The EU has made it perfectly clear that Scotland would not get preferential treatment. Scotland would be behind countries like Turkey in the queue. Most likely black balled but at best a 10 to 20 year wait.
No, I do not agree that that is ignorant hypocrisy. I think you are being disingenuous in your presentation as I am sure that you understand the history that led to the situation and that is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is implying that the Scots and Ulstermen should get more say than the English. Or that your ideology is better than FPTP.
I suggest you do some research as I did. I used to believe, as you do, but then I actually took the time to do the research and found out that no, MEPs cannot put forward a motion for debate and cannot enact law. Therefore it is not an easy to understand elected government. The MEPs are not the ones making the decisions.
I am not having a hard time understanding the EU regulations. I simply read them.
The economic benefits are mutually beneficial. The benefits do support the whole. The EU has not, at any point, given a valid reason why free trade should not continue. Other strong economies will exit, that is clear, if the EU keeps throwing tantrums every time far more will leave. They have shown good reason why people should leave. An economic block run by children is not a good idea.
This is really all just FUD. There is, at the moment, no reason to believe that the UK will lose free access to Europe. It would not be in Europe's interest or the UK's interest. Businessmen on both sides would wish that to continue but the UK wishes to regain control of immigration. It is not racist to wish to stop undocumented hordes from flooding into your country. A realistic trade deal benefits both sides but those in power are too busy throwing their toys out of the pram to care about good governance. Within the next 2 years there is a strong possibility that those in power will stop throwing tantrums and a positive solution will be found to benefit everyone.
I love the lying moron alert at the start of a moronic lie:) MEPs are democratically elected but have no power to put forward a motion for debate or to enact a law. They are simply there to enact a theatre of democracy. The people of Europe do not get to vote for the EC. All those in power get their positions behind closed doors. They are not answerable to the people. The famously corrupt entity decides who will get what post in secret meetings and the power stays away from the electorate. Why not just have a simple easy to understand elected government? Why not let the elected MEPs put forward motions? Why not let the elected MEPs take votes on policy and enact policy? Why have policy made by someone else? The system is deliberately obfuscated to maintain the corruption that it is famous for. If that ended the EU would stand a chance of survival but the current structure is unworkable.
If the EU were democratic the people the people of the UK would not have voted to leave. Any form of democracy would have been enough to swing the vote by several percent and it would have only taken a 3% swing to change the outcome. Currently Germany is running the EU for its own benefit and the people of many EU countries do not like that. There will be many more exits in the future. Holland only just avoided it but in their next election Wilder may make further gains and win.
Scotland does not have the right to another referendum nor is there any reason to believe that the majority of Scottish people would be stupid enough to vote for an isolated Scotland. Most of my family and friends are fed up with the battle rant of the SNP. If Scotland does decide to commit suicide, the UK would continue and benefit from its freedoms while Scotland would be alone and end up having to go cap in hand to the UK begging for help with everything. Do you think the UK people would feel any obligation to help Scotland? Wales is not even going to consider any such move and I doubt that Northern Ireland would reunify now. There are people that talk about such things just as there are people that talk about Texas returning to Mexico or and independent California.
The UK, with or without Scotland, is not short of countries that wish to enact new trade pacts. The EU rules forbid such discussions until after the UK leaves but there have been several approaches made. Most EU countries rely heavily on UK financial services and want that to continue and are therefore demanding that those in power stop trying to punish the UK for choosing to leave. I do worry about the SNP destroying Scotland but the UK does not. If Nicola Sturgeon manages to make herself President she will quickly discover what it is like to be the most hated person in Europe. There is no way that she can deliver on her promises without the UK.
Britain joined the Common Market which was a trade pact but has evolved into a hegemony with very different implications. The EU has the power to enact policy in member states. It is very different from a trade pact.
