|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 01 2016 06:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:16 WhiteDog wrote:On July 01 2016 05:21 Sermokala wrote:
The closing off of or restriction on a nations ability to trade with its neighbors is never good for an economy. The only argument you can make for brexit is that the loss in economic value is worth the increase in national sovereignty. There are time when a trading restriction is beneficial. How is that? The UK for hundreds of years has benefited from opening new markets and lowering barriers for it to trade.
Trade barriers can be good for your own country when you want to stimulate your own economy. You basically give out money (by printing it, i.e. inflation) but at the same time you do not want the money to go to foreign countries because that will stimulate their economies and give you are trade deficit (foreign countries increase their exports while you increase your imports). If the money is kept within your country then the different cycles of trade (within your country) start spinning faster.
|
On July 01 2016 15:52 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 13:45 Banaora wrote:I thought + Show Spoiler + is a rather interesting video from Professor Michael Dougan where he assesses UK’s position following vote to leave the EU. The University of Liverpool Law School Professor Michael Dougan has spent his career studying EU law as it relates to the UK. He's a funny man, because he claims to be unbiased but then spends his entire time picking apart straw men. We know, for example, that the UK can veto Turkey's membership of the EU - but it categorically would not do so given that it was the UK govt that most eagerly pushed for Turkey's membership in the first place, because they were so keen to expand the market.
Well the UK would be one of 28 countries to be able to veto the membership of Turkey. Two other countries out of the pool of the 28 are Greece and Cyprus. And as long as northern Cyprus is occupied by Turkey I'm very sure Cyprus would vote NO.
There is another thing in your statement. Namely: The UK government does not do what the majority of its people want it to do. This is not the fault of the EU surely and if that is the case on the majority of issues the government should be voted out of office coming the next election.
On July 01 2016 15:52 bardtown wrote:
He says that it is a common lie that the EU commission adopts legislation. I would challenge him to give me one single example where this has been claimed to be the case. The EU commission proposes legislation and dictates policy making direction. These are powers the parliament does not have.
The EU Commission proposes legislation that does only come into effect if the European Parliament votes in its favour. If the European Parliament declines the European Commission is free to alter its proposal and have the parliament vote on the altered version again.
[Edit] I simplified this too much. + Show Spoiler + shows the process in detail. The European Council are the different member states.
Personally I'm missing the right for the European parliament to initiate legislation and propose laws by itself. And that is a legitimate point to criticise in my opinion.
On July 01 2016 15:52 bardtown wrote:
We know, as well, that the UK could have, in theory, vetoed treaties leading to further integration. I say in theory, because in practice they have failed to do so. The British public would never have voted in favour of the Lisbon treaty. The Irish rejected it... until they were made to take another vote. The French and Dutch also rejected it, in its earlier form as the EU constitution, through referenda, so they renamed it and didn't give the French/Dutch public another say. The national govts of Europe are absolutely complicit in what has been happening with the EU, so this result is a message to them just as much as it is a message to the EU itself. It is time to start standing up for your people.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/10/19/asking-the-public-twice-why-do-voters-change-their-minds-in-second-referendums-on-eu-treaties/
is what I found on the multiple referendums in for example Ireland. The issues of the NO campaign have been addressed in the second referendum. So they did not vote on the same thing twice but on an altered version. I find it silly to say they let them vote until they agree when the thing they voted for the second time is different from what it was the first time.
No doubt there is lots to criticise in the EU. I personally am and have been missing the UK's voice to improve things. It's always easier to criticise and leave than it is to build up alliances and try to get what you want and shape the European Union more into a framework that you like. The UK could have been a powerful contributor for this change.
|
On July 01 2016 06:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:16 WhiteDog wrote:On July 01 2016 05:21 Sermokala wrote:
The closing off of or restriction on a nations ability to trade with its neighbors is never good for an economy. The only argument you can make for brexit is that the loss in economic value is worth the increase in national sovereignty. There are time when a trading restriction is beneficial. How is that? The UK for hundreds of years has benefited from opening new markets and lowering barriers for it to trade.
It's more complicated than that. A huge part of UK economic development was made during a time with higher tarriff than now. After the 1930 crisis, economist such as Keynes asked for an increase in tariff (to increase the competitivity of home made goods, and thus replace imports by home made). Thing are quite more complicated than "let's just open borders !!!!". Lowering barriers decrease prices, which is always beneficial to consumers, but not necessarily for workers.
In economic theory, there are many economist that argue for targetted protectionnism, to permit specific branch of the economy to grow enough to be competitive, for exemple. Economic policy must be adapted to the context, not made by following some law that does not exist ...
|
|
|
Hmm now i know what people meant in this thread when they were talking about how disgusting she was.
|
United States44316 Posts
James Kirkup at The Telegraph rightly summarised the speech as follows
did you read the article?
|
On July 01 2016 17:59 spacecoke wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 06:51 Sermokala wrote:On July 01 2016 06:16 WhiteDog wrote:On July 01 2016 05:21 Sermokala wrote:
The closing off of or restriction on a nations ability to trade with its neighbors is never good for an economy. The only argument you can make for brexit is that the loss in economic value is worth the increase in national sovereignty. There are time when a trading restriction is beneficial. How is that? The UK for hundreds of years has benefited from opening new markets and lowering barriers for it to trade. Trade barriers can be good for your own country when you want to stimulate your own economy. You basically give out money (by printing it, i.e. inflation) but at the same time you do not want the money to go to foreign countries because that will stimulate their economies and give you are trade deficit (foreign countries increase their exports while you increase your imports). If the money is kept within your country then the different cycles of trade (within your country) start spinning faster.
