But rubato, that's just the way it is in export/import to/from the USA and the ROW. Britain doesn't have a say in how non-Euro countries make their rules - and before the EU, Britain had no say in how they make their rules.
And before the EU, those foreigners didn't have a say in how Britain makes its rules either....
Oh dear...
Once again someone is attempting to patiently explain to rubato the fundamental principles of Econ 101...
I'd like to believe that success in that endeavor was possible, but I can attest from repeated experience...
"That trick never works"
When you tire of that, here's a less frustrating and more likely to succeed way you might spend your time:
CP, this issue cuts across traditional class and ideological lines...
As one of the articles I posted recently mentioned, The Chair of the Leave campaign is a Labour MP...
I really don't understand the logic of the way Cameron has gone so completely all-in on this...
Obviously he can't completely disown this ridiculous non-deal having been the one who made it, but he's running a campaign on it as though it were a general election, with the same sort of "disaster will befall if we don't win" rhetoric one would expect in a general election...
But it's not a general election...
The day after this vote is cast, no matter how it goes, the Tories will still have a comfortable majority in Westminster, and will still be the party of government...
And Cameron has said he has no intention of resigning as PM if Leave prevails...
How would that work exactly? A Prime Minister who has been running all over the country predicting economic catastrophe, and declaring that Brexit would mean the UK was "turning its back on Europe" still trying to run the country after a win for Leave?
What does he say?
"Well, you know all that stuff I said about economic disaster and World War III? Just kidding... Under my wise leadership we'll be just fine..."
Personally, I think that as the Head Of Government even though he negociated this joke, (he didn't just come back from Brussels empty handed; he came back with a big loogie in his hand) he should have tried to put a little distance between himself and the referendum...
He should have taken a position something like this:
"I firmly believe that with all its flaws and shortcomings, on balance, it is in the best interest of the United Kingdom to remain a part of the of the EU. But as I and my party promised we would, we are now providing a vote on the issue.
While I sincerely believe that Great Britain would better off as a member of the European Union, I recognize that many people of good will in our country do not share this view.
I want to assure the British people as your Prime Minister, that however the vote may go, our nation will continue to prosper and thrive. I and my government will work tirelessly to make certain of that. "
MajGenl.Meade wrote:But rubato, that's just the way it is in export/import to/from the USA and the ROW. Britain doesn't have a say in how non-Euro countries make their rules - and before the EU, Britain had no say in how they make their rules.
And before the EU, those foreigners didn't have a say in how Britain makes its rules either. I'd happily give up EURO input on how to run our own country in exchange for leaving them alone to run theirs.
You know what begins at Calais? It should begin 3 miles off the coast around oh.... Dover, Folkestone, St. Margaret's Bay and the Shakespeare Cliff.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
You seem unable to understand a fairly simple point so I will leave it at this: You will have to trade by their rules which you will have no say in. This point is obviously true and equally obviously a disadvantage. But since none of you have ever had any experience with having to export goods to and from other jurisdictions perhaps your ignorance is inevitable.
That is why the tendency is for regulations to become more international rather than more provincial (like Brexit). The IATA sets rules for all international air transport of dangerous goods (and because the US is included we have delegates which help write the rules). And recently they have started rolling out the GHS (globally harmonised system) for chemical safety labeling and SDS (formerly MSDS) formatting which will mean that we don't have to pay to prepare different MSDSs for: the EU, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan for each product we make (hundreds) which then have to be updated &c. The IATA and GHS (UN) are international organizations, like the EU, and it is far to our advantage to be a member.
It is easier, cheaper, and less humiliating for the UK to be a member of the EU than to be separate.
I guess they won't miss partnering with the country which invented mad cow disease by feeding sheep offal to cows and then spread it to the continent. (The US kept it out because we had better import restrictions on rotten foods.)
rubato wrote: But since none of you have ever had any experience with having to export goods to and from other jurisdictions perhaps your ignorance is inevitable.
Watch it, mush!
I had quite a few years exporting cobalt-60 sources for radiotherapy equipment around the world and then having to re-import the returned lead/uranium "pig" containing a depleted source. It was fun.