The UK banks and insurance services are not going to leave London as their business is global. One of the main reasons for many top businesses wanting to leave the EU is precisely because they do not want the EU to tell them what to do so although some European offices may move into Europe many more will arrive. Europe needs them and it would be suicidal for the EU to make it harder for its members to trade with them. The children at the top of the EU are throwing their toys out of their pram and want to hurt the UK for not playing with them any more but EU businesses do far too much trade through the UK and do not want to stop making money. About 20% of German trade is dependant on the UK and German businesses do not want to lose that. All other member states have similar needs. The children want to cut off their noses but EU businesses want a mutually beneficial agreement that enables business to continue as smoothly as possible. Right now the children are still screaming very loudly but this is a 2 year process and in 2 years the children will be having their afternoon nap.
How will they be less powerful when they have their own voice rather than being an impotent vassal state of the new German empire? Britain is not the 5th largest economy, it is an insignificant part of the 5th largest economy that is run by and for Germany. By becoming indepent they will therefore gain power. Initially they will obviously decline as they build up new agreements and inevitably become stronger.
Most people wish to live in a democracy but the EU is not a democracy. It has a parliament in which the members do not have to power to start a debate or enact policy, they are just a theatre to look like democracy but they have no democratic powers. The undemocratic EU has now given itself the power to enact laws in member states.
Staying within the EU would be the death knell. Look at what has been imposed on Greece, Portugal etc. A poverty without hope. No way out of austerity. 2 billion Euros a month to service a debt burden imposed on countries that do not make 2 billion Euros a month. The EU is collapsing and remaining within it would cause disaster, endless austerity to fund the German business growth.
If it costs money to do something and you hand it over to the private sector it will cost money plus profit to make it therefore more. If the argument is that somehow the private sector magically has better management then improve the management and reduce the costs but that simply is not true. Better management always equals higher cost as they always charge more than they earn.
"yet another excellent example of why socialism is a bad idea."
When did socialism become a bad idea? The most successful countries in the world are socialist so it seems a strange statement. Norway has been rated the happiest country in the world with Denmark second. Both socialist. I cannot think of any country that I would want to live in that is not socialist.
Venezuela is a failure because of the man running the country. It is not a socialist country any more than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic country. Just because some crazy dictator calls his country Utopia as it sinks into the mire does not mean it is Utopia. It is the crazy dictator that is destroying the country. Looking after the people has never been a bad idea and there is no evidence that it can have a negative effect on the economy.
In many jurisdictions EULAs are extremely hard to enforce because the user is forced to agree before they have knowledge of what they are agreeing to, i.e. before they have even tried the software. I would assume the same with this but unfortunately the story is about the US which has an extremely draconian attitude to such things.
Two of my friends run a courier company and I have found that most of their drivers actually cannot understand how to use a map. When talking to them I tend to use map related references but today, they just listen to their satnavs and cannot understand how maps work. They have trouble knowing where they are in real terms although they can tell you generally by using the satnav.
As long as the old system continues to work it will be fine but if this is made standard I would have to find a different bank as I am not going to go back to using a smart phone. I rely on my phone too much to endure the ridiculously short battery life on smart phones so I would be forced to choose between my work and the ATM system.
That seems to sum up the question quite well without providing an answer. He would like to if he can retain his right to privacy and still do business in the US. I think he would be better moving to a more free country as the US no longer respects anyone's privacy.
Do you pay tax on money you withdraw from the bank? I do not and do not see why someone who banks in bitcoin should.
20% capital gains? That is robbery. Tax on money that you have paid tax on. That is a good enough reason to avoid tax so I can understand why you assume that the OP is evading tax. I will be happy to for you to consider me a criminal. I hope you will be as happy for me to consider you a moron.
I am a cantankerous old git with a bad memory. I have forgotten more than you have learnt. I honestly forget passwords all the time. I cannot get into my Skype account and will need to create a new one as I no longer have the email account that goes with it.
I could be innocently saying I cannot remember my password and be telling the truth.
Your company may be 100% legit but that does not mean that your expectation of privacy is 0%. I would not trust unknown government agencies with my data regardless of how legit it is. I would find it easier to trust the mafia, at least their intentions are clear.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember being told it was a "once in a lifetime opportunity".
The EU has made it perfectly clear that Scotland would not get preferential treatment. Scotland would be behind countries like Turkey in the queue. Most likely black balled but at best a 10 to 20 year wait.
