Prior To Brexit....

[Gerrydelasel]

Follow the rules or economic suicide.

How small your world must be. How limiting. If only you could see beyond your own nose. History has told you over and over that things never collapse the way you're imagining they will, yet you still think "this time it will be different; this time it's special". What happens after your supposed economic collapse? Poverty for everyone in Britain, in perpetuity? A Mad Max post-apocalyptic dystopia that lasts until Judgement Day? Have you no concept of variance, of change, of rise and fall, of things getting worse before they get better, of taking a temporary defeat in exchange for a longer term win?

 

[wobs]

Give an example where it was essential that we were part of the negotiation.

I already have, in post#153. Do you also want me to go on about waste management as well? Or how standards are good for business even if we don't trade with the EU? Or standards in consumer goods?
And issues like that will effect us in unpredictable ways if we don't take on those rules.

What's your point? If we're outside the EU then we won't have to abide by those crippling rules (domestically). Or we can continue to copy the EU rules because they seem sensible. Our choice.
You seem to be saying that countries can't have profitable relations together without also having enforced legal harmonisation. It's like saying two people cannot live happily together without being officially married!

We are stronger together. Legal harmonisation saves money, makes life simpler, and in the case of the EU, has largely been for the good.
You are aware that married couples are more statistically likely to stay together and provide a more stable home life aren't you? But as an analogy, it might not hold up, owing to the complexities of the economic/political system.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I already have, in post#153.

No, all you did was describe the process. "Emissions... it goes out to consultation to those stakeholders throughout the EU that are affected by it."
You gave no account of how Britain made a unique contribution to that negotiation. Did we get what we wanted? Would the outcome have been any different if we hadn't been there? And if so, would it have mattered at all, assuming we're outside the EU and therefore not bound by those rules most of the time?

Legal harmonisation saves money, makes life simpler, and in the case of the EU, has largely been for the good.

Yes we agree on that -stadardisation and harmonisation can be a great relief. But why do we need to pay billions to be part of a legally binding harmonisation, that applies to almost every facet of the law, but with only an exclusive selection of countries, when we could simply pick and choose to copy those laws that seem useful, for free? We had standards long before the EU, what makes it so special all of a sudden? Did we really need to ban incandescent bulbs? Or adopt fortnightly bin collections? Or make the mains cables on appliances useless short? Or change the design of kettles so they take ages to switch off? Or be forced to permit the sale of push-button toilet cisterns? With the EU it's all or nothing.

You are aware that married couples are more statistically likely to stay together and provide a more stable home life aren't you?

42% of mariages say you're wrong, but let's drop it.

 

[wobs]

How small your world must be. How limiting. If only you could see beyond your own nose. History has told you over and over that things never collapse the way you're imagining they will, yet you still think "this time it will be different; this time it's special". What happens after your supposed economic collapse? Poverty for everyone in Britain, in perpetuity? A Mad Max post-apocalyptic dystopia that lasts until Judgement Day? Have you no concept of variance, of change, of rise and fall, of things getting worse before they get better, of taking a temporary defeat in exchange for a longer term win?

Mis-representing what people say says a lot about your view.

Having less ability to negotiate a trade deal, having less clout to get the best deal (which is what our future will entail) does not bode well for us. I do not predict a Mad Max future, but an economic forecast worse than what we would have within the EU. We can look at Norway and Switzerland for how they have struggled to get trade deals, and often feel that they would be better within the EU.
Here is an example:
"The Switzerland-China trade deal gives China immediate access to Swiss markets but Switzerland has to wait 15 years for access to Chinese markets "
"...In the China-Switzerland trade deal, as the much bigger partner, China has set the terms of trade. It is allowed more time to remove tariffs on Swiss goods – up to 15 years in some cases – than the Swiss, who have to let in Chinese goods tariff-free almost immediately..."

http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issu...ness-facts/10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf/

When you say:

History has told you over and over that things never collapse the way you're imagining they will

Are you forgetting the financial crash a few years ago? How many lost their jobs?

