Jessie_Pinkman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2012
- Posts
- 1,403
Brexit?
- Thread starter Jessie_Pinkman
- Start date
geronimo_appleby
always on the move
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 90,768
Jessie_Pinkman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2012
- Posts
- 1,403
Sorry- I intended it to go there...mods?
geronimo_appleby
always on the move
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 90,768
troubledone
Lord of smut
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
- Posts
- 62,246
It is illogical to leave
geronimo_appleby
always on the move
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 90,768
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
Globalization of the economy is inevitable. The capitalists and moneyman have decreed so. The EU must continue to be competitive with large population centers such as China, India and the US. Even Russia has a huge population. This equates to buying power. Buy in bulk is always cheaper. NA has NAFTA and until 9/11 quite open borders, mostly between the US and Canada. If Britain leaves then they are on the outside looking in. With a relatively small population they will not be able to buy or sell competitively.
The UK is a 'have' country, so it is inevitable that to some extent it will support the 'have-nots' in any sort of political or economic union. Here in Canada, Ontario with it's large population and it's industrial base gives more money to federal coffers in transfer payments then it receives back. While the smaller less populous and less prosperous east coast provinces such as Newfoundland/Labrador receive more than they contribute. This enables us to maintain even portions of funds for such things as schooling and healthcare. By themselves Newfoundland/Labrador would be in deep trouble trying to maintain services for their residents.
Without such equalization payouts there is a danger of the country perhaps breaking up or a flood of folk abandoning their regions and becoming economic migrants.
The EU is flawed. It is attempting a half-ass union. Without a sense of belonging to a greater union such as a political union might bring, many folk object to their hard earned money going to support the 'have-nots' such as Greece. Over here we don't grumble that much about having to support services in poorer regions because we realize that is how we stay together as a nation.
Half-assed is no way to do things. The US suffers from a half-ass public funded healthcare system and gun laws. Sometimes you have to go full bore either way. But halfway measures many times fail. Meeting in the middle is not the same as half-assed.
The EU needs to move to a full federal system not some half-baked attempt at just merging economies. Nationalistic types won't like it but then they don't like meeting in the middle or half-assed ways anyway.
Duplication of services is costly. Trying to pander to various interests is inefficient. Companies that merge inevitably have layoffs due to getting rid of duplicate human resource, management and salaries. You can't please everybody and if you try or are forced to the whole thing gets watered down or inefficiencies add up and costs soar. Canada's UHC system while far from perfect has been shown to be cheaper than the mixed bag in the US. Either go full UHC or fully privatized. There gun laws show same thing. Trying to pander to 2nd Amendment fans and anti-gun types just means a hodge-podge of varying laws. You either go full out restrict weapons or allow complete ease of access to weaponry.
The UK will stay. The ruling Conservatives are split and the opposition is united for staying.
Not sure. Is this a UK vote or just England? I thought I read that Scotland could stay in.
Last edited:
geronimo_appleby
always on the move
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 90,768
norway does okay.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
Norway has oil and has been very very good at setting up a heritage fund. They are rolling in the dough. But eventually the oil will run out and so will the money. They have done such a good job off saving money that may not happen for a few generations. Norway has a small population to split their oil riches amongst.
Rachel_X
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2015
- Posts
- 981
Considering the EU costs the UK money overall, it makes perfect sense to get out.
The EU's blanket laws have horrible effects on countries that they aren't made for.
The people running the thing are the same ones that took so much legal action against a single market stall owner that he died from a stress induced heart attack.
What did he do? He dared to list weights of vegetables in metric and imperial after the EU decided imperial weight listings were illegal. It didn't matter to them that over half the UK couldn't use the metric system, so a thoughtful guy helped his elderly customers by giving them imperial weights.
Thank god the EU killed that monster.
The EU's blanket laws have horrible effects on countries that they aren't made for.
The people running the thing are the same ones that took so much legal action against a single market stall owner that he died from a stress induced heart attack.
What did he do? He dared to list weights of vegetables in metric and imperial after the EU decided imperial weight listings were illegal. It didn't matter to them that over half the UK couldn't use the metric system, so a thoughtful guy helped his elderly customers by giving them imperial weights.
Thank god the EU killed that monster.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
The EU does not cost the UK money. They do not take a loss on it. They do pay more than the 'have-not' countries. But a profit is still made.
As for the weights. Again half-way measures.
In Quebec they are always trying to limit the English language on signage and get all bent out of shape when told that they must offer both.
Rachel_X
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2015
- Posts
- 981
In 2013 the UK paid in €11,000 per person.
It got back €6,500 per person.
Doesn't sound like a profit to me.
Last edited:
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
Those are transfer payments. Not profits and losses due to increased trade and lower barriers. Same as Ontario 'supporting' Newfoundland/Labrador. We give more then we get. But the country as a whole stays together and that is a good thing. Together we are stronger economically.
11.2 million is a drop in the bucket when considering the billions in trade that go back and forth. Some times you have to spend money to make money. Actually almost always. Even crooks have cash outlays before a big score.
geronimo_appleby
always on the move
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 90,768
everyone in norway's in the oil business? i'll go and tap my mate geir for a few baht, then.
Rachel_X
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2015
- Posts
- 981
Yeah the figures I quoted were a bit off thanks to the EU using two different measurements in their budget reports. I fixed it though.
The trade will still be there if Brexit happens though.
