Food & Drink2 mins ago
The Effects Of Brexit
54 Answers
clearly whatever is decided in the next few years will proportionately affect the young more than other age groups. clearly they should be consulted.
but is including the opinions of people down to the age of seven a sensible thing to be doing?
https:/
but is including the opinions of people down to the age of seven a sensible thing to be doing?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. 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.
These are complex, inter-dependent issues.
The Welsh assembly is only proposing that adults ask these children their views and then the adults present a report. There is no suggestion that the 7-year-olds should be given a vote.
But maybe the other posters have a point - only those who can pass a test demonstrating their comprehensive understanding of all the issues should be allowed to offer their views.
So let's have a 500-page test on all the issues from the auto industry and the fishing industry and the financial services and pharmaceutical safety as well as food safety and type-approval for all kinds of products to the Ireland-UK Border and the implications for Gibraltar, as well as immigration, residency rights and the requirement for labour in the NHS and agricultural industries.. and all the other things that will be affected by this decision.
Those who can demonstrate a comprehensive understanding on all these aspects of the Brexit discussion should be allowed to give your views in any future discussion.
Everyone else should remain quiet.
If this appears ridiculous, then why is it ridiculous to ask 7-year-olds their views?
The Welsh assembly is only proposing that adults ask these children their views and then the adults present a report. There is no suggestion that the 7-year-olds should be given a vote.
But maybe the other posters have a point - only those who can pass a test demonstrating their comprehensive understanding of all the issues should be allowed to offer their views.
So let's have a 500-page test on all the issues from the auto industry and the fishing industry and the financial services and pharmaceutical safety as well as food safety and type-approval for all kinds of products to the Ireland-UK Border and the implications for Gibraltar, as well as immigration, residency rights and the requirement for labour in the NHS and agricultural industries.. and all the other things that will be affected by this decision.
Those who can demonstrate a comprehensive understanding on all these aspects of the Brexit discussion should be allowed to give your views in any future discussion.
Everyone else should remain quiet.
If this appears ridiculous, then why is it ridiculous to ask 7-year-olds their views?
SPot on Young Man.
WHich is why I tend to keep out of these 'debates'
It's all smoke and mirrors - with people asserting on faith that 'things will be better' when there is no evidence for such assertions, except some vague sense of patriotism and promises by billionaires who want to remove restrictive laws that make their businesses less profitable and have more control over government combined with lying politicians who are only seeking their own personal aggrandisement.
WHich is why I tend to keep out of these 'debates'
It's all smoke and mirrors - with people asserting on faith that 'things will be better' when there is no evidence for such assertions, except some vague sense of patriotism and promises by billionaires who want to remove restrictive laws that make their businesses less profitable and have more control over government combined with lying politicians who are only seeking their own personal aggrandisement.
-- answer removed --
“Every industry is demanding that the UK activities are fully aligned with EU rules following Brexit.”
This is somewhat irrelevant to the OP but worth a comment since it has been raised. All international trading agreements depend on mutual compliance of some sort. The difference with EU membership is that the member nations must comply with a whole raft of unrelated regulations as well as those to do with trade. One of two examples (among many, many more): the 95% of UK companies that have no dealings with the EU whatsoever have to adhere to all EU legislation, including that on working time; the nation as a whole has to succumb to freedom of movement.
No individual trading agreements would impose conditions of manufacture or supply of goods that are not to be shipped to a participant country. No trading agreement would impose a “freedom of movement” condition. No participant nation in a bilateral trading agreement would restrict the UK in making other trading agreements elsewhere.
It is certainly true that to continue to trade in certain areas compliance will have to be maintained (and since the UK already complies with EU standards continuing to do so – for trade with the remaining EU nations – should present little or no problem). The idea of Brexit is to allow the UK the option to comply with EU regulations where it is necessary and it suits us but to abandon those conditions where it is unnecessary and is not in our best interests.
I don’t know if any seven year olds will be able to grasp that but it seems that many older people in the Remain camp cannot.
This is somewhat irrelevant to the OP but worth a comment since it has been raised. All international trading agreements depend on mutual compliance of some sort. The difference with EU membership is that the member nations must comply with a whole raft of unrelated regulations as well as those to do with trade. One of two examples (among many, many more): the 95% of UK companies that have no dealings with the EU whatsoever have to adhere to all EU legislation, including that on working time; the nation as a whole has to succumb to freedom of movement.
No individual trading agreements would impose conditions of manufacture or supply of goods that are not to be shipped to a participant country. No trading agreement would impose a “freedom of movement” condition. No participant nation in a bilateral trading agreement would restrict the UK in making other trading agreements elsewhere.
It is certainly true that to continue to trade in certain areas compliance will have to be maintained (and since the UK already complies with EU standards continuing to do so – for trade with the remaining EU nations – should present little or no problem). The idea of Brexit is to allow the UK the option to comply with EU regulations where it is necessary and it suits us but to abandon those conditions where it is unnecessary and is not in our best interests.
I don’t know if any seven year olds will be able to grasp that but it seems that many older people in the Remain camp cannot.
