My Dearest Friend Ducksie - R I P
ChatterBank0 min ago
Remain In The Eu
I am exasperated daily by the leave argument that the referendum result was it and no one can change their mind. If that were the case we would only ever have one general election. It is clear that the balance of public opinion has changed towards remaining ing the EU. Common sense has returned and we shall be the better for it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rich47. 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.
NAFTA did change US domestic law (e.g. on copyright). This is why trade deals require the approval of Congress. Indeed one of the recent complaints made by the Trump camp about NAFTA was that it (allegedly) violated US sovereignty. Of course, the USA is powerful enough to dictate terms to other places, so it's not as visibly affected by these kinds of measures. This is why the USA has listed our current (EU) food standards as a barrier to trade. Likewise, CPTPP have been very clear that we'll need to significantly drop our current agricultural regulations if we expect a post-Brexit trade deal.
Is this really autonomy? Sure, there's no legal hierarchy involved. Just naked power politics. Either way I don't think it amounts to much in the way of meaningful independence.
Is this really autonomy? Sure, there's no legal hierarchy involved. Just naked power politics. Either way I don't think it amounts to much in the way of meaningful independence.
"Is this really autonomy?"
Yes it is because we can choose whether or not to accept the conditions. We cannot do so whilst members of the EU.
The laws you mention which were changed related to specific goods or services being traded. They were not general laws which had nothing to do with such trade. The UK has to comply with environmental laws, labour laws and citizenship laws (to name but a few) which have nothing whatsoever to do with trade but are all to do with preventing any single member nation from becoming more competitive than the others. It is a protectionist regime which protects its members from competition from each other. It also prevents those members taking advantage of more competitive offerings that they may negotiate elsewhere.
"Did you people really vote to make yourselves considerably poorer????"
Quite frankly whether I would be a little poorer or a little richer was not a consideration when I voted. The UK's membership of the EU has not been, economically (or in any other respect that I can immediately think of) a rip-roaring success. In fact most of the Union has suffered from Germany being allowed to run an 8% current account surplus (5% over the EU's permitted level) for donkey's years. This has been the principle factor behind the "internal deflation" suffered by the PIIGS members and which has led to the huge youth unemployment figures (and the none-too-clever adult figures) which Guilbert quoted at 9:01am. The Single Currency has been an absolute disaster for those nations, locked in to exchange rates and interest rates which are totally unsuitable for them. There is no doubt that the UK would have suffered from a similar problem (though probably not quite so acute as we have a more robust economy) had we been foolish enough to adopt the euro.
The EU has been a "success" only if you wish to live in a highly regulated uncompetitive area. Big businesses like it because they have the resources to cope with the volumes of red tape which spews forth from its bowels, much of it aimed at regulating things that don't need regulation, and they like it because it saves them a lot of bother when it comes to recruiting training and retaining their staff. It is not the place for entrepreneurs and strivers who want to make the best of what is on offer globally.
Yes it is because we can choose whether or not to accept the conditions. We cannot do so whilst members of the EU.
The laws you mention which were changed related to specific goods or services being traded. They were not general laws which had nothing to do with such trade. The UK has to comply with environmental laws, labour laws and citizenship laws (to name but a few) which have nothing whatsoever to do with trade but are all to do with preventing any single member nation from becoming more competitive than the others. It is a protectionist regime which protects its members from competition from each other. It also prevents those members taking advantage of more competitive offerings that they may negotiate elsewhere.
"Did you people really vote to make yourselves considerably poorer????"
Quite frankly whether I would be a little poorer or a little richer was not a consideration when I voted. The UK's membership of the EU has not been, economically (or in any other respect that I can immediately think of) a rip-roaring success. In fact most of the Union has suffered from Germany being allowed to run an 8% current account surplus (5% over the EU's permitted level) for donkey's years. This has been the principle factor behind the "internal deflation" suffered by the PIIGS members and which has led to the huge youth unemployment figures (and the none-too-clever adult figures) which Guilbert quoted at 9:01am. The Single Currency has been an absolute disaster for those nations, locked in to exchange rates and interest rates which are totally unsuitable for them. There is no doubt that the UK would have suffered from a similar problem (though probably not quite so acute as we have a more robust economy) had we been foolish enough to adopt the euro.
The EU has been a "success" only if you wish to live in a highly regulated uncompetitive area. Big businesses like it because they have the resources to cope with the volumes of red tape which spews forth from its bowels, much of it aimed at regulating things that don't need regulation, and they like it because it saves them a lot of bother when it comes to recruiting training and retaining their staff. It is not the place for entrepreneurs and strivers who want to make the best of what is on offer globally.
I was considerably poorer when I first opted to buy a car, and when I first opted to buy a house. The cost was more than worth it; it would have been foolish to even question it. It's about priorities. Chasing the almighty £ may have advantages but isn't above all. One shouldn't settle simply for bread and circuses.
https:/
love this.\\This includes economic analysis - first published in January - claiming that a new free trade agreement could leave Scots £1,600 worse off per year by 2030, compared to a scenario where the UK remains in the EU.//
2030 who the hell gives a long range forecast that far ahead.
love this.\\This includes economic analysis - first published in January - claiming that a new free trade agreement could leave Scots £1,600 worse off per year by 2030, compared to a scenario where the UK remains in the EU.//
2030 who the hell gives a long range forecast that far ahead.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
I Wonder How Long Gulliver Will...
Politics6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