Mind, it was a lot easier to ship to Argentina or Australia than it was to get the damn stuff from Ohio into New York City. Those people are a documentation nightmare.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
rubato wrote: You will have to trade by their rules which you will have no say in.
yrs,
rubato
Really? You really think that all international trade is done "by the rules" and with no negotiations? Then you know nothing.
But seeing as you have never ventured further than your state lines....
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Frankly, this movie is just about maybe one step above Donald Trump. Talk about fear mongering and racist twaddle. Good lord.
By the time I had watched two thirds of it, I felt very much like Rube. Just get the fuck out and stop whining about it.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Guinevere wrote: Just get the fuck out and stop whining about it.
If it were so simple as to just "get the fuck out", then half the country would, (and rubato would never have thought of it.)
And coming from a country where they have elections on who will be the local dog catcher, it's a bit fucking rich to complain about another country's democratic leanings!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
I'm not saying that's the right answer or the wrong answer ( I don't know enough about the issue to have an opinion ) I'm just telling you how that movie made me feel!
Last edited by Guinevere on Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
“When the Remain campaign tells us no one will trade with us if we leave the EU, sorry, it’s absolute cobblers. Our trade imbalance with Europe is running at nine billion a month and rising. If this trend continues, that is £100bn a year.”
He jabs at a graph. “If, as David Cameron suggested, they imposed a tariff of 10 per cent on us, we will do the same in return. We buy more from Europe than they buy from us, so we would be the net beneficiary and based on these numbers it would bring £10bn into the UK annually. Added to our net EU contribution, it would make us around £18.5bn better off each year if we left the EU,” he concludes with quiet triumph.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
PS, we don't elect "dogcatcher" in my town. The animal control officer is a regular staff position.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Is the EU refusing to trade with Norway? Does the EU have a hostile relationship with the Norwegians? How about Iceland? Canada? No?
This is just more fear-mongering rubbish aimed at those who are completely ignorant about the dynamics of international trade, (and as we can see from rube's posts on the subject its been quite effective with that particular target group)
With nine days to go...the undecided vote appears to be breaking for Leave...
EU referendum: leave takes six-point lead in Guardian/ICM polls
Phone and online polls show support for Brexit growing to 53%, with proportion backing remain campaign falling to 47%
Support for leaving the EU is strengthening, with phone and online surveys reporting a six-point lead, according to a pair of Guardian/ICM polls.
Leave now enjoys a 53%-47% advantage once “don’t knows” are excluded, according to research conducted over the weekend, compared with a 52%-48% split reported by ICM a fortnight ago.
Both online and telephone polls show the same lead for leave:
The figures will make grim reading for David Cameron, George Osborne and the Labour party. They follow a fortnight in which immigration became the dominant issue in the referendum campaign, with the publication of official figures showing that net migration had risen to a near-record 333,000 in 2015.
Prof John Curtice of Strathclyde University, who analyses available referendum polling data on his website whatukthinks.org, noted that after the ICM data, the running average “poll of polls” would stand at 52% for leave and 48% for remain, the first time leave has been in such a strong position.
“These results are consistent with the generality of numbers over the last couple of weeks, in which there has been some weakening in the remain position,” he said. “It was already plain that this race was far closer than the prime minister intended and he must now be feeling discomfort at the thought that the outcome really could be in doubt.”[especially given the rhetorical limb he's climbed out on...]
Throughout the long campaign, internet surveys have pointed to a close race. But the remain camp had been able to take heart from more traditional telephone polls, which have tended to show them enjoying a double-digit lead.
That appears to have changed recently. Two weeks ago, ICM reported for the first time that leave had taken the lead in one of its phone polls.
Under the surface, the proportion of voters who remain undecided is dwindling, in possible evidence of the hardening of attitudes towards EU membership.
In ICM’s telephone fieldwork in particular, 13% of respondents were indicating uncertainty about how they would vote a fortnight ago, but that figure has now fallen to 6%. Online, 7% say they don’t know, down from 9% two weeks ago.
Deputy Labour leader Tom Watson has said EU immigration rules may have to be revisited, saying "woe betide" the party if it ignores public concerns.
A future government, he said, would have to make the case to revise EU-wide freedom of movement rules for workers.
Labour MP John Mann, a Leave supporter, said the party was finally "admitting defeat" over backing for open borders.
It came as Jeremy Corbyn praised the role of migrants in the NHS and urged Labour to unite to stay in the EU.
