The EU: IN or OUT?

talexuser

No major Leadsom appointment yet? Payback for motherhood? :rotfl: I wonder if she or IDS get a junior job.

Linton

treemachine wrote: »

I must have missed when Canada/ Mexico and the USA formed a political union to form NAFTA....

NAFTA is just 3 countries with one being overwhelmingly dominent. The complexity of interaction between the members increases as the square of the number of members. NAFTA is primarily concerned with trade between the US and Mexico and trade between the US and Canada. Geography enforces this. Contrast with the EU where Gemany is large but a very long way from being larger than the rest put together and geography enables easy movement of goods and people between many pairs of different countries.

Another factor is that Canada, Mexico and the US have rather different economies which to a major extent complement each other. Europe has many countries that are pretty similar all competing in the same markets.

The only practical option for Europe to manage the complexity in its situation is to increase the power of the centre. The number of interactions then being proprtional to the number of members.

From my Google investigations I note that one of the common complaints against NAFTA is that it restricts the sovereignty of its members.

Dird

Linton wrote: »

From my Google investigations I note that one of the common complaints against NAFTA is that it restricts the sovereignty of its members.

Easy fix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewkemT2dkB8

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

If we really had been ruled from Brussels we would not have illegally invaded Iraq because the rest of Europe was against it.

Had we stayed in, we would have lost control over foreign policy as well as the rest, apart from choosing the kind of sandwiches during 'Cabinet' meetings.

BananaRepublic

Linton wrote: »

I cant see a full trade union is possible without significant political union. The problem is non tariff barriers. You need a large degree of legal and standards harmonisation for companies located in one country to be able to trade seamlessly and efficiently in other countries. This implies a supra-national authority to police these common standards and laws. It also requires some way, presumably majority voting, to ensure that decisions can actually be made.

The problem I saw with the Remain campaign is that it didnt educate people on the links between a harmonised Europe and their jobs and the realities of a global economy but rather focussed on detailed economic outcomes which everyone knows are impossible to predict, even in the good times.

With BREXIT we will still need to follow EU standards and laws unless we are to lose a major part of our trade, but sadly we will have little input as to their contents.

I can see that unified regulations for electronic products sold within the EU makes sense, safety laws for example. But I think the EU controls the nature of products we sell outside the EU, and also has a say 'social' laws, such as human rights, including deportation of criminals. I can't see why they have to have a say in our laws outside of regulations for intra-EU trade.

talexuser

Leadsom got environment... when she first went to the junior energy job the first thing she asked officials is whether climate change really existed!

bigadaj

talexuser wrote: »

Leadsom got environment... when she first went to the junior energy job the first thing she asked officials is whether climate change really existed!

There's still much debate about climate change, it's not just a politically correct opinion to form.

Before I get too much abuse I'm a professional in the environmental field, I'm ambivalent about it, the main positive being it earns me fees!

masonic

bigadaj wrote: »

There's still much debate about climate change, it's not just a politically correct opinion to form.

Before I get too much abuse I'm a professional in the environmental field, I'm ambivalent about it, the main positive being it earns me fees!

Yes, and an important distinction to make is that climate change is a real and measurable phenomenon. It's the extent to which it is man made that is speculative.

bigadaj

masonic wrote: »

Yes, and an important distinction to make is that climate change is a real and measurable phenomenon. It's the extent to which it is man made that is speculative.

Climate is continually changing.

It's no coincidence in my opinion that the mini ice age during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries came just after all that inter continental exploration by Europeans. It's those ships what caused it, eventhough they were wind powered!

Glen_Clark

There is a theory going round that Theresa May wrote 'F Off' next to Boris Johnson's name and its been misinterpreted