Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
When it comes to pen pushing and red tape, Brussels makes the Federal government in Washington look like a bunch of amateurs.
Citation needed. I pointed out that you were railing against the number of regulations without providing any sort of context to your claim and you proceed to continue doing the same. That doesn't make for a very good argument.
Citation? Common knowledge and logic tells me that the EU is a bureaucratic monster that is spinning out of control.
It started off with what? 7 members. Now it's 27.
More MEPs for each country. Staff to help those MEPs. More and bigger buildings to house them. Those buildings will need cleaners, janitors and security staff as well as restaurent staff etc etc
A civil service and commision to do all the paper work. Then you have another parliament in Strasbourg = more staff.
If there are 10,000 EU regulations in British law, then the same goes for every EU member. Somebody has to check that those regulations are obeyed = more pen pushers.
And because Britain wasn't in the Euro or Schengen, then those other nations would need more staff in Brussels to handle that.
Plus Juncker and Tusk will need their staff and hangers on etc etc etc
So, it's clear for all to see that the mission creep goes on and on, and if new members join, or the EU army takes shape, the EU bureaucracy will keep growing...
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
It was true in Ancient Rome, it is true in the EU...
"Common knowledge and logic" tells me that you're avoiding to answer the question properly. When someone asks you to back your statement up, more personal opinion is not a relevant answer. "Common sense" or "common knowledge" is the rallying cry of the narrow-minded and intelectually dishonest, and I know from experience that you are neither of those things. Stop acting as though you were.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Herzlos wrote: The thing with Gibraltar is that the isolationist approach the rUK wants would be a disaster. It's the only part of the UK to share a land border with mainland Europe, and since its small a lot of people cross thay border regularly for work and leisure. If they lose freedom of movement it's going to make life much harder for most of them, even if that's just doubling the time it takes to cross the border twice a day.
Spain does that every three weeks anyway. Anytime a politician gets his fingers caught in the till it becomes 'GIBRALTAR MUST BE RULED BY THE SPANISH' time.
Heck, Gib gave a very clear indication of their priorities today when they said that they'd take a hard border before they'd take any ceding of sovereignty. They're determined that they won't let Madrid gets so much as a toe of authority over that border. Which everyone knew. As I said earlier though, it was only ever proposed as a negotiating ploy, so it'll be taken off the table within a month or two.
It's not on the table. It's a separate table to be talked between the Spain, the UK and Gibraltar.
The UK and the EU will talk terms, then Spain and the UK will negotiate which of those terms apply to Gibraltar post-Brexit.
I think the issue is that if Spain can't twist our arm to get something on Gibraltar separately, they'll veto any EU deal the other countries can agree on.
Nope, because the Gibraltar deal will be worked separately, after the main UK-EU deal is through.
Don't forget the Gibraltar border was closed for decades and was only opened because of EU pressure on Spain while it was trying to get in the then-EEC. That allowed Gibraltar economy to boom and fully develop.
Spanish Tories have never fully forgiven the socialists for that deal.
I was talking to a pair of Gibraltarian accountants the other day, and they were telling me that what relaxing the border did was pick up the economy of all the nearby Spanish towns. That's because the economy in Gib had always primarily rested upon being a major naval base for the British, and these days, the American Navies, as well as being the main servicing point for Mediterranean cruises. What relaxing the border made possible was the Spaniards who lived across the border being able to get jobs on the Gib side. That in turn picked up their domestic economies vastly.
Accordingly, when the border closes, the ones who really suffer are the local Spaniards. The Gibraltarians are mildly inconvenienced because they need to cross the border to get to the airport, but their economy carries on just fine. The local Spaniards though, find they can't get to work on time. Accordingly, the Gibraltarians were telling me how much this Spanish political diversionary tactic over Gib where they lock down the border really hacks off all the local Spaniards and harms their wallets. The Gibraltarians? It doesn't bother them so much. Just annoys them.