“…billionaires who want to remove restrictive laws that make their businesses less profitable”
There seems to be two distinct lots of “billionaires”. There are those who like the UK’s membership of the EU because it gives them a virtually unlimited supply of cheap and legal labour to operate their businesses without which, they say, their businesses will not survive. Then there is the second lot that you’ve just mentioned who want the UK to leave the EU so that they can grind their workforce into the dust following the removal of the EU’s “…restrictive laws that make their businesses less profitable”.
I wonder who are the most numerous?
There seems to be two distinct lots of “billionaires”. There are those who like the UK’s membership of the EU because it gives them a virtually unlimited supply of cheap and legal labour to operate their businesses without which, they say, their businesses will not survive. Then there is the second lot that you’ve just mentioned who want the UK to leave the EU so that they can grind their workforce into the dust following the removal of the EU’s “…restrictive laws that make their businesses less profitable”.
I wonder who are the most numerous?
Hi NewJudge
and thank you for the courtesy and sensible arguments.
On the trade thing the way I see it is that the UK already has a lot of inter-dependent trade systems in place. In the auto sector there are components such as engines and door panels that move from one State to another. Within the EU, that is transparent and open and promotes all kinds of benefits.
in the Chemical sector it is the same. Paraxylene can be transported form one state to another. The refineries in Fawley and Milford Haven can generate chemical products that can either be further processed in the UK or go across to Rotterdam and other centres of chemical production in the Netherlands and Germany.
Leaving the EU risks much of that trade.
The only thing we appear to be getting in exchange are vague, unfulfilled promised that the Uk will be able to negotiate better deals elsewhere than the EU can negotiate.
Trump is for America First - and his country is a lot bigger than ours. Will we get a better deal from him than we have while being inside the EU?
Xi in China is cut from the same stone - will China offer us good terms once we are outside the EU. I think not.
but now we are in the realms of speculation once more.
My reasons for wanting to remain are largely emotional, as are the feelings that drive the leave camp.
The experience of the last 12 months or so is that the EU is a great deal better at getting what it wants at the negotiating table than the current UK government. Why would we not want them on our side?
My secondary point is that when corporates are larger than governments, they can dictate what governments do.
I think it was Keynes who that unrestrained capitalism is the belief that the Nastiest of Men for the Nastiest of Motives Will Somehow Work for the Benefit of All.
This is what we face as the UK leaves the EU. The hedge fund managers; the newspaper tycoons and others will find it easier to tell our government what to do (otherwise they will threaten to take their headquarters elsewhere, or set up shop in another country).
At present the EU stands up to Google and Apple more than individual governments do.
You use the graphic phrase, grind the workers underfoot.. I see it more as a gradual process whereby the rights of workers gained since the start of the last century are steadily reversed to the point where we end up with a Dickensian split between the wealthy and the impoverished.
Personally, I will be OK. I run a business, we make good money; I have plenty of assets and a generous income.
But I don't want my children or grandchildren to live in a world where the corporates run everything and capitalism is left unrestrained by governments incapable of standing up to corporate greed. In this sense, larger government, with all its faults is a less bad future than government by corporation.
In my view.
and thank you for the courtesy and sensible arguments.
On the trade thing the way I see it is that the UK already has a lot of inter-dependent trade systems in place. In the auto sector there are components such as engines and door panels that move from one State to another. Within the EU, that is transparent and open and promotes all kinds of benefits.
in the Chemical sector it is the same. Paraxylene can be transported form one state to another. The refineries in Fawley and Milford Haven can generate chemical products that can either be further processed in the UK or go across to Rotterdam and other centres of chemical production in the Netherlands and Germany.
Leaving the EU risks much of that trade.
The only thing we appear to be getting in exchange are vague, unfulfilled promised that the Uk will be able to negotiate better deals elsewhere than the EU can negotiate.
Trump is for America First - and his country is a lot bigger than ours. Will we get a better deal from him than we have while being inside the EU?
Xi in China is cut from the same stone - will China offer us good terms once we are outside the EU. I think not.
but now we are in the realms of speculation once more.
My reasons for wanting to remain are largely emotional, as are the feelings that drive the leave camp.
The experience of the last 12 months or so is that the EU is a great deal better at getting what it wants at the negotiating table than the current UK government. Why would we not want them on our side?
My secondary point is that when corporates are larger than governments, they can dictate what governments do.
I think it was Keynes who that unrestrained capitalism is the belief that the Nastiest of Men for the Nastiest of Motives Will Somehow Work for the Benefit of All.
This is what we face as the UK leaves the EU. The hedge fund managers; the newspaper tycoons and others will find it easier to tell our government what to do (otherwise they will threaten to take their headquarters elsewhere, or set up shop in another country).
At present the EU stands up to Google and Apple more than individual governments do.
You use the graphic phrase, grind the workers underfoot.. I see it more as a gradual process whereby the rights of workers gained since the start of the last century are steadily reversed to the point where we end up with a Dickensian split between the wealthy and the impoverished.
Personally, I will be OK. I run a business, we make good money; I have plenty of assets and a generous income.
But I don't want my children or grandchildren to live in a world where the corporates run everything and capitalism is left unrestrained by governments incapable of standing up to corporate greed. In this sense, larger government, with all its faults is a less bad future than government by corporation.
In my view.