The reason this is worrying is that this time, it will take years to get the best deals for us to do well. And for what? To spread a bit more hate, to live in more isolation, blind to the fact that the world is more connected than it used to be. To satisfy some nostalgic feeling of Britain being great? Why do you feel the need for some unelected officials to set some rules over some other officials at the expense of our economy just because they are a bit nearer to where you live? Why not take that to the extreme and say your local council should set those rules.

This would be comparable to the time when time was standardised, and local authorities complained that some far off authority was telling them what to do. This is the same principle.

Make no mistake, there will be wins in this for us. But on balance, the big issues do not look good.

 

[blightymam]

You are aware that married couples are more statistically likely to stay together and provide a more stable home life aren't you? But as an analogy, it might not hold up, owing to the complexities of the economic/political system.

Apparently studies have been made and they no longer think this is the case - successful marriages is more to do with the age when people live together before getting married, having kids that were actually wanted (!) and a few other factors. Anyway, just thought I'd say!!

 

[wobs]

From here:
http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issu...ness-facts/10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf/


1. As a member of the EU, UK business has easier access to 1/3 of the world’s markets by value

But its not just the EU countries that are affected in this trade issue:

2. The EU gives UK business preferential market access to over 50 countries outside of the EU

3. The EU gives the UK access to more markets than Switzerland, Canada or Australia – who have 38, 15 and 15 trade deals respectively

4. The EU gets the UK a better deal – eliminating tariffs with South Korea almost 4 times quicker than Australia’s deal

5. The Switzerland-China trade deal gives China immediate access to Swiss markets but Switzerland has to wait 15 years for access to Chinese markets

6. EU trade deals are comprehensive in scope – all deals signed in the last year include services

7. The EU-South Korea deal boosted UK trade with South Korea by 57%

8. The EU-Canada trade deal will add £1.3bn to the economy

9. If the EU completes all deals currently under negotiation, 88% of the UK’s trade would be covered

10. Completing the trade deals with just Japan and the US would give UK business easier access to 2/3 of the world’s markets by value

And yet we have told foreign academics they will be excluded from helping us!
"Leading foreign academics acting as expert advisers to the UK government have been told they will not be asked to contribute to any government analysis and reports on Brexit because they are not British nationals. "
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/lse-brexit-non-uk-experts-foreign-academics

See that foot? Let's shoot it. Twice.

 

[wobs]

Apparently studies have been made and they no longer think this is the case - successful marriages is more to do with the age when people live together before getting married, having kids that were actually wanted (!) and a few other factors. Anyway, just thought I'd say!!

LOL. I've long considered social science to be an oxy-moron.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Having less ability to negotiate a trade deal,

With whom? Currently we have zero ability to negotiate any trade deals, since the EU has to do it for us. And we've all seen how excrutiatingly slow and bureaucratic it is.

having less clout to get the best deal

Depends how you look at it. Yes we are a smaller economy than the EU as a bloc, but any deals will be exclusively with us, and we represent ourselves. I call that 100% clout.

but an economic forecast worse than what we would have within the EU.

How much worse? Does 'a bit worse' matter? By insisting it will be 'very bad' are you not attempting to fuel a self-fulfilling prophecy?

We can look at Norway and Switzerland for how they have struggled to get trade deals,

Those countries are far less influential and desirable as international trade partners than the UK.

Are you forgetting the financial crash a few years ago? How many lost their jobs?

Are you forgetting the reason the crash happened in the first place was because people were living beyond their means? Have you forgotton how everything has recovered -and then some- in but a few short years? It wasn't so much a crash as a reshuffle.

The reason this is worrying is that this time, it will take years to get the best deals for us to do well.

Based on pure speculation and pessimism. Do you think a year is a long time? I don't. Several years pass in the blink of an eye when you're talking global economic change.

blind to the fact that the world is more connected than it used to be.

Yes, the world is more connected. So why would we want to tie ourselves legally to a handful of nations whose main common ground is that 'they're geographically kinda close to each other'. The world is bigger than Europe. The EU was designed back when the world wasn't so connected; that's precisely why it's an anachronism.