That's why threats about a hard border don't faze them vastly, and they'll prioritise sovereignty.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/04/02 11:39:15
I think you'll find that it wasn't bureaucracy that brought down the Roman Empire but the plagues that swept Europe between the 4/5th centuries, which when combined with the factional infighting and political instability of the later Empire resulted in lower tax reciepts. This led to later emperors settling and then incorporating the various peoples migrating from the steppe/Eastern Europe into the empire, which eventually just dissolved into the various kingdoms that we're familiar with today, as Imperial attention became less and less focussed on the wider empire.
As for Gibraltar, it's only really important whilst we still view shipping as a major part of the the global trade structure. Which is liable to change dramatically over the coming decades as our reliance on oil (hopefully) comes to an end.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/02 11:51:51
For years, we on the indy side have said the Spanish wouldn't veto a Scottish EU application. Indeed, the Spanish themselves have said this many a time.
Unionists warned indy Scotland about the Spanish veto all day and night in 2014.
Well, it looks like the Spanish veto does exist...but it's pointing at Gibraltar and Westminster
Honestly, I don't mean to gloat, but when you've had two years of Unionists banging on about the Spanish veto, you do get some satisfaction when the boot is on the other foot.
And yes, I still maintain my earlier comments that the Gibraltar issue is daft, as it pits two NATO members against each other.
But when Michael Howard is crawling out of the woodwork and saying that May could go to war over Gibraltar
well...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Again, how do we know thats not just a negotiating tactic? A bluff to pressure the British Government? Sure, they say now that they won't block an Ind. Scotlands application, but do you really believe them? And even if they do intend to keep their word, by the time Scotland becomes Independent and applies to join the EU an entirely different government might be in office in Spain. This Government's promises and policies are not binding on the next Government.
As Ketara says, most of this is just bull-gak, smoke and mirrors.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/02 12:02:54
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Again, how do we know thats not just a negotiating tactic? A bluff to pressure the British Government? Sure, they say now that they won't block an Ind. Scotlands application, but do you really believe them? And even if they do intend to keep their word, by the time Scotland becomes Independent and applies to join the EU an entirely different government might be in office in Spain. This Government's promises and policies are not binding on the next Government.
As Ketara says, most of this is just bull-gak, smoke and mirrors.
Even before the June 23rd referendum, the Spanish were on record as saying they wouldn't veto indy Scotland's EU application.
London just chose to stick its fingers in its ears and sing veto veto veto!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Yes but what he means is that the bureaucracy is too centralised in one big mass. Countries would be better off if they could do their own share rather than rely on the current expanding mass. You could quite easily counter-argue that over centralisation has hypothetically cost people potential jobs. If it was less centralised there would be more employment opportunities for people in areas like import duties etc. Yes it would be more local bureaucracy but it would be more controllable and adaptable for each country. The member states have already admitted major reforms needed to happen in such areas as no one is really pleased about it, tough luck that they never raised a finger (well maybe they did) to Cameron when he tried to negotiate for a reformed EU. Now that the leaving process is finally becoming set in EU legislation they may actually act on what was on everyone's minds all along...
Efficiencies do cost jobs, that is the point. However the idea behind being more efficient is that you can save money for areas you wish to prioritise. That can then generate more jobs in other areas (lets say teachers) that are more critical to the future of 'DUK PLC'. The UK now has to introduce an import duty system for the vast majority of its exports. Lets suppose the overall cost for that is £1billion (example figure only). That money has to come from somewhere, it's either direct taxes (never popular), cuts in other services (like the NHS or education), reduction in the social rights of the populace (environmental, work benefits etc) or you charge directly the companies exporting (immediately making them even less competitive, even before you take into account any duties that might need to be paid). The businesses will then have to employ more people to manage this. Yes it is more jobs, but the businesses now have a higher cost, that makes them less competitive (or less profitable). That gives those companies that don't have to pay this 'bill' more competitive in other countries. That ultimately can lead to less jobs as businesses can't compete and they either move abroad, bought out or go close completely.
In certain areas you want to be as efficient as you can as that allows you to as competitive as possible as that allows you to focus on areas that you *do* want to prioritise.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Automation is ultimately unavoidable. Why spend £15 (more or less national minimum wage) per employee per year when you can spend £500,000 (number out my arse) on a machine which'll do the job of three humans for 20 years? Those costs are a no-brainer.
