Translate

Showing posts with label Justin Webb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justin Webb. Show all posts

Friday, 20 April 2018

Singapore's next Prime Minister (probably) gives remoaners a dressing down on the Today Programme and also some well-meant advice


Could this very impressive Singaporean politician be the next Prime Minister of Singapore?



From 2:31

Justin Webb:

The 200th anniversary of the founding of Singapore is next year and to mark it there is going to be a new and substantive partnership between Singapore and the UK - that is what we are told. What might that mean though in a post-Brexit world, in particular of course what's going to happen to trade. The Singapore-EU Trade Agreement is going to come into force next year. Will we be part of that? The Minister for Foreign Affairs in the government of Singapore is going to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and he is here in the studio. What is status of that trade deal with the EU because it took a long time to arrange. Is it now definitely now coming into action?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Ah well, there's still one more step: it needs to be ratified. We hope that will be done some time later this year and then we can bring it into force next year.

Justin Webb:

And if it comes into force next year it comes at a ticklish time, doesn't it [provocative giggle], because Britain in theory at least probably in practice is going out of the European Union and involved then in a transition arrangement - a set of transition arrangements - in the EU. Is that going to be part of the ...

Vivian Balakrishnan:

[interrupting firmly] No, in fact that's all the more reason why it is important to get it done this year. If we can get it ratified and into force next year, then when Britain leaves or invokes the Brexit clause, we will make what we call continuity arrangements which will allow us to support the provisions of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement to Britain. 

Justin Webb:

[provocatively] Are you happy to do that?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Yes, we will be happy to do that.

Justin Webb:

Because the argument has been in the past that those supporting arrangements wouldn't always be so easy, for instance with South Korea where actually it is a different set of arrangements and there might be different things that you want to be included in those arrangements. You're saying not so?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Well, Britain and Singapore have a special relationship. We're both free traders. We believe in integration, we believe in economic interdependence and we are keen to help Britain get across this transition with minimal disruption. In due time we can subsequently look to upgrade, modify or improve the agreement, but it is very important in this transition period not to have a hard stop.

Justin Webb:

So all the benefits of the free trade arrangement that you will have between Singapore and the EU will continue to be felt by Britain after Britain has left the European Union. 

Vivian Balakrishnan:

That's our hope. Now obviously it depends on the EU making that offer to allow for the continuity arrangements. It depends on the UK also agreeing to this, but I am indicating that Singapore is open for business and we want to maintain ... 

Justin Webb:

Just fill out why the EU is involved in that decision. 

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Well, Britain is still part of the EU.

Justin Webb:

No, but once it has left.  

Vivian Balakrishnan:

This offer for continuity at this point in time needs to be made by the EU to us so that's not  something which the United Kingdom needs to settle with the EU in order for this continuity arrangement to be made. But what we are signalling unequivocably is that we want our trade relations with the United Kingdom to continue, to continue without disruption and in fact to build upon it.

Justin Webb:

[persistently] One of the big things that people talk about is the difficulties of these arrangements and it's been mentioned with South Korea and other countries as well is this highly complex areas such as Rules of Origin where something that is made in a country but comes into that country from other places can or cannot be counted as an export form that country. Is that an issue in this?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Not really for us. You know, Singapore has got about 21 free trade arrangements and another three subject to rectification and we are also negotiating another half a dozen or more. These issues with Rules of Origin, I mean, that's a whole body of negotiations which we can rely on, so I don't expect this to be an issue.

Justin Webb:

[desperately] A high quality car, an expensive car exported at the moment from Britain to Singapore, made right around Europe, bits of it coming from all sorts of countries - when Britain has left the European Union - assuming it does - you're saying there won't be an issue about the fact of that car built in other places?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

During the continuity period, we will follow the same Rules of Origin that are currently agreed on in the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. So I don't view that as a problem.  

Justin Webb:

People often talk about the choices Britain has to make now and one of the choices is to become a kind of Singapore and becoming a kind of Europe. You laugh. Why?

Vivian Balakrishnan:

I don't think the analogy is in any way appropriate. Singapore is a tiny city-state, a small low-lying island in the heart of South East Asia. The United Kingdom is on a completely different scale, and you're located in a completely different part of the world with different challenges and opportunities. [reprovingly] I think the question of Brexit is something for the UK voters and the UK voters have decided.  

