July 6

What is it specifically about a trade deal that takes so long to negotiate? Is it that you have to basically list every conceivable type of good and then write rules for each one individually? China said recently we'd need a team of 500 to negotiate one with them. in simple terms, what needs negotiating and how does it work?

So much talk about this in the Brexit campaign but little explanation of what actually happens. Obviously I'm not naive enough to think that two people just sit in a room and agree to trade with each other then sign off on it, but still have very little understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukerees83 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sticking points are IP and pharmaceuticals. Then there is the trade in subsidised agricultural commodities which are sold below cost of production i.e. dumping.
Sleigh (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is consideration for how free trade of each commodity or service will affect your own nation's workers. If you're going to put large numbers of workers in a given industry out of work, then you might need to take some actions to limit the damage, such as slowly phasing in the free trade, putting some limits on it, or perhaps imposing rules similar to your own industry on the foreign nation, if they wish to compete with your own. There's also the cost of retraining everyone who will lose their job, employment benefits, etc. Of course, you could just take a

lassez-faire approach and ignore the plight of your workers, but that may have political repercussions at the next election. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

If you'd like to read some articles with references, take a look at Template:World trade. While all articles there would be of interest to you, the articles listed under the "Issues" tab would probably be most applicable.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the points mentioned by Sleigh,

internal market but want to significant limit freedom of movement whereas a number of EU countri leaders and the EU policy as a whole considers freedom of movement an integral part of the internal market.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Most of the topic has been covered adequately. The main difficulty is the impact on domestic production. What usually gets ignored, however, is the overwhelming benefits to consumers. Since all people are consumers, but only some are producers, and trade agreements seek to reduce barriers – i.e., costs – it is surprising that there are no consumer unions demanding more and more free trade. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retailers are quite effective at fighting for free trade. But in your calculations of producers versus consumers, don't forget that producers may get 100% of their income from that, while consumers don't spend 100% of their income on items that can be imported. There's also rent/mortgages, taxes, retirement, services, etc. And producers losing their jobs doesn't just affect them, because every business where they would have spent money now suffers, too, as does tax collection. For a demonstration of this, consider any single industry town, such as one with a mine, that then closes. While many people in the town didn't directly work at the mine, like restaurant workers, landlords, store clerks, police and firemen, teachers, priests, etc., nonetheless, when the mine closes they all eventually lose their jobs. Another way to look at this is that few jobs actually create wealth. Most just move it around or protect it (from fires, vandalism, etc.). Producers (such as agriculture, mining, energy production and manufacturing), are fields of employment that actually do create wealth, as the final product is worth more than the constituents. StuRat (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the full picture. An economy needs some sort of driver, but that does not necessarily need to be in primary or secondary industries. An economy can hum along very well so long as someone in the world is doing the primary production. In your mining town example, 10 years down the track, the town could have reinvented itself as a tourist resort, all the miners could retrain in the tourism industry, and the town may hum along very well almost entirely on the basis of tertiary industries alone. They will continue to import the vegetables and pipe in the electricity that meet the townsfolks' basic needs as before, the only thing that has changed is that the economic driver has changed from mining (primary) to tourism (tertiary). You could argue that the "wealth" still has to come from somewhere - in this case the tourists' wallets, but that's not fundamentally different from wealth that comes from the cheque books of the purchasers of coal before the mine closed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is different, in that the tourist loses exactly the same amount of money that the town gains, so it's a zero-sum-gain situation. The coal miners, on the other hand, spend X dollars to dig up the coal, which is then worth more than X dollars, so wealth was actually generated. And in your example, how exactly would a old coal-mining town attract tourists ? StuRat (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When was the Turkmen SSR renamed to the Republic of Turkmenistan? And, does anyone know if a copy of either that law, and/or (dunno if it happened at the same time) the Turkmen Declaration of Independence are available online, in any language? --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Land The Republic of Turkmenistan, independent successor state to the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, declared its independence following the collapse of the attempted coup against the USSR's Gorbachëv in August 1991. October 27 has been established as the official Independence Day". See Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States 2012 by M. Wesley Shoemaker (p. 276).

Some more information at Prospects for Constitutionalism in Post-Communist Countries edited by Levent Gönenç (pp. 205-206), but no luck on finding the declaration text online. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of surprising such an important document isn't online, but yeah, it does seem that it was a binary switch from "Turkmen SSR in the USSR" to "independent Turkmenistan", unlike most of the other SSRs which changed names sometime before independence. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cant seem to remember, but who was the most female spy during the WW? sHES practically a household name, danced around.Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're thinking of Mata Hari? --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you.Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was pre-Nazi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did say "the WW", which is ambiguous. But she was the most female of them all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the OP confirmed that it was Mata Hari. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could've been

^Pocketed 14:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Not per se, but "Nazi" in the section title is sort of a hint, even if it did turn out to be anachronistic. --69.159.60.163 (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Mata Hari execution was partly revenge for that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But still not a "Nazi female spy".... [2] was evidentally a caberet dancer, but I wouldn't exactly call he a household name. I think the logical conclusion is that the OP was remembering at least one of the details of "Nazi female spy", "most female", "during the WW", "danced around", "household name" wrong. And the "Yes, thank you" response suggests the Nazi one was probably the misremembered bit. Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Cavell. She wasn't a dancing household name. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cavell's pretty well known over here, although not for dancing; "Patriotism is not enough" and all that. She has a rather splendid monument close to Trafalgar Square and next to the National Portrait Gallery (but I agree that she wasn't the one that the OP was looking for). Alansplodge (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the antipodes,

Edith Cavell bridge, though not actually officially dedicated to her, is also a very picturesque memorial. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a local school named after Edith Cavell, also a ward in the local hospital [3]. From that I assumed she was a nurse. There is also, according to our article, a memorial to her at St Leonard's Hospital. 80.44.163.165 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed correctly. Like most spies, she had a proper occupation that took up most of her time. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not belong to the Queenstown, New Zealand City council, do you ? ( I've been unable to understand whether she was been spying on New Zealand by the way) -- Askedonty (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Cavell wasn't a actually a spy, she was using her nursing duties to facilitate the escape of wounded British and Allied soldiers from German-occupied Belgium, which the Germans deemed to be "treason", hence the firing squad. There is some evidence that she may have had contact British Intelligence, but if so, this was not used in evidence against her, even if the Germans were aware of it. Full details are in our article. Alansplodge (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]