As a semi-interested Yank, y’all really should have a higher standard for highly-consequential referendums like Brexit. Perhaps a similar threshold to the repeal of a constitutional amendment in the U.S… The vote to join the EU garnered 67%. Two-thirds seems a reasonable requirement to over-ride it.
Also, I heard a rumor that, post-Brexit, it’s magically going to be the 1950s again in the UK. Is that true?
Heaven’s no, lad! That would mean Kipling was prejudiced! He meant wogs, fuzzy-wuzzies, Abos, that sort!
That stuff about “all this money could go to the NHS instead”, for example.
Whether the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget or not falls under the same “how do you count things” that we play a lot in Spain: in terms of raw money, if your country/region is at a net gain, you’re the part that’s enormously fucked up in so many other respects (healthcare, education, infrastructure) that they’re funneling money in hoping that you’ll be able to handle most of it in building up such basic services locally. Most of a country/the EU’s “payback” isn’t in raw money but in services. How much did each individual country get out of each individual trade deal made by a group in a given year, or of a multi-country project such as Erasmus, is a lot more difficult to calculate than just looking at direct e-transfers.
Nah.
In the 1950s we had trade links worldwide and took advantaged of the European mainland being a war ravaged pit.
Many Brexiters want to go back to an imagined 1950s though. When Britain could send gunboats to scare off Johnny Foreigner, when everyone knew their place and there weren’t no coloured faces in the streets. Nor any poofs, either.
It was pointed out to me a while ago that when Brexiters talk about sovereignty, and taking back control, they don’t really mean a desire for the UK to conduct its affairs unmolested. They actually yearn for the days when Britain could interfere in others without penalty.
Hence why they’re surprised when the EU says no to their demands for the UK to be in the Single Market but not subject to regulations or pay into it.
Instead, if we no-deal, we’ll have zero trade links. It’ll be the European mainland having worldwide trade links and the UK being a divided weakened dump.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Firstly, understand that I am only continuing to engage with you, you colossal prick, in case others imagine that a lack of response from me means you have won the argument.
The facts of this matter are that in some industries, regulation already prevents sales to non-residents (no imaginary “English only Internet” necessary), so to have an EU-imposed ombudsman is not only pointless but actively unhelpful, since all it does is direct complaints back to the existing national ombudsman. This is just one example of unnecessary and unhelpful EU interference to which I object. But you are so blinded by your obedience to the EU project you just don’t see it. Sucks to be you, I guess.
Actually (and I rather suspect to far more “others” than just me), it’s your apparent hostility to what you term “the EU project” that’s the most significant indicator of her winning of the argument (the “English only internet” tangent strikes me as somewhat esoteric).
The English only internet is simply mocking his pig headed little englandism about a subject which is the Online Sales to Consumers, an issue which the EU was/is trying to address “friction” - that is internal barriers by making it more easy for non resident in one member state to figure out the next member state and thus boost the trade.
It is good economic action - reducing information barriers.
The actual EU regulation, which I found after having doubts about his posting what sounded like the usual little Englander page 3 reader tabloid rendition of a regulation, as summarized by the leading English law firm Bird & Bird:
The emphasis added.
For entities with Online sales to consumers.
Must have accessible electronic link to what is just a clearing website which gives multi language direction to the Altenrative Dispute Resolution options (which rare the national ones, by the way there are 43 options in England) - to help the consumers
The terrible horrible burden of it, the tyrrany of the Brussels bureaucrats - imposing on the English traders the website link to allow poor consumers to more easily find options for the ADR.
I do not care who “won” an argument, but it is very telling your angry inability to admit the factual errors and the very typical Brexiter insitence on continuing to believe in false misrepresentations you have been sold in between reading the page three editions of tabloids
You did assert that in the other thread. And yet **had not one single example **of such a thing applying to consumer sales online. No you disappeared on this point.
The regulation applies to shops selling online to consumers. As other commentators in such thread, no one could think of what the fuck you are pretending to talk about as no consumer good cames to mind.
Now, you can take the opportunity go beyond the angry page 3 tabloid bluster and provide some facts and references as I bothered to do (although to no effect since you refused to read them…).
Of course since the national parliament can make exceptions if there is in fact some strange English regulation against a cheese shop prevents English Cheese from being sold to filthy non-English…
As I quoted from Bird and Bird, the English law firm with the analysis (which you got so angry about) in that thread
So the very logic of this is to help consumers have a tool to navigate choices outside of their home country to build confidence for the internet sales…
No it is not actively unhelpful as in your own little England itself there are a great multiplicity of choices (43) and it is not at all evident that foreign consumer
Of course a regulation for the entire EU has to be general if it is not to be madly complex and as you insistently ignore the actual application of these things must go through the national parliament, which if there is a reason for a carve out can make one
it is a great example of the irrational and unfactual little england nationalist rage and provincialism - exaggerating a simple little obligation for a website link (OMG, a website link, tyrrany against English freedoms!!! No need to help the dirty forienger buyers. Only English go to our website… Great English Internet, since we can adopt from Huwaie:D).
The essence of your response is in the end “Fuck the furriners fuck them we have english things and do not need foreign…” it is and has been an irrational misrepresentation of a minor regulation merely requiring access to the site which is supposed to help reduce the information assymetry.
I would say it sucks to be English about to cut off their own noses over an irrational reaction to what are minor irritations or more often deliberate misrepresentations by the populist politicians selling you the fantasy tripe of 1950 & old empire.
Otherwise, I am only a person who follows the rational economic analysis and facts, as presented the rational actors - like Bird & Bird who were not getting their information from page 3 tabloids.
We’re all a bunch of cunts, apparently.
Hahahaaaaaaaaaa
I believe the correct term is a swarm of cunts.
Did this come from anywhere in particular…?
Latest fracas in the Brexit thread in Great Debates.
How about a link?
The irony, it burns.