Fuck the EU indeed. Remember that TTIP is also dead since leaving. And as far as I'm concerned, the EU was pushing for internet censorship long before our own government was. Please let's not pretend that the EU aren't big fans of censorship.

And regarding the fishing waters thing, that reminds me of another wonderful policy the EU came up with. They once had it so that if fishermen brought up a certain size of fish, they had to be thrown overboard...even if they were dead. In fact they always were dead, because it was impossible to separate the big fish from the little ones when they are trapped in a huge net with thousands of other ones. But dead or not, they couldn't be brought back to shore, so they had to dump them into the ocean. The intention probably was to combat over fishing, but it did jack shit. All it did was create waste.

If anyone is serious about addressing over fishing, the thing to do set up zones where it is prohibited full stop. Bureaucrats don't solve the worlds problems.

Oh, and what about the butter mountain? The EU enforced rules to store butter or something, to enable them to artificially control the prices, which led to them storing shit loads of butter as waste, hence the term 'Butter Mountain' So inefficient

I'm not arguing that all regulations are bad. I've said it once already, but some are obviously a good thing.

The EU is a nanny state.

“The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.” - Mikhail Gorbachev

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

You may have a point regarding Greece fucking themselves over. It does sound as though the politicians did their best to deceive them, and after joining the Eurozone, Greece went crazy with borrowing. But I do think the EU Commission deserves some of the blame too. As you say, how come nobody foresaw these obvious problems with letting a poor economy join?

Well it seems like the EU is paying dearly for their mistake at least :)

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

And Greece perfectly demonstrated how bad of an idea the Eurozone is. When the shit hit the fan, they had no means of manipulating their currency to combat the economic crisis. If they were on the Drachma, they would have been able to devalue it to kick start things.

Couldnt they have kept it if they wanted? Denmark and the UK are both in the EU with their own currency. Although connected to the Euro.

Probably benefitted some corporations in Greece to have the Euro, so maybe they pushed it :) Someone decided to take up the Euro at least! Wonder what their argument was.

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

I didn't know that about the retirement age in Greece/Italy/France etc! The lazy fucks! I'm surprised by the France one, are you sure that is right? I assumed they had a similar retirement age to the UK.

Maybe I worded it badly.

Greece and Italy have early retirement at late 50s. France has it at 62. Portugal now has it at 66 but i think it was increased recently.

Greece, Italy, Portugal and France have the highest % of citizens on pensions. Greece, Italy and Portugal are all having problems. Not srure how its in France overall. But the government must be pretty crippled to have to pay so many people pensions. Lowers their capital for investments to create new jobs.

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

Also, yeah, Greece can't leave without going back to the Drachma, which would cause further problems. But I would say that it's an inevitability that they will at some point, particularly the way the EU is going, and aren't they already been punished by austerity? I don't think there is an easy way out of their current situation.

No idea what the EU´s grand plan is for Greece. They are definitively forcing them to cut on government spending. Definitively no easy way out and the people still living their will suffer the cost, which is sad as they stayed behind to try and rebuild.

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

I've heard the reason the EU Commission decided to let Greece in was based on the notion that Greece is the birthplace of democracy or something. Sounds like sentiment got in the way of rational decision making to me. Nobody forced Greece to become part of the EU, I agree. But nobody forced the EU to accept them, either.

Lol thats a pretty shitty reason.

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

Ari @ 20/12/2016 16:43 Wikey @ 20/12/2016 19:19 stifle small competitors with thousands of ridiculous regulations. Which ones? There is a ridiculous number of regulations. You've already mentioned some of them, but just to add one more: - There was once a proposed regulation (Not sure if it was passed) which called for the British flag to be removed off of meat products sold in the UK...for some reason. They don't sound like a big deal when taken on their own, but when you start adding them up they become a real nuisance for small/medium firms. Because if you are trading in the single market, you have to follow all of these regulations, and doing so means you have to go through them, which takes a lot of time, time that could be better spent making money. Big firms can handle the red tape, because they can simply pay for a department to take care of the bureaucracy. I don't think small firms have the same luxury though. That's the way I see it anyway. Obviously not all regulation is bad, and some is necessary. But there are so many petty and unnecessary rules that are constantly been added, and I think those, when added up, create problems. It seems to me that a lot of these law makers have nothing else to do all day other than come up with ever more ridiculous rules.

