I meant hundreds, but countries have been trading much longer than that. What is your point? Amazingly the UK traded with Europe for HUNDREDS of years before the EU appeared. Amazingly EU countries can even trade with non-EU counties today. And there are countries that are non-EU that trade with non-EU countries. No one needs the EU to trade.
"In a word: yes. If we pass a law that goes against our trade agreement with Canada and refuse to yield then they have a choice: accept our decision or stop upholding their side. If our breach is serious enough, then they will put tarriffs on our imports, including umbrellas."
This is 100% true, except there is a large subset of laws that trade agreements don't include because they have nothing to do with trade. For EXAMPLE, this surveillance law. This wouldn't be part of any trade agreement. That is the difference. I think you are being disingenuous on purpose here. But I do see your point that the EU rulings are apparently toothless. It also seems to me it is better to leave an organization that you admit you can ignore freely, than stay in it. It seems dishonest to agree to something and then ignore it anyway, and fortunately the people voted to Leave so we won't have to do that soon. Democracy is good.
" Yet you keep asserting there's a difference between the EU enforcing its rules and any random trading partner enforcing its rules."
No need to insult me. There is a difference. The difference is that you think that TRADING partners are going to give a flying fuck about surveillance laws in the UK and change the trading rules based on if they like some random UK surveillance law that applies to UK citizens? Do you think Canada is going to start slapping a tariff on UK umbrellas because they don't like some UK law that doesn't apply to Canada?
The problems in the 1970s had nothing to do with that. There was a similar problem in the US at that time. There was successful trade in the UK for hundreds of years.
Sure. They can be negotiated, they can have a "say", but they can't overrule UK rulings (or claim to have the ability to). I think you I understand what you are saying now: you are saying that there is really no added effect to the EU court rulings, so the UK might as well stay. Seems strange to me. Either you are in an organization or you aren't. Just ignoring things you don't like seems rude to me and damages the strength of the organization itself. I think it would be better to leave, rather than ignore. Good thing most people agree with me.
Why do you keep talking about trade deals? This ruling has nothing to do with trade deals. Trade deals can be negotiated without remaining in the EU. Amazingly trade happened before the EU existed for hundreds of years, and amazingly EU countries are able to trade with non-EU countries too, even today! I know, it is hard to believe. The EU is going to fall apart anyway, you might as well get out now.
Amazingly there was a European "trading area" with trading rules that existed long before the EU did. The fact that you don't know about it is proof that Remain are ignorant of recent history.
Right, except now the UK decided not to agree to it any more. Thus Brexit. So they changed it by leaving. Case closed. You can't change the EU via your representatives because you don't have full control over it. That is the argument.
"So how do you think the EU is actually going to overrule us, eh? All they can do is wag their finger, and tell us what a naughty boy we are and if we keep on not abiding by the rules, kick us out of the club."
So basically your argument is that they can't do anything about it really, and the UK is sovereign? So the UK should just stick their tongue out and ignore it, like a boy who finally figured out that his Mom can't spank him now that he is stronger? So what is the point in staying? To create paperwork for the EU court? What a waste of time. Amazingly the UK traded successfully with Europe for hundreds of years before the EU existed.
They can have a say, but not an overruling decision, like what happened here. It seems that the Stay people are irrational emotional utter fuckwits, but that is just my opinion. Good thing the rational side won, in my opinion.
You are confused on my point. Disregard THIS PARTICULAR LAW. I get it that you don't like it (I don't either), but what if the ruling had been the opposite and the EU wanted to spy, and the UK government didn't want it? There was nothing the UK could do. If you don't like your representatives in the UK, then change them.
This only strengthens the Leave argument: why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK? Seems like a rational concern to me. The fact that you don't like the law is immaterial to that argument.
The US government did this during the 1930-40s using the WPA project. It employed millions and you probably use the stuff they built every day without knowing it.
But the reality is that we are no closer to "AI" than we were in 1960. And the robots that might displace workers are incredibly lame. Robots are good for some tasks, like assembly line welding, but useless for other tasks like assembling Ikea furniture.
But I was told by Slashdotters that government people didn't understand the Internet and therefore such attempts would be useless. What is next, saying that DRM actually has an effect on casual piracy?
Slashdot Mirror
I meant hundreds, but countries have been trading much longer than that. What is your point? Amazingly the UK traded with Europe for HUNDREDS of years before the EU appeared. Amazingly EU countries can even trade with non-EU counties today. And there are countries that are non-EU that trade with non-EU countries. No one needs the EU to trade.
"In a word: yes. If we pass a law that goes against our trade agreement with Canada and refuse to yield then they have a choice: accept our decision or stop upholding their side. If our breach is serious enough, then they will put tarriffs on our imports, including umbrellas."
