Printable View
Good thing that effective incomes will go down as the money people have will be able to buy less, and low margin sectors like local markets won't be able to maintain themselves. Still, as a professional in the health sector, you probably won't have noticed this as you pontificate about sovereignty.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes, a professional in the health sector. Which is shorthand for working hard at school, getting good grades for the ability to attend a bastard hard degree course for 6 years (with 4 weeks holiday for 3 years) and at the end of it get a crappy job at a crappy hospital. No silver spoon. No trust fund. No Special School Tie. A hellish existence for over a decade. But that is behind me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So now, no I've not noticed it in the slightest. Doubt I will - partly as I never have enough spare time to go to the local markets. I might be wrong of course but then the work I do is not some quack curing the pox in the local slum. I left that distasteful work since I dislike it and thought rather than pasting my demands on Facebook how I wanted everything to change I'd apply for a job I wanted to do. That also turned out to have large issues so I started my own company - I did something to better my situation and I now get paid for it. If this stops I won't be retained. No union, no strike, no mass protest on social media. I'll have to find another contract.
In a Democracy, I am allowed to have a view. We currently have freedom of movement. Those who are concerned their money will go down are free to go and live elsewhere. The Nordics are renowned for large Welfare state.
Odd how this will cause the implosion of the UK as we know it and yet we'd still be one of the wealthiest countries in the world - a higher per-capita GDP than many countries in the EU who seem to manage.
~:smoking:
"This new analysis suggests that there could be opportunity for the UK in agreeing trade deals with non-EU countries and deregulating in areas such as the environment, product standards, and employment law."
Effectively turning us into the mainland China to Europe's Hong Kong, where they have stringent standards on environment, product standards and employment law. And every Chinese who can afford it prefers shopping in Hong Kong as they can rely on the guaranteed higher standards, unlike the dangerously loosely enforced standards in China. The upper few percentiles won't notice the difference of course, as they can afford to buy from anywhere in the world. But for those Chinese who are restricted to their local markets, they have to put up with lethally adulterated baby food, toxic environments, explosively dangerous storage, and goodness knows what else.
Fortunately, I live in a UK that has been living by EU/EEC standards all my life, so I've not yet had to face these problems. Buying locally is a choice rather than a restriction. But I have been buying from local markets and local traders wherever possible for at least a decade, and while there have been changes (eg. a lower catering for fish), fruit and vegetables, the foundations of any local market, have been noticeably reducing in quality and quantity over the past year, as the stallholders have been able to afford lesser variety in produce. So there are fewer varieties of stuff from around the world, and stuff that may previously have not been displayed due to imperfections are now sold at full price in lesser quantities. And in addition to that, there have been more empty spaces in the market as they decide the money made is not worth the effort of setting out a stall.
But then, of course, this doesn't touch you, as you've deservedly done well for yourself.
Gosh yes, before the EEC / EU came along the toffs were hunting poor people, life expectancy was 45 years with lead and cadmium added to food since we had no standards on anything. We are so lucky that the EU was able to save us from our barbarism. If we were to leave we'd have smelting plants opened in Birmingham, have the poor dissected to sell their organs... :rolleyes:
China. Not Australia, New Zealand, or Canada which would be much better examples of similar countries and what they do. But they might not quite support your "view" / fantasy.
~:smoking:
Deregulation of the above is the hard Brexiteers' Big Idea. What kind of UK do you envisage with all the above deregulated as per their dream? NB. Mainland Chinese buy from Australia and New Zealand too, because their markets are more regulated than in China, and thus guarantee good quality. What advantages does deregulation give us that you'd like to see in the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Deregulation? I'm interested in return of sovereignty to the UK courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Given the self-evident fact that past a point de-regulation would cause a massive loss of business I doubt that anyone wants to undertake this.
~:smoking:
What kind of sovereignty in UK courts are you talking about? Are you talking about the ECJ?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes - the UK Supreme Court should be the last recourse for laws governing the UK. And Regulations should not be imposed from abroad (I'm not thrilled about Directives but at least they are UK laws).
~:smoking:
New analysis shows UK rarely taken to European CourtQuote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Reality Check: What is the European Court of Justice?Quote:
8th December 2017
The UK rarely ends up in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and when it does it wins its cases more often than most European Union (EU) member states, a new report finds.
Who’s afraid of the ECJ?, published today by the independent Institute for Government (IfG), charts the UK’s experience at the ECJ compared to the 14 other longest standing members of the EU.