Instead, we can focus on producing kids from schools very capable of programming and maintaining those machines, and doing the jobs where Machines just aren't cost efficient.
And this is coming from a committed Lefty Scum.
Robotics, whether we like it or not, are the inescapable future. We just have to plan round it.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Automation is ultimately unavoidable. Why spend £15 (more or less national minimum wage) per employee per year when you can spend £500,000 (number out my arse) on a machine which'll do the job of three humans for 20 years? Those costs are a no-brainer.
Instead, we can focus on producing kids from schools very capable of programming and maintaining those machines, and doing the jobs where Machines just aren't cost efficient.
And this is coming from a committed Lefty Scum.
Robotics, whether we like it or not, are the inescapable future. We just have to plan round it.
Change will happen. Its how we apart and prepare for it.
Preparing to be a strong player in the robotic future. That's worth investment.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Michael Howard has made an unnecessary fuss over Gibraltar. The odds of Spain rolling the tanks in is zero, so why start the chest beating about reliving the Falklands?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Automation is ultimately unavoidable. Why spend £15 (more or less national minimum wage) per employee per year when you can spend £500,000 (number out my arse) on a machine which'll do the job of three humans for 20 years? Those costs are a no-brainer.
Instead, we can focus on producing kids from schools very capable of programming and maintaining those machines, and doing the jobs where Machines just aren't cost efficient.
And this is coming from a committed Lefty Scum.
Robotics, whether we like it or not, are the inescapable future. We just have to plan round it.
Change will happen. Its how we apart and prepare for it.
Preparing to be a strong player in the robotic future. That's worth investment.
I don't disagree to prepare for the future, but I am a little sceptical about an impending robotic revolution. Until the market is flooded with cheap, efficient, reliable and to a degree intelligent robots outside of specialised environments I think future generations will be alright. The workforce will change to meet demands and habits but I think there would be a limit to what robots could replace people (in job roles that people would really want). Until this day, mechanisation is still the future in which one person replaces the many with some new form of machine/vehicle for industries. I think there should be more training for roles in operating/managing smart machines and the development of robot science until robots overtake human controlled machines.
I have a funny story to tell about a previous company I worked for and its grand scheme for a robotic future! The factory was redeveloping a line and after negotiating a good deal with some other company paid £1,000,000 for a robotic arm on top of the line development. This meant in the long run having to pay less salaries they thought. All went well until the warranty ran out a little later... The £1m robot broke and was too expensive to fix or replace outside of warranty. What did the company do? It employed outsourced labour on a cheaper wage to fill in the original job roles. As for the robot it still sits broken on a disused piece of production line. A waste of money if you ask me.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Michael Howard has made an unnecessary fuss over Gibraltar. The odds of Spain rolling the tanks in is zero, so why start the chest beating about reliving the Falklands?
They know these kind of "patriotic" statements are always popular among a certain spectrum of voters.
It's standard torie practice, the spanish ones do it as well from time to time (regarding Morocco).
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
Efficiencies do cost jobs, that is the point. However the idea behind being more efficient is that you can save money for areas you wish to prioritise. That can then generate more jobs in other areas (lets say teachers) that are more critical to the future of 'DUK PLC'. The UK now has to introduce an import duty system for the vast majority of its exports. Lets suppose the overall cost for that is £1billion (example figure only). That money has to come from somewhere, it's either direct taxes (never popular), cuts in other services (like the NHS or education), reduction in the social rights of the populace (environmental, work benefits etc) or you charge directly the companies exporting (immediately making them even less competitive, even before you take into account any duties that might need to be paid). The businesses will then have to employ more people to manage this. Yes it is more jobs, but the businesses now have a higher cost, that makes them less competitive (or less profitable). That gives those companies that don't have to pay this 'bill' more competitive in other countries. That ultimately can lead to less jobs as businesses can't compete and they either move abroad, bought out or go close completely.