Vote Leave said there was confusion within Labour over its stance on immigration, ten days ahead of the referendum on whether the UK should stay in or leave the EU.
That makes a change, back in 2009...
The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.
The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.
The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.
However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.
Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
"... Third and most contentious, EEA members (and Switzerland) must observe almost all the EU’s rules and regulations if they are to keep access to the single market. Norway implements almost 75% of EU legislation, despite having no say in any of it. A big Norwegian report in 2012 concluded mildly that “this raises democratic problems.” ..."
"... So Brexiteers may hope instead for a bespoke deal for Britain that gives access to the single market without EU rules, free movement of people or budget contributions. But this is a delusion. The EU cannot be generous to a post-Brexit Britain for fear that others (including the EEA) might demand the same. As evidence, consider what happened when the Swiss voted in early 2014 to restrict migration from the EU. The EU has refused even to discuss it: if the Swiss impose restrictions, they will lose access to the single market immediately. ..." .
There is a 20-page review here. I don't know if you can read it w/o a subscription.
" ... THE BREXIT BRIEFS
10
The Economist
June 2016
2
Specialist trade associations report simi
-
lar results. Tech
UK
, an
IT
group, finds 70%
for staying in the
EU
. The
EEF
manufacturers’
association has 61% (see chart). A survey
this week by the
UK
arm of the International
Chamber of Commerce found 86% of in
-
ternational businesses supporting Remain.
Groups as diverse as Universities
UK
, the
Food and Drink Federation and the aero
-
space and defence association also report
large support for Remain.
This is not to deny that some business
-
men favour Brexit. James Dyson of the
eponymous manufacturing firm is one.
Like Alan Halsall of Silver Cross, a pram
maker, he believes
EU
rules hamper the
export of his products. Many small firms
think that, since they do not export at all,
they should be exempt from Brussels rules.
Yet as Paul Drechsler, president of the
CBI
,
notes, 25 years of single-market integration
have created a supply-chain network so
dense as to make such compartmentalisa
-
tion impossible.
A good example of a business that ben
-
efits from the
EU
is the British car industry.
Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the So
-
ciety of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
(
SMMT
), says it was largely moribund in
the 1980s and 1990s. But thanks to foreign
ownership and investment attracted by a
gateway into the
EU
single market, it has
revived strongly. It accounts for 800,000
jobs and 12% of British exports (80% of its
output goes abroad). Britain now produces
more cars than France. Fully 77% of
SMMT
members favour Remain, not just because
future investment depends on access to the
single market but also to retain influence
over the industry’s regulation. Mr Hawes
cites the case of an exemption that British
lobbying secured from
EU
emission rules
for low-volume niche producers like Lotus
and McLaren. ..."
Everywhere, the business and financial press says I was correct.
Lord Jim wrote:Is the EU refusing to trade with Norway? Does the EU have a hostile relationship with the Norwegians? How about Iceland? Canada? No?
This is just more fear-mongering rubbish aimed at those who are completely ignorant about the dynamics of international trade, (and as we can see from rube's posts on the subject its been quite effective with that particular target group)
David Cameron should be ashamed of himself.
You actually don't know the first thing about it.
Iceland, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Norway are part of the European Economic Area. Less restrictive in some ways but they have little or no input on setting rules. And Norway automatically adopts 75% of EU legislation (despite having no say in it) because that is the price of doing business with the EU. And Switzerland was told "if you try to shut off immigration we shut off all trade immediately. No discussion." (vide infra)
rubato wrote:And Switzerland was told "if you try to shut off immigration we shut off all trade immediately. No discussion."
Yes, but what's the downside?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Funny, people who know what they are talking about still fear a UK exit, but not for the reasons Aspergers boy thinks.
If the UK votes to leave the EU next week, the move could ultimately lead to the bloc's disintegration, Germany's foreign minister has warned.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier was speaking near Berlin after talks with his French counterpart, Jean-Marc Ayrault.
Germany is the UK's biggest trade partner in Europe.
"A vote to leave would shake the union," Mr Steinmeier said at a joint news conference in Brandenburg.
"It would not just carry on as 28 [members] minus one. It would require concerted efforts to ensure that the union holds together and that a decades-long, successful integration effort does not end in disintegration
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
