Donald Trump
Comments
-
I can see this getting quite messy.bianchimoon wrote:
I see the EU (including Britain) has told it's companies to keep doing 'legal' business with IranThe Iran sanctions have officially been cast. These are the most biting sanctions ever imposed, and in November they ratchet up to yet another level. Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!
Go EU!European firms have been instructed that they should not comply with demands from the White House for them to drop all business with Iran. Those who decide to pull out because of US sanctions will need to be granted authorisation from the European commission, without which they face the risk of being sued by EU member states.
A mechanism has also been opened to allow EU businesses affected by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states.
I can see how the EU can rebutt the US with this approach where a European company has no US interests. However a significant proportion of EU based multinationals will have US operations or interests which the US could potentially take action against. If I were a business in that position I would not want to take the risk of massive US fines or prosecution in the US and rely on the EU to bail me out or sue the US govt."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I agree, if you have US interests it makes no sense to antagonise The Trump Organisation, a blow to Airbus it could have filled the gap left by Boeing, still there's always NKStevo 666 wrote:
I can see this getting quite messy.bianchimoon wrote:
I see the EU (including Britain) has told it's companies to keep doing 'legal' business with IranThe Iran sanctions have officially been cast. These are the most biting sanctions ever imposed, and in November they ratchet up to yet another level. Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!
Go EU!European firms have been instructed that they should not comply with demands from the White House for them to drop all business with Iran. Those who decide to pull out because of US sanctions will need to be granted authorisation from the European commission, without which they face the risk of being sued by EU member states.
A mechanism has also been opened to allow EU businesses affected by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states.
I can see how the EU can rebutt the US with this approach where a European company has no US interests. However a significant proportion of EU based multinationals will have US operations or interests which the US could potentially take action against. If I were a business in that position I would not want to take the risk of massive US fines or prosecution in the US and rely on the EU to bail me out or sue the US govt. All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
What about a worldwide retaliation? Not against the USA. No need, bad for everyone.
Just blackball all Trump interests. I'm doing my bit. Not that there was any to start with...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Trouble is, the majority of EU (and other) multinationals do have US interests, so I am sceptical as to how effective this EU blocking statute will be.bianchimoon wrote:
I agree, if you have US interests it makes no sense to antagonise The Trump Organisation, a blow to Airbus it could have filled the gap left by Boeing, still there's always NKStevo 666 wrote:
I can see this getting quite messy.bianchimoon wrote:
I see the EU (including Britain) has told it's companies to keep doing 'legal' business with IranThe Iran sanctions have officially been cast. These are the most biting sanctions ever imposed, and in November they ratchet up to yet another level. Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!
Go EU!European firms have been instructed that they should not comply with demands from the White House for them to drop all business with Iran. Those who decide to pull out because of US sanctions will need to be granted authorisation from the European commission, without which they face the risk of being sued by EU member states.
A mechanism has also been opened to allow EU businesses affected by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states.
I can see how the EU can rebutt the US with this approach where a European company has no US interests. However a significant proportion of EU based multinationals will have US operations or interests which the US could potentially take action against. If I were a business in that position I would not want to take the risk of massive US fines or prosecution in the US and rely on the EU to bail me out or sue the US govt."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Trouble is, the majority of EU (and other) multinationals do have US interests, so I am sceptical as to how effective this EU blocking statute will be.bianchimoon wrote:
I agree, if you have US interests it makes no sense to antagonise The Trump Organisation, a blow to Airbus it could have filled the gap left by Boeing, still there's always NKStevo 666 wrote:
I can see this getting quite messy.bianchimoon wrote:
I see the EU (including Britain) has told it's companies to keep doing 'legal' business with IranThe Iran sanctions have officially been cast. These are the most biting sanctions ever imposed, and in November they ratchet up to yet another level. Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!
Go EU!European firms have been instructed that they should not comply with demands from the White House for them to drop all business with Iran. Those who decide to pull out because of US sanctions will need to be granted authorisation from the European commission, without which they face the risk of being sued by EU member states.
A mechanism has also been opened to allow EU businesses affected by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states.
I can see how the EU can rebutt the US with this approach where a European company has no US interests. However a significant proportion of EU based multinationals will have US operations or interests which the US could potentially take action against. If I were a business in that position I would not want to take the risk of massive US fines or prosecution in the US and rely on the EU to bail me out or sue the US govt.