In certain areas you want to be as efficient as you can as that allows you to as competitive as possible as that allows you to focus on areas that you *do* want to prioritise.
Yes but it won't make profitable companies go bust overnight. There will of course be concern over where potential money is found to fund the system by the government I agree, but surely if free trade is lost then Tariffs would be put on foreign imports. Get the figure levels right and you could balance the books to make it a level playing field with foreign companies. British businesses have been moving production abroad, being bought out and closing down for years (in that order some of the time but usually bought, transferred, destroyed). Brexit will change what the economy is made up of and how businesses evolve and develop. Doors will close but potentially more will open with a broader aspect of commerce to areas outside of Old World Europe.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Automation is ultimately unavoidable. Why spend £15 (more or less national minimum wage) per employee per year when you can spend £500,000 (number out my arse) on a machine which'll do the job of three humans for 20 years? Those costs are a no-brainer.
Instead, we can focus on producing kids from schools very capable of programming and maintaining those machines, and doing the jobs where Machines just aren't cost efficient.
And this is coming from a committed Lefty Scum.
Robotics, whether we like it or not, are the inescapable future. We just have to plan round it.
Change will happen. Its how we apart and prepare for it.
Preparing to be a strong player in the robotic future. That's worth investment.
I don't disagree to prepare for the future, but I am a little sceptical about an impending robotic revolution. Until the market is flooded with cheap, efficient, reliable and to a degree intelligent robots outside of specialised environments I think future generations will be alright. The workforce will change to meet demands and habits but I think there would be a limit to what robots could replace people (in job roles that people would really want). Until this day, mechanisation is still the future in which one person replaces the many with some new form of machine/vehicle for industries. I think there should be more training for roles in operating/managing smart machines and the development of robot science until robots overtake human controlled machines.
I have a funny story to tell about a previous company I worked for and its grand scheme for a robotic future! The factory was redeveloping a line and after negotiating a good deal with some other company paid £1,000,000 for a robotic arm on top of the line development. This meant in the long run having to pay less salaries they thought. All went well until the warranty ran out a little later... The £1m robot broke and was too expensive to fix or replace outside of warranty. What did the company do? It employed outsourced labour on a cheaper wage to fill in the original job roles. As for the robot it still sits broken on a disused piece of production line. A waste of money if you ask me.
True... That's a rather expensive decoration.
However teaching with a good focus on future skills and such. At the very least a high degree of computer literacy, technology and just equiping for a growing future where tech will not go away.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Michael Howard has made an unnecessary fuss over Gibraltar. The odds of Spain rolling the tanks in is zero, so why start the chest beating about reliving the Falklands?
They know these kind of "patriotic" statements are always popular among a certain spectrum of voters.
It's standard torie practice, the spanish ones do it as well from time to time (regarding Morocco).
Standard bluff and bluster for headlines. Everyone does it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/02 20:08:40
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Efficiencies do cost jobs, that is the point. However the idea behind being more efficient is that you can save money for areas you wish to prioritise. That can then generate more jobs in other areas (lets say teachers) that are more critical to the future of 'DUK PLC'. The UK now has to introduce an import duty system for the vast majority of its exports. Lets suppose the overall cost for that is £1billion (example figure only). That money has to come from somewhere, it's either direct taxes (never popular), cuts in other services (like the NHS or education), reduction in the social rights of the populace (environmental, work benefits etc) or you charge directly the companies exporting (immediately making them even less competitive, even before you take into account any duties that might need to be paid). The businesses will then have to employ more people to manage this. Yes it is more jobs, but the businesses now have a higher cost, that makes them less competitive (or less profitable). That gives those companies that don't have to pay this 'bill' more competitive in other countries. That ultimately can lead to less jobs as businesses can't compete and they either move abroad, bought out or go close completely.
In certain areas you want to be as efficient as you can as that allows you to as competitive as possible as that allows you to focus on areas that you *do* want to prioritise.