This is 100% true, except there is a large subset of laws that trade agreements don't include because they have nothing to do with trade. For EXAMPLE, this surveillance law. This wouldn't be part of any trade agreement. That is the difference. I think you are being disingenuous on purpose here. But I do see your point that the EU rulings are apparently toothless. It also seems to me it is better to leave an organization that you admit you can ignore freely, than stay in it. It seems dishonest to agree to something and then ignore it anyway, and fortunately the people voted to Leave so we won't have to do that soon. Democracy is good.
Amazingly the UK traded with Europe for thousands of years before the EU appeared. Your sig is ironic though.
" Because you agreed to that in the 50's? "
EXACTLY. But now we don't agree with it any more. Thus Brexit. Case closed. Not too hard to grasp.
" Yet you keep asserting there's a difference between the EU enforcing its rules and any random trading partner enforcing its rules."
No need to insult me. There is a difference. The difference is that you think that TRADING partners are going to give a flying fuck about surveillance laws in the UK and change the trading rules based on if they like some random UK surveillance law that applies to UK citizens? Do you think Canada is going to start slapping a tariff on UK umbrellas because they don't like some UK law that doesn't apply to Canada?
The problems in the 1970s had nothing to do with that. There was a similar problem in the US at that time. There was successful trade in the UK for hundreds of years.
Sure. They can be negotiated, they can have a "say", but they can't overrule UK rulings (or claim to have the ability to). I think you I understand what you are saying now: you are saying that there is really no added effect to the EU court rulings, so the UK might as well stay. Seems strange to me. Either you are in an organization or you aren't. Just ignoring things you don't like seems rude to me and damages the strength of the organization itself. I think it would be better to leave, rather than ignore. Good thing most people agree with me.
Why do you keep talking about trade deals? This ruling has nothing to do with trade deals. Trade deals can be negotiated without remaining in the EU. Amazingly trade happened before the EU existed for hundreds of years, and amazingly EU countries are able to trade with non-EU countries too, even today! I know, it is hard to believe. The EU is going to fall apart anyway, you might as well get out now.
Amazingly there was a European "trading area" with trading rules that existed long before the EU did. The fact that you don't know about it is proof that Remain are ignorant of recent history.
Right, except now the UK decided not to agree to it any more. Thus Brexit. So they changed it by leaving. Case closed. You can't change the EU via your representatives because you don't have full control over it. That is the argument.
Right, good point. I had a bad example. The main point is disregard this particular ruling. It just happens that we (the people) don't like it.
"So how do you think the EU is actually going to overrule us, eh? All they can do is wag their finger, and tell us what a naughty boy we are and if we keep on not abiding by the rules, kick us out of the club."
So basically your argument is that they can't do anything about it really, and the UK is sovereign? So the UK should just stick their tongue out and ignore it, like a boy who finally figured out that his Mom can't spank him now that he is stronger? So what is the point in staying? To create paperwork for the EU court? What a waste of time. Amazingly the UK traded successfully with Europe for hundreds of years before the EU existed.
" They're looking for some kind of intermediate state where they have the same access to European markets European companies do. "
Maybe they could call that intermediate state the "European Common Market" or something?
They can have a say, but not an overruling decision, like what happened here. It seems that the Stay people are irrational emotional utter fuckwits, but that is just my opinion. Good thing the rational side won, in my opinion.
You are confused on my point. Disregard THIS PARTICULAR LAW. I get it that you don't like it (I don't either), but what if the ruling had been the opposite and the EU wanted to spy, and the UK government didn't want it? There was nothing the UK could do. If you don't like your representatives in the UK, then change them.
This only strengthens the Leave argument: why should some unelected non-UK people have a say in whatever laws the UK wants to pass for the UK? Seems like a rational concern to me. The fact that you don't like the law is immaterial to that argument.
How dare you make a mistake on the Internets!
The US government did this during the 1930-40s using the WPA project. It employed millions and you probably use the stuff they built every day without knowing it.
But the reality is that we are no closer to "AI" than we were in 1960. And the robots that might displace workers are incredibly lame. Robots are good for some tasks, like assembly line welding, but useless for other tasks like assembling Ikea furniture.
Repeat after me: Alexa, Google Now, Cortana and Zuckerbergs thing ARE NOT AI. Not even close.
Any applications traffic can be identified and blocked. Applications don't communicate by magic. They need to know the endpoints to communicate on.
But I was told by Slashdotters that government people didn't understand the Internet and therefore such attempts would be useless. What is next, saying that DRM actually has an effect on casual piracy?
Oh no! Supporting Uber? Terrible! Who wants an alternative to taxis? Not me! No sir!
True! I hope she is OK.
Why am I not surprised that both you and your mother are leeches off the system?