Agreed, but what it now shows is a fundamental shift in the worlds stance towards the US demands. In political terms, this statement from the EU, albeit in practice for firms is not much potentially in real life, does show how the ROW is turning against the USA. The wording is actually strong as normally all you get is we are disappointed etc.
For once, I think the EU is bluntly stating they've had enough of Trump0 -
Me too, but I applaud them for making the statement.Stevo 666 wrote:
Trouble is, the majority of EU (and other) multinationals do have US interests, so I am sceptical as to how effective this EU blocking statute will be.bianchimoon wrote:
I agree, if you have US interests it makes no sense to antagonise The Trump Organisation, a blow to Airbus it could have filled the gap left by Boeing, still there's always NKStevo 666 wrote:
I can see this getting quite messy.bianchimoon wrote:
I see the EU (including Britain) has told it's companies to keep doing 'legal' business with IranThe Iran sanctions have officially been cast. These are the most biting sanctions ever imposed, and in November they ratchet up to yet another level. Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!
Go EU!European firms have been instructed that they should not comply with demands from the White House for them to drop all business with Iran. Those who decide to pull out because of US sanctions will need to be granted authorisation from the European commission, without which they face the risk of being sued by EU member states.
A mechanism has also been opened to allow EU businesses affected by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states.
I can see how the EU can rebutt the US with this approach where a European company has no US interests. However a significant proportion of EU based multinationals will have US operations or interests which the US could potentially take action against. If I were a business in that position I would not want to take the risk of massive US fines or prosecution in the US and rely on the EU to bail me out or sue the US govt.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Trouble is, the majority of EU (and other) multinationals do have US interests, so I am sceptical as to how effective this EU blocking statute will be.bianchimoon wrote:
I agree, if you have US interests it makes no sense to antagonise The Trump Organisation, a blow to Airbus it could have filled the gap left by Boeing, still there's always NKStevo 666 wrote:
I can see this getting quite messy.bianchimoon wrote:
I see the EU (including Britain) has told it's companies to keep doing 'legal' business with IranThe Iran sanctions have officially been cast. These are the most biting sanctions ever imposed, and in November they ratchet up to yet another level. Anyone doing business with Iran will NOT be doing business with the United States. I am asking for WORLD PEACE, nothing less!
Go EU!European firms have been instructed that they should not comply with demands from the White House for them to drop all business with Iran. Those who decide to pull out because of US sanctions will need to be granted authorisation from the European commission, without which they face the risk of being sued by EU member states.
A mechanism has also been opened to allow EU businesses affected by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states.
I can see how the EU can rebutt the US with this approach where a European company has no US interests. However a significant proportion of EU based multinationals will have US operations or interests which the US could potentially take action against. If I were a business in that position I would not want to take the risk of massive US fines or prosecution in the US and rely on the EU to bail me out or sue the US govt.
Good luck to any EU company doing business with Iran and not also doing business with any US company. Pretty much impossible, I'd have thought.0 -
@ Weezy & Bianchi - fair point, as sometimes the EU can be seen to be lacking a bit of spine when it comes to international affairs. To make it more effective they should look to threaten countermeasures against US multinationals with EU interests (which will also be the majority), rather than simply offering a possibly very leaky defence for EU based companies."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
"the EU can be seen to be lacking a bit of spine when it comes to international affairs. "
Examples being?0 -
looks like his star may be going.......Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:looks like his star may be going.......
Costs $30,000 to get a star apparently - wonder who stumped up for that? Would be amazed if it came out of his pocket.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:@ Weezy & Bianchi - fair point, as sometimes the EU can be seen to be lacking a bit of spine when it comes to international affairs. To make it more effective they should look to threaten countermeasures against US multinationals with EU interests (which will also be the majority), rather than simply offering a possibly very leaky defence for EU based companies.
This is just grandstanding
Even when the sanctions had supposedly been lifted our bank would not let us take money from Iran. Our CEO had signed an undertaking and they would fire us if they did so. So yes you can do business with Iran (with exemptions) but you need a bank that does not give a sh1t about US fines/sanctions and then to make very sure that money does not hit your main bank account. Even then I would probably not visit the US or overfly (eg Sepp Blatter) or you could find yourself in an orange jumpsuit facing bankruptcy and 200 years in jail or plead guilty and get seven out after three.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:looks like his star may be going.......