Yes but it won't make profitable companies go bust overnight. There will of course be concern over where potential money is found to fund the system by the government I agree, but surely if free trade is lost then Tariffs would be put on foreign imports. Get the figure levels right and you could balance the books to make it a level playing field with foreign companies. British businesses have been moving production abroad, being bought out and closing down for years (in that order some of the time but usually bought, transferred, destroyed). Brexit will change what the economy is made up of and how businesses evolve and develop. Doors will close but potentially more will open with a broader aspect of commerce to areas outside of Old World Europe.
Don't import tariffs just mean we pay more for stuff? So we'd only balance the books if imports keep up despite costing more, via a stealth tax.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Automation is ultimately unavoidable. Why spend £15 (more or less national minimum wage) per employee per year when you can spend £500,000 (number out my arse) on a machine which'll do the job of three humans for 20 years? Those costs are a no-brainer.
Instead, we can focus on producing kids from schools very capable of programming and maintaining those machines, and doing the jobs where Machines just aren't cost efficient.
And this is coming from a committed Lefty Scum.
Robotics, whether we like it or not, are the inescapable future. We just have to plan round it.
Change will happen. Its how we apart and prepare for it.
Preparing to be a strong player in the robotic future. That's worth investment.
I don't disagree to prepare for the future, but I am a little sceptical about an impending robotic revolution. Until the market is flooded with cheap, efficient, reliable and to a degree intelligent robots outside of specialised environments I think future generations will be alright. The workforce will change to meet demands and habits but I think there would be a limit to what robots could replace people (in job roles that people would really want). Until this day, mechanisation is still the future in which one person replaces the many with some new form of machine/vehicle for industries. I think there should be more training for roles in operating/managing smart machines and the development of robot science until robots overtake human controlled machines.
I have a funny story to tell about a previous company I worked for and its grand scheme for a robotic future! The factory was redeveloping a line and after negotiating a good deal with some other company paid £1,000,000 for a robotic arm on top of the line development. This meant in the long run having to pay less salaries they thought. All went well until the warranty ran out a little later... The £1m robot broke and was too expensive to fix or replace outside of warranty. What did the company do? It employed outsourced labour on a cheaper wage to fill in the original job roles. As for the robot it still sits broken on a disused piece of production line. A waste of money if you ask me.
True... That's a rather expensive decoration.
However teaching with a good focus on future skills and such. At the very least a high degree of computer literacy, technology and just equiping for a growing future where tech will not go away.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Michael Howard has made an unnecessary fuss over Gibraltar. The odds of Spain rolling the tanks in is zero, so why start the chest beating about reliving the Falklands?
They know these kind of "patriotic" statements are always popular among a certain spectrum of voters.
It's standard torie practice, the spanish ones do it as well from time to time (regarding Morocco).
Standard bluff and bluster for headlines. Everyone does it.
I agree, but I'm sure people make similar remarks prior to the invasion of the Falklands. Its not impossible, and we should not risk getting complacent over it.
I was talking to a pair of Gibraltarian accountants the other day, and they were telling me that what relaxing the border did was pick up the economy of all the nearby Spanish towns. That's because the economy in Gib had always primarily rested upon being a major naval base for the British, and these days, the American Navies, as well as being the main servicing point for Mediterranean cruises. What relaxing the border made possible was the Spaniards who lived across the border being able to get jobs on the Gib side. That in turn picked up their domestic economies vastly.
Well, of course a couple Gibraltarian lawyers would tell you that
Truth is, the bunkering business market share of Gibraltar has been eroded lately as Algeciras, Ceuta and, most important of all, the new Tangiers port have been growing like mad. It's probably still the biggest in the region but no one really knows because Gib port stopped publishing statistics a few years back (at roughly the same time Aegean, the largest non-government bunkering company, set up shop in Tangiers).
RN navy business is not what it once was, and the USN does most of its refueling just around the corner, in Naval Station Rota where the facilities were recently upgraded.
While bunkering services are important most of the growth of the last few years can be traced to offshoring. Most British gambling companies have set up shop in Gibraltar. A lot of insurance (it used to be marine only, not so much now), etc. Now, for the most part this is leeching from the UK economy (I've read estimates on the 75-80% range) so really it's up to the UK if they want to support Gibraltar this way.... it's the other 20-25% that matters the rest (especially Spain).
