Isn't the idea of "ever closer union" also a matter of historical record?
But similarly, Adolf Hitler also wanted to create European unity, wanted us all to have the same national anthem, to salute the same flag and use propaganda and coercion to ensure that democracy could be impossible. This too is not an opinion but a matter of historical recordopinions are of course divided.
It is certain that the men who took the first peaceful steps to create European unity by agreement, had just survived the greatest war the world had ever seen (the older of them, the two greatest wars the world had ever seen) and wanted to bring the European nations together so closely that a recurrence would be impossible. This is certain and it is not an opinion, but a matter of historical record.
View media item 3017
Adolf Hitler
Nigel Farrage propaganda video
Indeed, it does seem that Hitlers replacements are strutting around with a new flag, anthem, and means to gain total domination. Even Ode to Joy is written by that famous German, Beethoven... I hope that you stood tall and proud whilst they played it.Nigel Farrage propaganda video
Ironic that he is harking back to the days of total war between European nations, the very thing that European integration was set up to prevent.
Hitler
Just because what I write offends you, it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Can we vote the Commissioners out of office?Hitler
As a proud anti-European, Fire dredges the depths of his septic mind in order to cause the maximum offense.
It could be as bad or worse. Distance from say New York to Los Angeles over 2,000 miles, distance from say Calais to Croatia less than 1,000 miles. Then there's the overnight stops, etc to factor in as well.Yes, but you also need to take into account the transport costs after arrival in whichever American or European port to the final point of sale. Land transport here in the U.S. is rather cheaper than in Europe, although obviously for goods arriving on the east coast for sale in the west that's offset by the greater distances involved. I'm not saying that taken as a whole the costs aren't higher, but that it's not so bad as your initial "Europe 20-50 miles, America 5,000 miles" comment might be taken to suggest.Point made?
Assuming that a) market in EU does not stop suddenly, and b) the market in USA does not start suddenly (competing against existing sustainable competitors) the EU standards would have to be continued. If export (albeit in a limited state) continues to the EU well after Brexit, the EU standards would still apply (and probably have become international standards anyhow) and it would be foolish to manufacture two different products.But even acknowledging that the cost of transporting goods to more far-flung places is higher overall, that needs to be balanced against savings made in other areas, such as removing the need to comply with EU directives,
If you tried to use that money to compensate all the manufacturers for their increased shipping costs, you'd need a whole new administration to process it, which would cost a whole new set of costs. And I bet there would be some substantial losers along the way. (and probably some substantial winners)not to mention that £33 million per day "membership fee" for the EU. You could ship a lot of containers all around the world for that price each day!
You've lost the context of the discussion.Maybe you don't need a bigger, more seaworthy ship if you've made it off a sinking ship and safely back to dry land?Fine sentiment, which is this bigger, more sea-worthy ship that's going to rescue us?
You've missed the point.Only so far as the EU dictates what may be imported, at what tariffs, to what standards and so on. Being within the EU still brings all the regulations about what may be sold within the EU, what standards it has to meet, etc., but also brings all the other red-tape and bureaucracy as well, including a restriction on what's sold in the U.K. and what standards it must meet. The only nominal benefit is in not being subject to import taxes and the like. That's not worth all the disadvantages which come with it.But quite obviously they are, to all intents and purposes, trading with the EU, following all the requirements, etc, of the EU.
Again, you've rather missed the context of my intended intimation.How do you figure that when the article to which you linked then expressly indicates that while the U.K. might try to claim back some power it's likely to remain within the EU arrest warrant arrangement?For instance, PBC mentioned the EU arrest warrant as a single issue. But this is another red herring:
Just how difficult would it be to reclaim such powers while still within the EU anyway? Remember that according to the EU, a power handed over from a national government to the EU (in their jargon, something which becomes "an EU competence") is done so irrevocably, since the power-grab is a one-way street.
I say this with respect.Shouldn't that flag be white, tony, judging by the content and contribution to the debate?
I say this with respect but judging from that comment and many others you have made...you aren't British are you?
I would say a very appropriate quotation, but we're not at war with EU! It's an agreement with the EU that we are discussing, not UDI!.
Benjamin Franklin; 'those who are prepared to loose liberty for a little safety and security deserve neither safety nor security'.