That's nonsense. printing money (or quantitative easing) is artificial and lasts so long before the economy re adjusts; latests studies show than when the economy boost is expected (i.e when you try to do it multiple times), the effect is pretty much 0. And barriers are disasoustrous for the economy long and short term. What you just spouted is not even keynesan level of bullshit.
|
On July 02 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:did you read the article?
I skimmed through it, hard to read on phone, that's why i did ask 'is that real' lol. but judging by theresa's past record, i wouldn't be surprised at all, tonnes of stories happened back then (like that ghana nurse with cancer was deported and died on the way back home iirc).
|
On July 02 2016 00:22 BurningSera wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote: James Kirkup at The Telegraph rightly summarised the speech as follows did you read the article? I skimmed through it, hard to read on phone, that's why i did ask 'is that real' lol. but judging by theresa's past record, i wouldn't be surprised at all, tonnes of stories happened back then (like that ghana nurse with cancer was deported and died on the way back home iirc).
Well, you will have some nice, fine, prime minister, whoever from these candidates wins. Also, it appears to me as highly probable that there will be a trade war between the UK and the EU.
Based on the declarations of the parties, I am pretty confident that the new UK representation will not accept an uncontrolled migration, even much less controlled, than how they could control it until now. And from EU's point of view, no free movement of people, no access to the full EU market.
Now when I read some PM candidate writing that she might deport EU citizens, depending on the deal with the EU, then it seems as obvious that she will do that after the EU does not grant to the UK the access to the EU market. Well, we will live in funny times ...
|
The UK is a strong country, but most of their PMs will bow down to EU even just for economic reasons. It's hard talk now because of election. Wait for election to finish.
|
On July 02 2016 00:17 KwarK wrote:did you read the article?
Did you?
Because it's rather accurately paraphrased.
edit: the fact that she gets heavily promoted and praised by Daily Mail and consorts is actually all the proof you need.
|
|
|
People are revolting against the result of a democratic vote. This is not going to end well.
|
The young are protesting against the old folks? :p Though it's London, there the majority was against Brexit anyway. What's not gonna end well? I expect nothing to happen. The Brexit itself still has to happen.
|
Countries ranking by the population's knowledge of EU key facts and institutions: www.voxeurop.eu
This referendum was won by Murdoch's tabloids, what they write about the EU is read by millions of Brits, the rebuttals are read by a tiny fraction of that.
|
Democracy is good as long as you agree with my opinion. Freedom of speech is great, as long as you agree with me; if not it's hate speech and you should be jailed. Liberals.
|
On July 02 2016 23:35 GoTuNk! wrote:Democracy is good as long as you agree with my opinion. Freedom of speech is great, as long as you agree with me; if not it's hate speech and you should be jailed. Liberals.
Just because there was a (slim) majority vote one way, does delegitimize protest in favor of the other way.
And this was a campaign with levels of misinformation, over-promising, media bias, scaremongering and scapegoating that put regular political campaigning to shame. Hardly the best example of democracy.
|
On July 02 2016 23:41 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 23:35 GoTuNk! wrote:Democracy is good as long as you agree with my opinion. Freedom of speech is great, as long as you agree with me; if not it's hate speech and you should be jailed. Liberals. Just because there was a (slim) majority vote one way, does delegitimize protest in favor of the other way. And this was a campaign with levels of misinformation, over-promising, media bias, scaremongering and scapegoating that put regular political campaigning to shame. Hardly the best example of democracy.
You mean the media machine propaganda that England would fall apart if the Brexit wins or Obama's threats? Or the EU threats?
|
On July 02 2016 23:43 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 23:41 Deleuze wrote:On July 02 2016 23:35 GoTuNk! wrote:Democracy is good as long as you agree with my opinion. Freedom of speech is great, as long as you agree with me; if not it's hate speech and you should be jailed. Liberals. Just because there was a (slim) majority vote one way, does delegitimize protest in favor of the other way. And this was a campaign with levels of misinformation, over-promising, media bias, scaremongering and scapegoating that put regular political campaigning to shame. Hardly the best example of democracy. You mean the media machine propaganda that England would fall apart if the Brexit wins or Obama's threats? Or the EU threats?
The whole campaign, for and against.
|
On July 02 2016 23:43 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2016 23:41 Deleuze wrote:On July 02 2016 23:35 GoTuNk! wrote:Democracy is good as long as you agree with my opinion. Freedom of speech is great, as long as you agree with me; if not it's hate speech and you should be jailed. Liberals. Just because there was a (slim) majority vote one way, does delegitimize protest in favor of the other way. And this was a campaign with levels of misinformation, over-promising, media bias, scaremongering and scapegoating that put regular political campaigning to shame. Hardly the best example of democracy. You mean the media machine propaganda that England would fall apart if the Brexit wins or Obama's threats? Or the EU threats?
Or the media which reported statements made by world leaders, experts and leading politicians?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/images/codecision-flowchart_en.gif)