No, I do not agree that that is ignorant hypocrisy. I think you are being disingenuous in your presentation as I am sure that you understand the history that led to the situation and that is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is implying that the Scots and Ulstermen should get more say than the English. Or that your ideology is better than FPTP.
I suggest you do some research as I did. I used to believe, as you do, but then I actually took the time to do the research and found out that no, MEPs cannot put forward a motion for debate and cannot enact law. Therefore it is not an easy to understand elected government. The MEPs are not the ones making the decisions. I am not having a hard time understanding the EU regulations. I simply read them.
The economic benefits are mutually beneficial. The benefits do support the whole. The EU has not, at any point, given a valid reason why free trade should not continue. Other strong economies will exit, that is clear, if the EU keeps throwing tantrums every time far more will leave. They have shown good reason why people should leave. An economic block run by children is not a good idea.
This is really all just FUD. There is, at the moment, no reason to believe that the UK will lose free access to Europe. It would not be in Europe's interest or the UK's interest. Businessmen on both sides would wish that to continue but the UK wishes to regain control of immigration. It is not racist to wish to stop undocumented hordes from flooding into your country. A realistic trade deal benefits both sides but those in power are too busy throwing their toys out of the pram to care about good governance. Within the next 2 years there is a strong possibility that those in power will stop throwing tantrums and a positive solution will be found to benefit everyone.
I love the lying moron alert at the start of a moronic lie :) MEPs are democratically elected but have no power to put forward a motion for debate or to enact a law. They are simply there to enact a theatre of democracy. The people of Europe do not get to vote for the EC. All those in power get their positions behind closed doors. They are not answerable to the people. The famously corrupt entity decides who will get what post in secret meetings and the power stays away from the electorate. Why not just have a simple easy to understand elected government? Why not let the elected MEPs put forward motions? Why not let the elected MEPs take votes on policy and enact policy? Why have policy made by someone else? The system is deliberately obfuscated to maintain the corruption that it is famous for. If that ended the EU would stand a chance of survival but the current structure is unworkable.
If the EU were democratic the people the people of the UK would not have voted to leave. Any form of democracy would have been enough to swing the vote by several percent and it would have only taken a 3% swing to change the outcome. Currently Germany is running the EU for its own benefit and the people of many EU countries do not like that. There will be many more exits in the future. Holland only just avoided it but in their next election Wilder may make further gains and win.
Scotland does not have the right to another referendum nor is there any reason to believe that the majority of Scottish people would be stupid enough to vote for an isolated Scotland. Most of my family and friends are fed up with the battle rant of the SNP. If Scotland does decide to commit suicide, the UK would continue and benefit from its freedoms while Scotland would be alone and end up having to go cap in hand to the UK begging for help with everything. Do you think the UK people would feel any obligation to help Scotland? Wales is not even going to consider any such move and I doubt that Northern Ireland would reunify now. There are people that talk about such things just as there are people that talk about Texas returning to Mexico or and independent California. The UK, with or without Scotland, is not short of countries that wish to enact new trade pacts. The EU rules forbid such discussions until after the UK leaves but there have been several approaches made. Most EU countries rely heavily on UK financial services and want that to continue and are therefore demanding that those in power stop trying to punish the UK for choosing to leave. I do worry about the SNP destroying Scotland but the UK does not. If Nicola Sturgeon manages to make herself President she will quickly discover what it is like to be the most hated person in Europe. There is no way that she can deliver on her promises without the UK.
Britain joined the Common Market which was a trade pact but has evolved into a hegemony with very different implications. The EU has the power to enact policy in member states. It is very different from a trade pact.
The UK banks and insurance services are not going to leave London as their business is global. One of the main reasons for many top businesses wanting to leave the EU is precisely because they do not want the EU to tell them what to do so although some European offices may move into Europe many more will arrive. Europe needs them and it would be suicidal for the EU to make it harder for its members to trade with them. The children at the top of the EU are throwing their toys out of their pram and want to hurt the UK for not playing with them any more but EU businesses do far too much trade through the UK and do not want to stop making money. About 20% of German trade is dependant on the UK and German businesses do not want to lose that. All other member states have similar needs. The children want to cut off their noses but EU businesses want a mutually beneficial agreement that enables business to continue as smoothly as possible. Right now the children are still screaming very loudly but this is a 2 year process and in 2 years the children will be having their afternoon nap.