Quote:
So what? I thought we could do a trade deal with the EU without direct ECJ involvement.
Yes, we can. That's because trade deals usually have their own inbuilt dispute procedures.
But any company from the US or Japan or anywhere else that wants to sell its product in the European single market has to comply with all EU regulations, and with all ECJ rulings about any of those regulations.
If foreign companies don't comply, they can't operate in the EU. The same applies in reverse, of course, to European companies that want to sell their products elsewhere.
So foreign companies can't escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ?
Not if they want to operate in the single market, no. They are not immune from EU law. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Take Google for example, which was fined a record 2.4bn euro by the European Commission in June for abusing its dominance of the search engine market.
If Google wanted to appeal, it would have to make its case before the European Court of Justice.
It's like the immigration issue, where a huge noise is made about immigrants who don't integrate, yet the areas that make the biggest noise are the areas with the fewest immigrants. Britain gets the least hassle from the ECJ, but it's Britain who makes the biggest noise about the ECJ's intrusion into its affairs.
I'm still looking into this line: "The ECJ has tended to support British efforts to extend the remit of the single market.", which suggests that the ECJ has actually been effectively a British tool in EU affairs.
And yet more leading Brexit figures are getting EU citizenships to escape the mess they've created. Hypocrisy at its finest.
And? That is the same facile argument that if a law were passed that the police can keep my DNA / fingerprints / iris scan and share it with other countries it doesn't really matter since they so rarely do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Maybe they want to keep it like that? Can you blame them? Most outspoken pro-immigration-folks are also nimby'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Did you miss the bit in the BBC article I linked to, that explains the details surrounding the ECJ? If we're outside the EU, we'll lose the benefits of being inside the EU, and we'll still be subject to the rules of EU law, as long as we're looking to deal with the EU. What will happen is we'll set up a different and unique relationship, with a different and unique name, that will practically be the same as being bound by the ECJ's rulings on EU law. Will you protest when that happens? Because you'll have lost the rest of us the benefits of living inside the EU in exchange for little or no change on the subject of your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
So... best to go along with a bullying and coercive entity? Or look elsewhere for those who will treat us as equals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Are you telling all those who trade with the EU to stop because it offends your sensibilities? NB. Around 50% of all our trade is with the EU.Quote:
So what? I thought we could do a trade deal with the EU without direct ECJ involvement.
Yes, we can. That's because trade deals usually have their own inbuilt dispute procedures.
But any company from the US or Japan or anywhere else that wants to sell its product in the European single market has to comply with all EU regulations, and with all ECJ rulings about any of those regulations.
If foreign companies don't comply, they can't operate in the EU. The same applies in reverse, of course, to European companies that want to sell their products elsewhere.
So foreign companies can't escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ?
Not if they want to operate in the single market, no. They are not immune from EU law. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Take Google for example, which was fined a record 2.4bn euro by the European Commission in June for abusing its dominance of the search engine market.
If Google wanted to appeal, it would have to make its case before the European Court of Justice.
[Sigh]Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The situation is completely created by the EU. They are the ones imposing the rules, and it is they blocking trade. I am sure the UK would be happy for trade to continue.
Not all trade will stop. No deal = WTO rules which has unhelpful tariffs of c. 4% on goods.European businesses that trade would also rather not have tariffs. So who wants them? Oh, that's right - EU politicians.
Yes, 50% of trade is with the EU. Probably well past the point we should have diversified - as we were before the EU fetish started.
~:smoking:
And will remain to be, you aren't going to be closed of that's an alarmist's anxiety. It will be more expensive that's allQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Who would that be? At best a country with the same market potential, same potential in exports, same cultural traits, etc. A bigger country will usually make more demands and a smaller country usually gets dominated by the bigger one. That's the whole reason I'm for the EU, because it has more power than your tiny country on its own or even my tiny country on its own. And as long as power is the only decisive factor in human interaction on a national level, more power is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It's not bullying, it's competition. One argument for Brexit was that we'd all be better off with more capitalist competition. Now that you get it, don't call it bullying or you're just a whining loser.
So why are so many countries entering bilateral free trade deals and not quasi-sovereignty? Especially as my "little" country is still in the top 10, and there are over 200 countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
~:smoking:
Haven't you seen what the US and China are doing to smaller competitors? The US have already done so to us, even upping the terms when we raised our voice, as they know we are powerless relative to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And a cabinet minister has broken ranks to question if Brexit will be worth it. Proceeding should be based on evidence, and evidence should not be dismissed simply because they are inconvenient or undesirable. A future decision should be based on the country's welfare, not dogma. The chief whip has promptly cracked down on him. Expect the Daily Mail to call him a traitor for defying the will of the people.
