Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins 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.
Why do folk insist on asking the same obvious answer questions, when they have been answered umpteen times. The advantage is that we get self determination back, we would no longer be in the thrall of a foreign power block. That is the priority status needed before any economic advantages are settled.
Whilst any deal requires some compromise, is the government agrees to lower standards and privatising the NHS then they aren't fit to govern. Find out the party intentions and vote accordingly. And try to stop spreading fake news about being ruled by the US.
Countries are in trade blocks because they have some advantages. I doubt all trade blocks have elites determined to rule the member countries as a federal state. They will be about trade.
Whilst any deal requires some compromise, is the government agrees to lower standards and privatising the NHS then they aren't fit to govern. Find out the party intentions and vote accordingly. And try to stop spreading fake news about being ruled by the US.
Countries are in trade blocks because they have some advantages. I doubt all trade blocks have elites determined to rule the member countries as a federal state. They will be about trade.
It is pretty much inconceivable for us to make post-Brexit trade deals without changing our regulations and laws to suit countries we trade with. The reason for this is that regulatory zones are the main barriers to trade in the modern world. Unless, of course, you want no trade deals at all and to just trade on WTO terms with everyone - but even WTO membership infringes on our autonomy to some degree. If that's an appealing option to you, I encourage you to check the list of countries who run their trade in this way.
So what does this newfound freedom post-Brexit really count for if we're going to need to have essentially the same policy areas determined by the needs of other countries anyway?
So what does this newfound freedom post-Brexit really count for if we're going to need to have essentially the same policy areas determined by the needs of other countries anyway?
Gulliver, from the Site Rules:-
//Please refrain from adding emphasis in CAPITAL LETTERS as this indicates shouting and is considered rude.//
//Please refrain from adding emphasis in CAPITAL LETTERS as this indicates shouting and is considered rude.//
Gulliver,
The ruling in the ECJ today is something different. That relates to whether Article 50 is reversible or suchlike I believe.
I am referring to this:
https:/
As I say, I have no idea if it’s likely to succeed. I’m not sure Arron Banks was as influential as he likes to think.
The ruling in the ECJ today is something different. That relates to whether Article 50 is reversible or suchlike I believe.
I am referring to this:
https:/
As I say, I have no idea if it’s likely to succeed. I’m not sure Arron Banks was as influential as he likes to think.
"Yes, and the vast majority of countries in the world are members of trade blocs. Why do you think that is?"
Trading blocs are an excellent idea. Unfortunately the EU is a little more than a trading bloc. In any case, a little research needed, Kromo (it always helps):
There are three major trading blocs in the world apart from the EU. There is the Cairns Group (most South American countries, Canada, Australasia and a few far eastern countries); NAFTA (the USA, Canada and Mexico); and APEC (Canada, USA, Chile, China, Russia, Australasia and a few far eastern countries).
You will note immediately that some countries are members of more than one organisation meaning that their trading arrangements are not restricted in the way that membership of the EU entails. You will also discover that membership of none of these organisations means the members have to endure unrestricted freedom of movement of people between them; they do not have to accept that their laws are subsidiary to those of the bloc; they are not bound by the decisions of a supra-national court administered by the bloc; they are free to make trading arrangements bilaterally with other countries if they wish; they do not have to collect tariffs on behalf of the bloc and remit 80% of those tariffs to the administration; their traders are only bound by the bloc’s standards when they want to trade with other members of the bloc and not even if they have no intention of ever doing so; they are not bound by common environmental and labour laws; they have not submitted their resources for use among the bloc; they do not pay massive subscription fees (which are mainly distributed to the "poorer members" of the bloc. Your contention that “it is pretty much inconceivable for us to make post-Brexit trade deals without changing our regulations and laws to suit countries we trade with” is false. None of the countries I have mentioned who are members of trading blocs or those who have formed bilateral trading agreements “change their laws” to accommodate trade. (Can you imagine China, the USA, Australia or Singapore changing their laws so that they can trade with each other?). They agree common standards for goods and services traded and those standards need only be complied with for the specific goods. They don’t “change their laws”.
Likening the EU to a “Trading bloc” is about as disingenuous as it gets. It is an organisation which, as can be seen from the tortuous “negotiations” that have been going on, encroaches on virtually every aspect of everybody’s lives to a greater or lesser degree. More than that, as has also been seen, it removes from the electorate the little control they have over the way their lives are manipulated. Look at the powers held by the administrators of the major trading blocs I have mentioned and compare them to the powers held by the Euromaniacs and you may understand what I mean.
Trading blocs are an excellent idea. Unfortunately the EU is a little more than a trading bloc. In any case, a little research needed, Kromo (it always helps):
There are three major trading blocs in the world apart from the EU. There is the Cairns Group (most South American countries, Canada, Australasia and a few far eastern countries); NAFTA (the USA, Canada and Mexico); and APEC (Canada, USA, Chile, China, Russia, Australasia and a few far eastern countries).
You will note immediately that some countries are members of more than one organisation meaning that their trading arrangements are not restricted in the way that membership of the EU entails. You will also discover that membership of none of these organisations means the members have to endure unrestricted freedom of movement of people between them; they do not have to accept that their laws are subsidiary to those of the bloc; they are not bound by the decisions of a supra-national court administered by the bloc; they are free to make trading arrangements bilaterally with other countries if they wish; they do not have to collect tariffs on behalf of the bloc and remit 80% of those tariffs to the administration; their traders are only bound by the bloc’s standards when they want to trade with other members of the bloc and not even if they have no intention of ever doing so; they are not bound by common environmental and labour laws; they have not submitted their resources for use among the bloc; they do not pay massive subscription fees (which are mainly distributed to the "poorer members" of the bloc. Your contention that “it is pretty much inconceivable for us to make post-Brexit trade deals without changing our regulations and laws to suit countries we trade with” is false. None of the countries I have mentioned who are members of trading blocs or those who have formed bilateral trading agreements “change their laws” to accommodate trade. (Can you imagine China, the USA, Australia or Singapore changing their laws so that they can trade with each other?). They agree common standards for goods and services traded and those standards need only be complied with for the specific goods. They don’t “change their laws”.
Likening the EU to a “Trading bloc” is about as disingenuous as it gets. It is an organisation which, as can be seen from the tortuous “negotiations” that have been going on, encroaches on virtually every aspect of everybody’s lives to a greater or lesser degree. More than that, as has also been seen, it removes from the electorate the little control they have over the way their lives are manipulated. Look at the powers held by the administrators of the major trading blocs I have mentioned and compare them to the powers held by the Euromaniacs and you may understand what I mean.