Costs $30,000 to get a star apparently - wonder who stumped up for that? Would be amazed if it came out of his pocket.
its from 2007 so probably him.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:@ Weezy & Bianchi - fair point, as sometimes the EU can be seen to be lacking a bit of spine when it comes to international affairs. To make it more effective they should look to threaten countermeasures against US multinationals with EU interests (which will also be the majority), rather than simply offering a possibly very leaky defence for EU based companies.
Well they have in the past seemed to not really make the statements with the necessary wording. This is a strong statement, even though realistically it hinders dealing with Iran commercially. However, it does make it clear that the US cannot dictate the global scene and they are losing their grip / face, even though in reality behind the scenes there are more complex matters.
It's one more in the book of Trump isolating the USA from the world stage. If they don't alter soon then a changing of the guard will occur and yes, I do agree that if we (EU) are adamant at not allowing the US to retaliate to EU companies with US interests, then retaliatory measures are required, unfortunately, and not just words and legalese. Although as pointed out elsewhere, this just makes the whole thing a big mess.0 -
Just watched the GOP candidate for Ohio give his rather premature victory speech
:roll:I'm going to do all i can to keep America great again
Trump claimed GOP candidate was down 34/64 in the polls before he gave his endorsement (total lie) in a state that the GOP had held for 30+ years (possibly a lot more). Anyway less than 1% in it might be a recount!, but almost a small victory for sanity All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
surprised he didn't say "i can go out onto 5th avenue and tell you to vote for the wrong candidate, and yet still my man will win"Matthewfalle wrote:All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
About the commerce secretary: "all told, these allegations—which sparked lawsuits, reimbursements and an SEC fine—come to more than $120 million. If even half of the accusations are legitimate, the current United States secretary of commerce could rank among the biggest grifters in American history."
It's almost like this administration is all corrupt....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand ... -grifting/0 -
Mannefort, Gates, Cohen, Pruit, Porter, Mulveney, Carson, Price, Zinc, Mnuchin, Fitzgerald... that's before the big fishKingstonGraham wrote:About the commerce secretary: "all told, these allegations—which sparked lawsuits, reimbursements and an SEC fine—come to more than $120 million. If even half of the accusations are legitimate, the current United States secretary of commerce could rank among the biggest grifters in American history."
It's almost like this administration is all corrupt....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand ... -grifting/All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Another Trump surrogate GOP Rep Chris Collins just arrested for insider trading... draining that swamp All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0
-
Whatever crimes these swamp dwellers are found guilty of they will most likely get pardoned by Trump as a) he hired them for their lack of ethics and b) in Trump's mind he will believe such financial crimes are legal.0
-
You can't make some shit up.
'EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing'
https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbes ... facturing/
And it gets weirder.
'Earlier last month, The Washington Post noted that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the ADAO had discovered a controversial post on Russian asbestos exporter Uralasbest’s Facebook page showing photos of company pallets stamped with a seal of U.S. President Donald Trump’s face.'
The seal reads 'Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States'
I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
friends of Trump obviously have major shares in an asbestos company?cooldad wrote:You can't make some shoot up.
'EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing'
https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbes ... facturing/
And it gets weirder.
'Earlier last month, The Washington Post noted that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the ADAO had discovered a controversial post on Russian asbestos exporter Uralasbest’s Facebook page showing photos of company pallets stamped with a seal of U.S. President Donald Trump’s face.'
The seal reads 'Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States'All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
overall though, that is quite cool.
mf is going to have a stamp made and go around stamping things with his face and the "approved" wording.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:overall though, that is quite cool.
mf is going to have a stamp made and go around stamping things with his face and the "approved" wording.
'Approved by Matthewfalle, well known spazwangle'I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
bianchimoon wrote:friends of Trump obviously have major shares in an asbestos company?
friends of Putin apparently.0 -
EPA approved for stuffing children s toys and comfort blankets. Suitable for Medicare funded incubators.bianchimoon wrote:
friends of Trump obviously have major shares in an asbestos company?cooldad wrote:You can't make some shoot up.
'EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing'
https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbes ... facturing/
And it gets weirder.
'Earlier last month, The Washington Post noted that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the ADAO had discovered a controversial post on Russian asbestos exporter Uralasbest’s Facebook page showing photos of company pallets stamped with a seal of U.S. President Donald Trump’s face.'
The seal reads 'Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States'0