Justin Webb:

[even more desperately] But don't you think this is an attitude of mind - because there is now a division in this country between those who say we should become a much freer trading country and a much more open country and a country perhaps with fewer safety nets etc and that is how people see Singapore whether or not that is actually the case and those who sort of want to go down the European route really and we're doing the complete opposite. 

Vivian Balakrishnan:

Well, if you don't mind, since this is a Commonwealth meeting. [Reminding the British of their own history] It is worth reflecting that the Commonwealth exists because the Industrial Revolution began in England three centuries ago, and, if you think about the Commonwealth, and if you recall the old system of Imperial Preferences - the Commonwealth was a trading bloc. The key ingredient for the future is mastering the technological revolution that's occurring now and then maintaining an open inclusive rules-based approach to trade, movement of people ideas - that's how you create future jobs. You're absolutely right: it is about a frame of mind. [He left unsaid "and your government is not in the right frame of mind to do this because you are degenerates and headless chickens without a hope in hell of promoting the national interest because this concept is not even on your political horizon."] So I'm not so much caught up with the details of Brexit but the mindset and attitude. To understand that there is another new technological revolution occurring now, and the most important thing is to make sure our people have the skills, the qualifications for tomorrow's jobs, not arguing about yesterday's technology and yesterday's arrangements. Now, in the same way, from Singapore, you need to understand that we have a very unique perspective. We're the fourth largest financial centre, the second busiest port in the world. For us, our trading volume is three times our GDP. No one else in the world has that kind of ratio. For us, when we say we believe in free trade, it's not a negotiating point, it's our lifeblood [not something we just pay lip service to, unlike you]. 

Justin Webb:

[Possibly a little ashamed of himself after being reproved for his obvious agenda to get the Singaporean Foreign Minister to make trouble over Brexit for his own country and for his arrant disloyalty by a former colonial subject] Dr Balakrishnan, thank you.  

Monday, 1 August 2016

An American Muslim explains why he supports Trump and rejects low-energy liberal politicians

 Hillary Clinton praises the Muslim parents of a son who died serving as an American soldier during the Iraq invasion

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-pushes-back-against-father-of-fallen-muslim-soldier-1469986267

From 1:17

The mother of an American Muslim soldier killed in Iraq has accused the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of being ignorant of Islam after he mocked her appearance at Thursday's Democratic Party National Convention. Sajid Tarar is the founder of the American Muslims for Trump group.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07m50lr

Justin Webb:

Do you think he has over-stepped the mark now, that there is a chance that this rebounds against him in a way that previous things he has said hasn't?

Nope, because Muslim parents whose son died during the Iraq invasion serving as an American soldier should be ashamed rather than proud of themselves. Neocon wars are wars of Western imperialism whose raison d'etre is to invade Muslim countries and steal their oil while pretending to their sheeple that they are doing it to for "human rights" reasons. The sheeple being sheeple obediently consume this crap and are outraged when they suffer from Muslim terrorism, because this means Muslims are not grateful to the West for invading their countries.

Sajid Tarar makes the point that Clinton has 40 years' experience in politics and Tim Kaine 20 to 25 years' experience. They have at least 20+ Ivy League staffers writing their speeches.

The beauty of Donald Trump - he says whatever he feels like. That's what we need. Donald Trump is re-writing the history of American democracy, because these people with 40, 45 years' experience - these people have failed Washington DC. Washington DC has become a non-functional town. Since he has started his candidacy the liberal media is trying to twist everything single thing in the US against him. Donald Trump said he wanted to ban Muslims with exceptions: from the war torn countries. The media is forgetting the second part. He's saying he wants to build the wall, but with doors, where people can legally come in, but they omitted the door part. Even now he is saying he is not using the name Islam or Muslim. He just wants to ban the terrorists. I am an American Muslim. I want to see America safe, I want to see the world safe, and I am tired of low-energy politicians. Britain coming out of the EU is the biggest example that socialist globalisation is not the solution - it's not going to work. I am in favour of strong leadership. Barack Obama in eight years didn't do anything for Muslims. ISIS grew up on Hillary Clinton's watch. Her failed policies have helped terrorists and ISIS to grow up. That's what we don't want. I want a strong leader to command the US and make America safe. My kids are living in fear. If anything happens here in this country, we all start praying it's not another Muslim. Look at what is going on in France and Belgium and everywhere. I want a happy and safe Europe and a safe Middle East. This is what the issue is: Europe is facing low-energy politicians and people are rejecting the legacy politics and people are sick of professional politicians.

http://theislamicmonthly.com/the-reaction-to-my-prayer-at-the-rnc-should-make-america-reflect/

Saturday, 29 September 2012

Shall we have more female MPs to turn this country into shit sooner rather than later?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9755000/9755937.stm


0848
Could the UK's MP's work on a job-share basis? Meg Hillier, Labour MP for Hackney South debates the possibility with David Amess, Conservative MP for Southend West.