How will they be less powerful when they have their own voice rather than being an impotent vassal state of the new German empire? Britain is not the 5th largest economy, it is an insignificant part of the 5th largest economy that is run by and for Germany. By becoming indepent they will therefore gain power. Initially they will obviously decline as they build up new agreements and inevitably become stronger. Most people wish to live in a democracy but the EU is not a democracy. It has a parliament in which the members do not have to power to start a debate or enact policy, they are just a theatre to look like democracy but they have no democratic powers. The undemocratic EU has now given itself the power to enact laws in member states. Staying within the EU would be the death knell. Look at what has been imposed on Greece, Portugal etc. A poverty without hope. No way out of austerity. 2 billion Euros a month to service a debt burden imposed on countries that do not make 2 billion Euros a month. The EU is collapsing and remaining within it would cause disaster, endless austerity to fund the German business growth.
... honest... repeat each week for six months.
If it costs money to do something and you hand it over to the private sector it will cost money plus profit to make it therefore more. If the argument is that somehow the private sector magically has better management then improve the management and reduce the costs but that simply is not true. Better management always equals higher cost as they always charge more than they earn.
"yet another excellent example of why socialism is a bad idea." When did socialism become a bad idea? The most successful countries in the world are socialist so it seems a strange statement. Norway has been rated the happiest country in the world with Denmark second. Both socialist. I cannot think of any country that I would want to live in that is not socialist. Venezuela is a failure because of the man running the country. It is not a socialist country any more than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic country. Just because some crazy dictator calls his country Utopia as it sinks into the mire does not mean it is Utopia. It is the crazy dictator that is destroying the country. Looking after the people has never been a bad idea and there is no evidence that it can have a negative effect on the economy.
In many jurisdictions EULAs are extremely hard to enforce because the user is forced to agree before they have knowledge of what they are agreeing to, i.e. before they have even tried the software. I would assume the same with this but unfortunately the story is about the US which has an extremely draconian attitude to such things.
Two of my friends run a courier company and I have found that most of their drivers actually cannot understand how to use a map. When talking to them I tend to use map related references but today, they just listen to their satnavs and cannot understand how maps work. They have trouble knowing where they are in real terms although they can tell you generally by using the satnav.
As long as the old system continues to work it will be fine but if this is made standard I would have to find a different bank as I am not going to go back to using a smart phone. I rely on my phone too much to endure the ridiculously short battery life on smart phones so I would be forced to choose between my work and the ATM system.
Maybe I did not catch that part but where did you get the idea that this is about tax avoidance?
I thought that the US dollar was still backed by the Federal Reserve, a foreign bank. I think I trust bitcoin more.
That seems to sum up the question quite well without providing an answer. He would like to if he can retain his right to privacy and still do business in the US. I think he would be better moving to a more free country as the US no longer respects anyone's privacy.
Do you pay tax on money you withdraw from the bank? I do not and do not see why someone who banks in bitcoin should. 20% capital gains? That is robbery. Tax on money that you have paid tax on. That is a good enough reason to avoid tax so I can understand why you assume that the OP is evading tax. I will be happy to for you to consider me a criminal. I hope you will be as happy for me to consider you a moron.
I am a cantankerous old git with a bad memory. I have forgotten more than you have learnt. I honestly forget passwords all the time. I cannot get into my Skype account and will need to create a new one as I no longer have the email account that goes with it. I could be innocently saying I cannot remember my password and be telling the truth.
It can be RAID as high as you like as RAID 10 could still be hosted on 3 servers. The idea is to make any one site irrelevant but the data secure.
Your company may be 100% legit but that does not mean that your expectation of privacy is 0%. I would not trust unknown government agencies with my data regardless of how legit it is. I would find it easier to trust the mafia, at least their intentions are clear.