Why do you feel the need for some unelected officials to set some rules over some other officials at the expense of our economy just because they are a bit nearer to where you live?

Um... you just described the EU.

Why not take that to the extreme and say your local council should set those rules.

I think many of us would support more devolution! (not 100%, obviously)

 

[blightymam]

LOL. I've long considered social science to be an oxy-moron.

Yeah, tiz a bit, but it's still interesting at times

 

[Gerrydelasel]

1. As a member of the EU, UK business has easier access to 1/3 of the world’s markets by value

'Easier' compared to what? Compared to a future reality where we have trade deals with 'just Japan and the US' which would constitute '2/3 of the world markets by value', for example?

 

[wobs]

No, all you did was describe the process. "Emissions... it goes out to consultation to those stakeholders throughout the EU that are affected by it."
You gave no account of how Britain made a unique contribution to that negotiation. Did we get what we wanted? Would the outcome have been any different if we hadn't been there? And if so, would it have mattered at all, assuming we're outside the EU and therefore not bound by those rules most of the time?

The UK has been one of the primary players in the setting of new standards for emissions. We have been helping to set the actual limits with people from the Environment Agency and industry reps working together to argue our side. Its based upon what we can actually achieve, which is why even I have filled out questionnaires on this issue. Of course when hardly anyone can achieve a limit, it needs to be amended, and this is what happened. They saw that in many cases, it wasn't viable, and so they:
"Secondly, there is flexibility built into the BREF. The standards in the BREF need to be technically and economically viable and take “into consideration the costs and advantages” of the improvements.

This means that the writers of permits for LCP plants in each member state can make exceptions for particular plants on a case-by-case basis arguing the environmental benefits don’t outweigh the costs. However, any such case must be tested before the courts."
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/03/05/qa-large-combustion-plants-bref-standards/

The details of what the EA can be flexible is worked out by our EA negotiators.

Make no mistake though, I have even met one the EA negotiators, and he is keen to be part of that process, as he can make a difference.

Yes we agree on that -standardisation and harmonisation can be a great relief. But why do we need to pay billions to be part of a legally binding harmonisation

Yes we do. Otherwise its just a guideline, and history shows us that guidelines are often ignored. BTW, we will probably still have to pay billions to the EU to trade with them (see Norway), so what is your point there?.

, that applies to almost every facet of the law, but with only an exclusive selection of countries, when we could simply pick and choose to copy those laws that seem useful, for free? We had standards long before the EU, what makes it so special all of a sudden? Did we really need to ban incandescent bulbs? Or adopt fortnightly bin collections? Or make the mains cables on appliances useless short? Or change the design of kettles so they take ages to switch off? Or be forced to permit the sale of push-button toilet cisterns? With the EU it's all or nothing.

Because the world is shrinking. We have a global economy, with major players like China, and the US making us look small. The EU gives us the clout to get the best deal. The standards that the EU has brought a great deal of good. Incandescent bulbs being banned is one example. If it was such a bad thing, why have Norway and Switzerland also done it? Halogen bulbs are also following this ban as well.

Fortnightly bins? What is the problem? You are aware that no one looks to the UK to see how to deal with its waste. We have an appalling record on waste management, and the EU has repeatedly brought us to a higher standard in this issue (despite DEFRA dragging its heals every time and causing chaos in the process). Read RUBBISH! by Richard Girling for further details.
I'm with you on the push button toilets, but we can still buy syphon flush toilets, so that doesn't really apply. And it was the UK that made it standard in new builds, before the EU caught the idea. Syphons rule.
But ultimately, these items do not need to be different throughout Europe. Making them standard brings benefits overall, not just through selling, but by improving efficiency.

Shorter cables? You mean like on kettles, which have saved kids being scalded by hot water? Why is that a problem?

42% of mariages say you're wrong, but let's drop it.

Yes lets.

