- Joined
- 16 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 447
- Reaction score
- 51
- Country
An iPad? Wow I guess that explains why you want to stay in the EU, you enjoy being ripped off.
Sorry to burst your Martin Schultz bubble. What he actually said was,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'.
But we are not discussing an agreement with the EU; the meagre window-dressing 'concessions' pork-face has won will be overturned because they are not legally binding, as Martin Schultz has stated.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...vid-Cameron-Brussels-Martin-Schulz-reversibleCommenting on whether a European Council agreement would give Mr Cameron’s an “irreversible” deal, Mr Schulz had earlier told Sky News: "Nothing in our lives is irreversible.
"Therefore legally binding decisions are also reversible - nothing is irreversible.
"But in politics, when 28 heads of states and governments and the European institutions together on the 19 February agree about a deal, the deal is done."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35538074It comes as papers released ahead of next week's crunch summit suggested any agreement on changes to the UK's membership of the EU would be "legally binding".
Draft conclusions of the summit, issued in advance, state any deal would be "fully compatible with EU treaties".
The suggestion of an EU army is laughable and been disproved several times.Then mix in an EU army and Europol. It's a very worrying trend developing.Indeed, it does seem that Hitlers replacements are strutting around with a new flag, anthem, and means to gain total domination..
What's wrong with that? Very much like Interpol, is it not?More than 900 staff at Europol headquarters in The Hague, the Netherlands, work closely with law enforcement agencies in the 28 EU Member States and in other non-EU partner states such as Australia, Canada, the USA and Norway.
Not at all! Trade, notably exports to, with EU would decline, perhaps at an alarming rate. But there's no suggestion of a sudden cut-off.But isn't that just what the EU supporters are claiming would happen if Britain withdrew?Assuming that a) market in EU does not stop suddenly,
But it's not cheaper, it's more expensive to produce at two different standards. That will simply add an additional layer of expensive to try to compete in EU and other markets.Some things can be designed and manufactured to meet two different standards simultaneously, other things cannot, so for as long as there is no single, worldwide standard for every product there will still be the need for different versions anyway.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.
You would need no extra administration whatsoever if the government simply cut the extortionate taxes in the U.K. in order to give some of that £33 million per day to its own people instead. A few taxes could be abolished entirely, and further advantages gained by a reduction of the bureaucratic red-tape needed to collect them. Maybe a few redundant paper-shufflers in government departments could then go and find productive work somewhere else too.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.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!
I'll explain below.It was just intended as a light aside, but to be serious, why on earth would the U.K. ever want to get back in having gotten out?I initially said: "what if you wanted to get back in". You've lost the context by dismissing my question without answering it.
No-one suggested a sudden drop-off of exports to EU. A gradual decline, perhaps, as I've said, at an alarming rate.But, as above, aren't the pro-EU side always saying how withdrawal would be devastating due to a sudden inability to sell into other EU countries?You've missed the point.
Trade with EU would not stop abruptly. It would decrease over time.
So maybe over time trade with EU countries would decrease, and trade with the rest of the world would increase to compensate.
And sometimes it's easier just to make one product.Again, as above, for some things this already happens due to different standards. Manufacturers try to keep the costs associated with different versions as small as possible by making a product which is identical as far as can be achieved, but there is sometimes still a need for slight variations.It would not be cost-effective to make two different products, one meeting EU regulations, and t'other not meeting those regulations.
But as indicated, it won't happen. The benefits of the EAW, to the forces of law and order and the government already outweigh the disadvantages.And that in itself is worrying. I would hope that a government withdrawing from the EU would also withdraw the U.K. from the European arrest warrant system so as to restore proper judicial review for extradition.If the EAW would be retained after any reforming of the EU, so it's highly likely that it would be retained after any Brexit. Inded the article linked to in my response demonstrates the desire of some to retain the EAW.
Just to reiterate the point.It was just intended as a light aside, but to be serious, why on earth would the U.K. ever want to get back in having gotten out?I initially said: "what if you wanted to get back in". You've lost the context by dismissing my question without answering it.
Me cynical? Not a chance! However, since I gave F&I the last word, I won't be replying to his post. But I can tell you in confidence, that a little notification popped up on my iPad screen, saying that F&I's notifier is telling lies. It aparantly said that I wanted to stay in the EU and I have never said that! Like everyone else, I can only guess whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing.Take care, bolo, you're in danger of becoming as cynical as the rest of us.
A result for the Brexit-ers will mean the older, less educated voters have destined the younger, better educated to a life not of their own choosing.Under-30s are most pro-EU but least likely to vote; older voters are more likely to favour Brexit and more likely to vote
University graduates, a high-turnout group, are solidly pro-EU; those with fewest educational qualifications, who are more likely to stay at home, favour leaving
A result for the Brexit-ers will mean the older, less educated voters have destined the younger, better educated to a life not of their own choosing.
A result for the Brexit-ers will mean the older, less educated voters have destined the younger, better educated to a life not of their own choosing.
That might be an easy way of defining animals mentality. It doesn't apply to intelligent, reasoning adults.Or another way of looking at it, a creature born in captivity and trained to be risk averse doesn't understand the value of freedomA result for the Brexit-ers will mean the older, less educated voters have destined the younger, better educated to a life not of their own choosing.
Why so?A result for the Brexit-ers will mean the older, less educated voters have destined the younger, better educated to a life not of their own choosing.
Phew, that's a relief.
Why so?A result for the Brexit-ers will mean the older, less educated voters have destined the younger, better educated to a life not of their own choosing.
Phew, that's a relief.