There was a letter to The Guardian about getting MPs to job-share to get more women into Parliament.   Would this widen the talent pool?  Could this work in the world of politics?

Justin Webb conducts the interview.

MH:

There is no reason why two sensible people can't work out how to job share as an MP and present it to the electorate as an option.

JW:

On the practical side of it, two people present themselves as a duo at an election, saying "We know each other, we trust each other.  This is our programme together.  Obviously and we support the same political party.  The people may cast one vote, but it is for those two people.

MH:

Exactly.  You see that already in East London Primary Care Trust.  Presumably they both had to go to the interview for the job.  Similarly, there was a senior job in planning in local government where two women applied.  It is more often women than men that job-share of course but not necessarily that.  I don't see why two practical people couldn't work out these issues about how they balance the work.

JW:

David Amess?

DA:

When I first heard this suggestion, I thought it was April Fool's Day.  Unless I have misunderstood the concept, I think it is absolutely raving bonkers.

JW:

Why?

DA:

This isn't the job that is appropriate for job-sharing, frankly.   Members of Parliament are elected through the democratic process and incidentally, we are trying to reduce the number of MPs not double them.

JW:

But you would still be elected democratically as Meg Hillier has just pointed out.

DA:

But you'd have double the number of MPs when everyone's complaining that we have too many politicians we want less politicians.  How would you get a couple of potential Members of Parliament to have the same views on everything?  It's crazy!

JW:

Meg Hillier, there is an issue of co-operation, isn't there, as there is in job's that are shared.  In politics where there is such a broad area of life you are looking at there will be areas that people even if they are in the same party might disagree and it might confuse people.

MH:

Let's be honest, David, both of us vote on the whipped line of the party we represent.  In the 7 years that I have been MP there have been 3 maybe 4 votes.  If you're not telling me that 2 sensible people couldn't work out an approach on how to deal with that as those issues arise ...

[Which is why Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html  should have been passed, but even my Tory MP was too lazy and thick to grasp its implications ie that this means all votes would be free votes.]

JW:

What if one of you wanted to rebel and the other didn't on an important government issue?

MH:

Then you would have to negotiate round that.  The idea that MPs can still kid themselves that our job is somehow so special and so different that the rules of the real world do not apply to us I think that is bonkers.     We really need to make sure that the best practice that is out there in other roles and we apply it to us.  In the end being MP is a job, a very privileged job, but in the end a job like any other.

JW:

David Amess, it is a way of getting in talent that isn't there at the moment  ... ?

DA:

This would really not be the approach and I really disagree with Meg.  I think our job has already been dumbed down - huge damage has been done - and to double the number of elected representatives ...

MH:

I don't think every MP in the House of Commons would go for a job-share right now.  We are really talking about a small number of people who might try this.

DA:

This is even more crazy.  For some constituencies where you might have MPs who job-share ...?!  This is really not like an ordinary job, Meg!  You say it is, but it isn't, but this is what has gone wrong with democracy at the moment but ...

[Interview ends after Meg Hillier makes some stupid egalitarian pronouncement: "The more we say we are different and special, the more"  I couldn't catch the rest.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Amess

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Hillier

David Amess sounded like one those mad callers from a radio phone-in while Meg Hillier sounded like one of the guests.  He was expostulating with outrage from some phone line somewhere while she was in the studio, her voice was clear, and on first name terms with "Justin" even as she was talking arrant pernicious nonsense.

Still she carried the dumbed down public, judging by the tweets about the exchange at https://twitter.com/i/#!/search/?q=David+Amess&src=typd

Of course she would be on Twitter while he would be too elderly and technophobic to do anything like that.

If I were advising politician, I would advise no politician to ever go on air if he would go on air calling from a bad phone line while his detractor is speaking calmly and clearly in the studio while being on first name terms with the host of the radio show.

This is of course a transparent attempt to double the number of female MPs so we can all die of feminism more quickly.

Do not forget, dear reader, every day in every way the feminists are putting more ground glass into our food that we gobble down so greedily.  

Perhaps it is better for us that death should come sooner rather than later.   

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...