At some point in the 2010s Gibraltar was collecting 30% of their budget on tobacco duties, Gibraltar was importing over 100 million cigarrette packages, which works out that every man, woman and child in Gibraltar was smoking almost 4.000 packs per year.
Now, of course closing the border means a lot of waiters and cleaning staff will lose their job, but also smugglers.
What does that mean for the Gib side? Housing, services (especially health care) are already stretched thin, so much that a lot of recent employees in the new economy commute daily from cheaper (or bigger) properties in Spain to Gibraltar. A hard border would force them to make tiny Gibraltar even more crowded with worse services, and a much tighter budget situation (meaning Gibraltar would have to cede on its traditional tax-free economics).
Just like Brexit, this is a lose-lose situation, one Gibraltarians knew it was coming.
That still doesn't mean anything with regards to sovereignity, they will have to adapt, just like they've done in the past. The first time Spain closed the border Gibraltar brought Moroccan labourers so I'm sure they'll find a way.
That still doesn't mean anything with regards to sovereignity, they will have to adapt, just like they've done in the past. The first time Spain closed the border Gibraltar brought Moroccan labourers so I'm sure they'll find a way.
The interveawing of nations in the EU is a good thing from the EU point of view, not so much from the UK point of view. UK is and stays an island which is hardly in the EU. But UK will suffer from not having free access to the EU single market. It may happen that car manufacturers like BWM (Mini) will produce their cars in Europe, say Slovakia, rather than England.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
A thought I just had: can someone explain how removing the UK from the decision-making process in the EU is supposed to give sovereignty back to the UK? The same rules will still apply when trading with the EU except the UK will no longer be part of shaping that legislation. Isn't that a LOSS in sovereignty?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A thought I just had: can someone explain how removing the UK from the decision-making process in the EU is supposed to give sovereignty back to the UK? The same rules will still apply when trading with the EU except the UK will no longer be part of shaping that legislation. Isn't that a LOSS in sovereignty?
This is time limited. After two years UK is automatically out with or without a contract with the EU.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A thought I just had: can someone explain how removing the UK from the decision-making process in the EU is supposed to give sovereignty back to the UK? The same rules will still apply when trading with the EU except the UK will no longer be part of shaping that legislation. Isn't that a LOSS in sovereignty?
This is time limited. After two years UK is automatically out with or without a contract with the EU.
Both parties can agree to extend the 2 year deadline for a deal, as well as provisional measures before full disconnection.
Mrs. May is on record saying no deal is better than a bad deal so make of it what you want.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/03 08:20:32
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A thought I just had: can someone explain how removing the UK from the decision-making process in the EU is supposed to give sovereignty back to the UK? The same rules will still apply when trading with the EU except the UK will no longer be part of shaping that legislation. Isn't that a LOSS in sovereignty?
It's simple, we can now choose to follow EU laws, if we want to keep selling them stuff. It's entirely illusionary.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A thought I just had: can someone explain how removing the UK from the decision-making process in the EU is supposed to give sovereignty back to the UK? The same rules will still apply when trading with the EU except the UK will no longer be part of shaping that legislation. Isn't that a LOSS in sovereignty?
This is time limited. After two years UK is automatically out with or without a contract with the EU.
Both parties can agree to extend the 2 year deadline for a deal, as well as provisional measures before full disconnection.
Mrs. May is on record saying no deal is better than a bad deal so make of it what you want.
I think it's better to have a trade deal with the EU than none. The EU has a trade deal with Canada and soon with Japan. On the other hand, UK has to follow the WTO rules and these are really bad. No tariff for Whiskey but 24% for car parts.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
I was talking to a pair of Gibraltarian accountants the other day, and they were telling me that what relaxing the border did was pick up the economy of all the nearby Spanish towns. That's because the economy in Gib had always primarily rested upon being a major naval base for the British, and these days, the American Navies, as well as being the main servicing point for Mediterranean cruises. What relaxing the border made possible was the Spaniards who lived across the border being able to get jobs on the Gib side. That in turn picked up their domestic economies vastly.