Like the TPP which is a free trade area for many countries - most smaller than us. Is that inconvenient too? Yes, supposedly NAFTA is being reviewed... which is again two relatively small countries with a really big one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The country's welfare might be best applying to be the 51st state. Or follow Singapore's approach to be more productive.
~:smoking:
You talk about Britain needing to diversify beyond the EU, yet care little for the loss of small trades and accompanying expertise, and speak of Singapore as a model. Would you like the UK's agricultural model to follow that of Singapore?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And now the minister in charge of doing trade deals after Brexit says that being inside the CU might not be such a bad thing after all. That's May (the PM), Davies (minister of DExEU) and Fox (minister for post-EU trade) all back-tracking on why the EU is bad and needs to be put behind us. Meanwhile, the Tories not directly involved in managing Brexit are accusing the civil service of producing falsely negative research (without proof, of course). It's as though the more knowledge one has about the UK's relationship with the EU, the less appetite one has for breaking it.
And senior civil servants say that the Brexiteers are setting up the civil service for a Dolchstosslegende to take the fall for a Brexit that every bit of evidence indicates will never work.
Quote:
“[Civil servants] look at the evidence and we go where it is,” he said. “Of course if you are selling snake oil, you don’t like the idea of experts testing your products.
“And I think that’s what we’ve got, this backlash against evidence and experts is because they know where the experts will go.”
Responding to claims officials distorted their analysis, the former civil servant told ITV’s Peston On Sunday show: “I think that’s completely crazy. The truth is civil servants operate by the civil service code. The values are honesty, objectivity, integrity, impartiality.
“Their job is to look at the evidence and present it as best they can, analyse the uncertainties ... but that’s what they do, they’re objective and impartial.
“And I think what you find is that tends to get accepted very nicely when it agrees with someone’s prior beliefs, but actually, when someone doesn’t like the answer, quite often they decide to shoot the messenger.”
NB. the Tory Brexiteers had been accusing the civil service of negatively slanting its research, producing only negative forecasts of realistic scenarios.Quote:
“‘Dolchstoss’ means ‘stab in the back’,” Lord Turnbull told the Observer. “After the first world war there was an armistice, but the German army was then treated as the losers. Then, at the start of the Nazi era, the ‘stab-in-the back’ theme developed.
“It argued that ‘our great army was never defeated, but it was stabbed in the back by the civilians, liberals, communists, socialists and Jews’. This is what I think these critics are trying to do. They are losing the argument in the sense that they are unable to make their extravagant promises stack up, and so they turn and say: ‘Things would be OK if the civil service weren’t obstructing us.’”
What do you mean by this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
In what terms is brexit to be evaluated, such that "every bit of evidence indicates will never work"?
My guess would be that it will never work in terms of achieving what was promised, ie. UK will be better of out of EU. There won't be economic improvement, there won't be more security, and in general average Briton won't be better off by pretty much any parameter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
There is the fact that some are willing to stomach all that for return of (real or perceived) power to British institutions, and that's fair, I'd say, but there is also the fact that most of those who voted for it didn't understand that and will have problem accepting that.
It's the British sausage from Yes, Minister. Those damn Eurocrats won't be able to stop anyone from eating it, but people, like Jim, might get a bit sick from it.
you answered the question very nicely:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
i.e. if you think of this through the prism of economic alone you will be disappointed, but that isn't why most people voted the way they did.
they may well not understand the fine nuance of post-lisbon vote-weight and the creep of QMV in narrowing the possibility of public policy, but don't make the mistake of conflating the majority of brexit-voters (inc many soft remainers) with the left behind (who merely tipped the balance).
not that i'd blame you if you did, laura kuensberg failed the same test in her miserable post brexit explanatory documentary...
So why are ministers denying that Brexit will be economically nothing but damaging? If Brexit is fundamentally political, and economic factors don't matter, why don't they come clean about the damage that Brexit will do to the economy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Because they'd like to keep their seats in Parliament? Just guessing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I am sure you don't actually expect your politicians to be noble to the point of self-sacrifice, do you? Kennedy wrote Profiles in Political Courage because the phenomenon is rare, not common.
I can totally get behind that you weighed the pros and cons and that you found the risks acceptable with what is at stake here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I have very low opinion of general populace's ability to do that, and I think it might get ugly when they see they didn't get what was essentially promised to them by the Brexiters.