the clean break we voted for. Which I guess could imply that May is a damned liar when she makes out that her concessions deliver the Brexit that the UK voted for (thus losing her all credibilty now, if she had any to start with).
But I can't see how this is comparable to Obama's threat. An occasion when another politician threw away their credibility/respect and tried to alienate a country that his country is supposed to have a special relationship with.
Judging from the video he seems to stress that it's not for him to say, although he does point out the obvious fact that the present plan isn't the clean break we voted for. Which I guess could imply that May is a damned liar when she makes out that her concessions deliver the Brexit that the UK voted for (thus losing her all credibilty now, if she had any to start with).
But I can't see how this is comparable to Obama's threat. An occasion when another politician threw away their credibility/respect and tried to alienate a country that his country is supposed to have a special relationship with.
// President Trump's are aimed at influencing his fellow politicians.//
nope; or else he would say them in private to the politicians faces rather than tweeting and having the whole world and his dog......
I regard these things as rather obvious: it would be like a judge ( bless them all! ) insisting his remarks in court are for the barristers' benefit and not the jury - altho they may be there and you know sort of overhear them
yeah, right
by the way there is a bail question that needs answering ....
nope; or else he would say them in private to the politicians faces rather than tweeting and having the whole world and his dog......
I regard these things as rather obvious: it would be like a judge ( bless them all! ) insisting his remarks in court are for the barristers' benefit and not the jury - altho they may be there and you know sort of overhear them
yeah, right
by the way there is a bail question that needs answering ....
I've been considering this again, especially in light of the Sun stating that Trump has repeated the claims that a trade deal may not be possible if we opt to remain in the EU and just pretend we've left. I think there are two points; dealing with the minor one first.
Expectation. Obama was expected to be diplomatic to a friend and had no justification in claiming that he'd not be looking at a trade deal with us. It can only have been to try to manipulate the public to vote remain. His actions went against our decent expectations of him. Trump, on the other hand, is known for saying anything he thinks will benefit him and hang the consequences to others. That was our expectation of him, and "he didn't disappoint".
But there is a second related and more significant reason for a difference. As mentioned above, there was no legitimate reason for Obama to say anything. Trump, on the other hand, has spoken of a trade deal once we get out of the EU, as we voted for. If we go with this 'it says out but we're still in really' plot of May's, then the situation has been fundamentally changed. Trump's not going to want to be called a liar should we not get out and he then has to withdraw any trade offer, so it's important he points out that if one side doesn't do as they claimed, the agreements discussed, based on that false claim, can not be obligatory on the other side.
I'd rather neither said anything, but one can understand why Trump felt there was a need to.
Expectation. Obama was expected to be diplomatic to a friend and had no justification in claiming that he'd not be looking at a trade deal with us. It can only have been to try to manipulate the public to vote remain. His actions went against our decent expectations of him. Trump, on the other hand, is known for saying anything he thinks will benefit him and hang the consequences to others. That was our expectation of him, and "he didn't disappoint".
But there is a second related and more significant reason for a difference. As mentioned above, there was no legitimate reason for Obama to say anything. Trump, on the other hand, has spoken of a trade deal once we get out of the EU, as we voted for. If we go with this 'it says out but we're still in really' plot of May's, then the situation has been fundamentally changed. Trump's not going to want to be called a liar should we not get out and he then has to withdraw any trade offer, so it's important he points out that if one side doesn't do as they claimed, the agreements discussed, based on that false claim, can not be obligatory on the other side.
I'd rather neither said anything, but one can understand why Trump felt there was a need to.
I also wondered that. It seems American presidents are permitted to intervene in UK politics as long as you agree with them. The ethics of interference are neither here nor there.
But a good rule of thumb is to listen to what Trump says and do the opposite. This is not because he is a blimp, it's because in any negotiations US and UK interests will necessarily be opposed. It suits the US to have negotiate with small countries they can push around; from their point of view, the more that leave the EU, the better (and it helps America in its negotiations with the EU as well as with Britain).
But a good rule of thumb is to listen to what Trump says and do the opposite. This is not because he is a blimp, it's because in any negotiations US and UK interests will necessarily be opposed. It suits the US to have negotiate with small countries they can push around; from their point of view, the more that leave the EU, the better (and it helps America in its negotiations with the EU as well as with Britain).
Latest Posts
Editor's Blog32 mins ago
ChatterBank43 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles71 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.