Unless of course the EU stops it to spite Britain, which is something they've done in the past.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
Of course not. But their government has taken the oil revenues and put them in a heritage fund that ALL can share in the form of government services and standard of living. Norway with oil would be some frozen wasteland with a tiny population scattered amongst fjords that ice over a good part of the year. They would be in as good a shape as Newfoundland/Labrador all by itself.
geronimo_appleby
always on the move
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 90,768
it was said tongue-in-cheek.
anyway, i don't want the UK to leave the EU for purely selfish reasons. it's already fucking up sterling in relation to other currencies; and that affects me, hugely.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
Entirely possible the EU will use economic blackmail. Life, politics and money are not fair.
Ontario loses 4.5 billion dollars in supporting the 'have-not' provinces. And only ever received equalization payments starting in 2010 when it got back 347 million. The rise in oil prices made Newfoundland/Labrador for a short time a 'have' province. Alberta goes back and forth depending on oil prices.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
That may happen anyways. In Canada our dollar value is pretty much out of our hands. Our biggest trade partner the US determines how much it is worth. They do well, we do well. They suffer we suffer too. With the UK trading heavily with the EU what is good or bad for the EU will determine the value of the pound. Their huge population and aggregate trade numbers will drive that.
Rachel_X
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2015
- Posts
- 981
The thing is though, Canada is single country with a single currency.
The EU isn't.
Canada also has leaders elected by the public.
The EU has leaders elected by other politicians.
Living in the EU is a bit like if the USA decided to outlaw grapes in Canada because one guy in Mexico choked to death. It wouldn't matter to them that it would put thousands of Canadians out of work in grape related industries or that the Canadian dollar would take a hit because everything is fine where they are.
geronimo_appleby
always on the move
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2004
- Posts
- 90,768
oh, it's already happening. the fear-mongers have the markets rattled. down to about 1.41 against the US, and the pound was at 1.99 against the aussie dollar last week, dropped to 1.92!
the baht has gained an insignificant amount - which is my current 'watch'.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
The EU is flawed. It needs to move to a federal union of some sorts. Each country just becomes a province or state. Half-assed measure to pander to nationalists.
The UK is still better off pissing against the walls from the inside not outside.
Now if the UK would like to join up with the other great Anglo countries and form a union, think of the economic power then. The UK, US, Australia and New Zealand united. Woo Hoo. We could all rule the world. Fuck the Chinese, Russians, Europeans and Indians. An Anglo Empire. Gives me a chubby!
Rachel_X
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2015
- Posts
- 981
They were all united once.
The rest of them got pissy and decided they wanted independence.
The people of the UK would never want to be part of a single currency or state.
It's too much risk and one they have no control over.
One thing I can promise though, if the UK stays in the EU, that 'deal' that Cameron got offered will be withdrawn immediately.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
As long as we don't leave Canada for residents it doesn't make that much difference. In fact a low CDN dollar compared to the US is good for us. Stimulates investment in our industries and resources. At par we suffer. Jobs go to 'have-not' states or Mexico.
Oil at 100$ a barrel and our dollar at .75US and we roll in the dough and employment is good. Commodity prices need to come up quite a bit too. A lower dollar gives us manufacturing to offset and buffet us against low commodities like oil, nickel and potash.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
The EU that the UK originally joined (we would have joined earlier but French President Charles De Gaulle kept saying "NON!") was a trade partnership of a few large states.
It isn't that now. It is an organisation of 27 states largely run by edict from unelected bureaucrats from Brussels. The Treaty provides for ever closer political union removing law making powers from the individual states.
What the UK wanted was a reformed and slimmed down EU that could balance its budget and produce accounts that actually add up - they don't and haven't been properly audited for years. The Euro zone countries still have an unresolved economic crisis with no solution in sight.
The concessions offered to the UK prime minister David Cameron aren't worth the paper they are written on because the EU Treaty overrides everything else. Unless the Treaty is changed - and the EU is NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE TREATY - all he has been offered are subject to review by the EU.
That is bad enough, but even the concessions he asked for, NOT those he was offered, don't amount to any real change, just tinkering with inessential items. Before the negotiations started he was told that many things he wanted just would not and could not be changed.
The real questions are:
Should the UK stay in and try to change the EU organisation from inside? It has had limited success over past decades.
Or:
Should the UK leave and try to change the EU organisation from outside by negotiation? IF the UK leaves it will have a significant impact on the whole EU structure and not just by the removal of the money the UK pays to the EU. It will encourage other countries to think that leaving might be a good idea too.
The vote is for the whole UK. It is possible that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could vote IN, and be outvoted by English votes for OUT. That could cause constitutional chaos in the UK. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland gain more from the EU than England.
It isn't that now. It is an organisation of 27 states largely run by edict from unelected bureaucrats from Brussels. The Treaty provides for ever closer political union removing law making powers from the individual states.
What the UK wanted was a reformed and slimmed down EU that could balance its budget and produce accounts that actually add up - they don't and haven't been properly audited for years. The Euro zone countries still have an unresolved economic crisis with no solution in sight.
The concessions offered to the UK prime minister David Cameron aren't worth the paper they are written on because the EU Treaty overrides everything else. Unless the Treaty is changed - and the EU is NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE TREATY - all he has been offered are subject to review by the EU.
That is bad enough, but even the concessions he asked for, NOT those he was offered, don't amount to any real change, just tinkering with inessential items. Before the negotiations started he was told that many things he wanted just would not and could not be changed.
The real questions are:
Should the UK stay in and try to change the EU organisation from inside? It has had limited success over past decades.
Or:
Should the UK leave and try to change the EU organisation from outside by negotiation? IF the UK leaves it will have a significant impact on the whole EU structure and not just by the removal of the money the UK pays to the EU. It will encourage other countries to think that leaving might be a good idea too.
The vote is for the whole UK. It is possible that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could vote IN, and be outvoted by English votes for OUT. That could cause constitutional chaos in the UK. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland gain more from the EU than England.