Well, of course a couple Gibraltarian lawyers would tell you that
Truth is, the bunkering business market share of Gibraltar has been eroded lately as Algeciras, Ceuta and, most important of all, the new Tangiers port have been growing like mad. It's probably still the biggest in the region but no one really knows because Gib port stopped publishing statistics a few years back (at roughly the same time Aegean, the largest non-government bunkering company, set up shop in Tangiers).
RN navy business is not what it once was, and the USN does most of its refueling just around the corner, in Naval Station Rota where the facilities were recently upgraded.
While bunkering services are important most of the growth of the last few years can be traced to offshoring. Most British gambling companies have set up shop in Gibraltar. A lot of insurance (it used to be marine only, not so much now), etc. Now, for the most part this is leeching from the UK economy (I've read estimates on the 75-80% range) so really it's up to the UK if they want to support Gibraltar this way.... it's the other 20-25% that matters the rest (especially Spain).
At some point in the 2010s Gibraltar was collecting 30% of their budget on tobacco duties, Gibraltar was importing over 100 million cigarrette packages, which works out that every man, woman and child in Gibraltar was smoking almost 4.000 packs per year.
Now, of course closing the border means a lot of waiters and cleaning staff will lose their job, but also smugglers.
What does that mean for the Gib side? Housing, services (especially health care) are already stretched thin, so much that a lot of recent employees in the new economy commute daily from cheaper (or bigger) properties in Spain to Gibraltar. A hard border would force them to make tiny Gibraltar even more crowded with worse services, and a much tighter budget situation (meaning Gibraltar would have to cede on its traditional tax-free economics).
Just like Brexit, this is a lose-lose situation, one Gibraltarians knew it was coming.
That still doesn't mean anything with regards to sovereignity, they will have to adapt, just like they've done in the past. The first time Spain closed the border Gibraltar brought Moroccan labourers so I'm sure they'll find a way.
They were accountants, not lawyers. One of them works for the Gibraltarian government in the tax office. Accordingly, you may be right, you may be waaaaaay off-track. I'm simply relating what a pair of Gibraltarians who know something about money have told me. You'll forgive me if I trust them over a faceless account on Dakka though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/03 11:24:24
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A thought I just had: can someone explain how removing the UK from the decision-making process in the EU is supposed to give sovereignty back to the UK? The same rules will still apply when trading with the EU except the UK will no longer be part of shaping that legislation. Isn't that a LOSS in sovereignty?
This is time limited. After two years UK is automatically out with or without a contract with the EU.
After which the UK will still have to abide by EU trade regulations if it wants to trade with the EU, the alternative to which is economic seppuku.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A thought I just had: can someone explain how removing the UK from the decision-making process in the EU is supposed to give sovereignty back to the UK? The same rules will still apply when trading with the EU except the UK will no longer be part of shaping that legislation. Isn't that a LOSS in sovereignty?
This is time limited. After two years UK is automatically out with or without a contract with the EU.
After which the UK will still have to abide by EU trade regulations if it wants to trade with the EU, the alternative to which is economic seppuku.
Leaked info about the EU proposing an immediate zero-tariff deal on goods starting right after Brexit is finalised. Of course services are not included.
Future War Cultist wrote: If I read that right, that would mean no tariffs on all the goods they sell to us, but the services we provide to them will have levies on them yes?
No tariffs on the goods sold either way, subject to origin checks (i.e. if it's mostly Chinese, it's still treated as Chinese for the sake of tariffs) - so we can't become a cheap back door to the EU.
It's implying there will be tariffs on services (of which we're in the surplus), and that any workaround for that is proportional - we can't just brass-plate an office in Brussels and trade as normal from London.
So the concern is that cars we put together in the UK might not pass the origin checks, and may still be subject to tariffs, but everything else should flow pretty well.
Goods don't include food, which may still be subject to tariffs.
It's about as good a deal as we can expect if we want to get rid of FoM.