 

[wobs]

'Easier' compared to what? Compared to a future reality where we have trade deals with 'just Japan and the US' which would constitute '2/3 of the world markets by value', for example?

Did you miss what Obama said prior to the referendum? Try to remember that we a small player compared to these guys, and trade negotiations like these take years. 15 years are not unknown.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

The UK has been one of the primary players in the setting of new standards for emissions.

Why then did we need the EU? Why couldn't we have set our standards for UK LCP plants independently of the EU? Was it essential for these rules to be continent-wide?

Yes we do. Otherwise its just a guideline,

Well, not if it is legally binding legislation set by the government. Again, does it need to be continent wide? One-size-fits-all is a peculiar policy as the continental scale.

BTW, we will probably still have to pay billions to the EU to trade with them (see Norway)

But not as many billions. That is a rather important point!

We have a global economy, with major players like China, and the US making us look small.

Ah, the crux of the matter. You see Britian as small. I don't; small island does not equal small influence. When you say 'global economy' I think 'agility and flexibility', i.e. independent sovereignty, not 'federalism and bureaucracy'. Different perspectives.

The EU gives us the clout to get the best deal.

I think it gives the EU the clout to get the EU the best deal, which is not necessarily best for us. Probably not bad, but then we can never know what we might have had independently.

The standards that the EU has brought a great deal of good.

Yes, but again, we can just copy them if we want to, like Norway and Switzerland.

Shorter cables? You mean like on kettles, which have saved kids being scalded by hot water? Why is that a problem?

On many applicances, even when it makes them unusable without an extension lead (thereby defeating the point). That's the trouble with the EU, it's all or nothing. We're not a third-world country; if the statistics show that kettles really need shorter, non-detachable leads, then we would adopt that policy. We don't need the EU to do it for us. It could advise us though.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Did you miss what Obama said prior to the referendum?

You mean that inscrutible comment about being at the 'back of the queue'? Did you believe it? What did it even mean? Do you think it carries any weight at all (he won't be president much longer!) Did you miss what the German finance minister said prior to the referndum, and then admitted he was told to say it by George Osborne?
The comments were as simplistic as they were meaningless. Nobody can see 10 years ahead, least not in the borderline-random world of economics.

 

[wobs]

Why then did we need the EU? Why couldn't we have set our standards for UK LCP plants independently of the EU? Was it essential for these rules to be continent-wide?

Standardisation is more economic. If we had adopted those standards and other didn't, we could lose out.

Well, not if it is legally binding legislation set by the government. Again, does it need to be continent wide? One-size-fits-all is a peculiar policy as the continental scale.

It makes sense for the economy, and for businesses.

But not as many billions. That is a rather important point!

Norway pays roughly the same per capita than the UK.
And the UK get grants from the EU for economic development. Or hadn't you noticed the EU signs on some building sites?

Ah, the crux of the matter. You see Britian as small. I don't; small island does not equal small influence. When you say 'global economy' I think 'agility and flexibility', i.e. independent sovereignty, not 'federalism and bureaucracy'. Different perspectives.

We are a small player on the world stage. Hadn't you noticed?

I think it gives the EU the clout to get the EU the best deal, which is not necessarily best for us. Probably not bad, but then we can never know what we might have had independently.

As we are part of the EU, we benefit. Just because there maybe the odd time where this isn't the case, does not mean we don't benefit overall.

I could give examples where the EU are a negative influence. But these are minor compared to the good we get from being in the EU.

Yes, but again, we can just copy them if we want to, like Norway and Switzerland.

As I have said, we get to have a say in the standards being in the EU.

On many applicances, even when it makes them unusable without an extension lead (thereby defeating the point). That's the trouble with the EU, it's all or nothing. We're not a third-world country; if the statistics show that kettles really need shorter, non-detachable leads, then we would adopt that policy. We don't need the EU to do it for us. It could advise us though.

You are aware that shorter leads on kettles came about from the BBC's Watchdog aren't you?
http://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/fro...-watchdog-made-our-homes-safer-11363979949228