That seems like a strange regulation.

I can understand that the EU might want to "standardize" some sectors across Europe. So that lax healthcare laws in Romania dont effect food quality in UK / France. That would also be unfair to businesses in the single market. If one in the UK has a lot more local regulations (maybe even vital ones) while others in Romania dont (man I am being offensive to Romanians).

That might create an "unfair" advantage to the Romanian company, as they wouldnt have to spend money fixing things for that regulation, but any damage they do to people + environment would be more costly overall to the whole society.

Does that make sense?

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

There is a more clear example of regulation having a negative effect; The Common Fisheries Policy. I think this played a big part in decimating what was once a thriving industry in the UK. That and you asshole snowmen stealing all our Cod (:

Yes our cod :)

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

My own town used to be a major fishing port. It ain't now. But yeah, here is a great example of the CFP in action: Before the referendum, I watched a clip of some French fishing boats about a mile off the British coast. Some British fishermen explained that these waters were prohibited to British fishing ships, and that only French ships could fish there. A mile off the British coast. That doesn't make any sense to me. At the very least, you'd expect the waters to be shared, but apparently not :\

Strange. I could see Vladys point being true, but if they wanted to decrease overfishing it should be done fairly and not only let the French fish there (maybe delegate the licenses fairly between countires in the region and then first come first serve in those countries. Or just not fish in that area for a year, but that might be bad for business :)

Probably the reason why Iceland shouldnt join. We depend way too much on getting currency for our fish.

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

Ari @ 20/12/2016 17:09 Might also be good to note that I am not a particular fan of the EU..................Seems more like fighting the future instead of embracing it. I see the future in universal basic income and making the automated machines pay for it (or maybe the mexicans?) :) That seems like a nice world to live in. I'm not sure Freedom of Movement does necessarily go hand in hand with a single market. My understanding of a single market is that it simply means trade without tarrifs...but admittedly I ain't too sure of the definition. Single Market seems to mean whatever the European Commission decides it means tbh (: Perhaps what I just described is more accurate as a definition of a common market, which is what the EU used to be, and what we originally joined. This talk of Freedom of movement is a new development, relateively speaking.

Definition of the single market: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market_en

The Single Market refers to the EU as one territory without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles to the free movement of goods and services.

To me employment is just a service. You give the employer 8 hours of your time, he pays you 8 hours worth of salary for that service.

So to me you cant have the Single Market without Freedom of Movement, just based on the definition it doesnt make sense.

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

And I do think it is a clincher for a lot of Leave voters, yes. Quite a big one for myself too, but not the biggest. Even if freedom of movement wasn't a thing I'd still have voted Leave. I think the problem with it, once again, comes down to the differences between the economies of the Europe. Countries like the UK, Germany and Hermland are richer, have great healthcare and a strong welfare state, all of which are major incentives to immigrants, understandably. I think when you take that into account, high immigration levels are pretty predictable. But I think the things that make our countries so inviting, such as the NHS, are buckling under the strain of the rapid growth in population. I think 300,000 people immigrate to the UK on average per year. I'm not sure what that adds up to in net gain for the population, but I imagine it is quite high. I am aware that many immigrants go into services like the NHS and help maintain it, thus helping it accommodate the growing population, but there would have to be a hell of a lot of them doing so to offset the current numbers imo. I'm also aware that an ageing population is a big contributor to the NHS's woes...some people even argue that it is the biggest. But even if that is is the case, does it help the situation when we have so many new people coming into the country on top of that?

Definitively viewed as a problem here in Denmark as well. Healthcare is free so why cant they just walk in and get it while we pay taxes on it?

http://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-economic-benefits-immigration

This is a nice look at the benefits of immigration overall in the US. Of course there are some freeloaders but I think the idea overall is that those that arnt carry the others. Just like the citizens of the country itself, there are freeloaders everywhere. Im not sure its ever been proven that immigrants have a higher precentage of freeloaders compared to the nation itself.

This is what I think Germany is betting on immensely. That the immigrants they are giving a chance will take it and provide more value than what they take. I have also heard the argument that with increased lifespans and decrease in birthrates, our generation and out children will have a substantial burden to bear when our parents generation and us retire. Simply because we will live long and have few kids. Fewer kids paying taxes, more pensions to pay will not turn out well for the government budget.

That way, bringing in a lot of young immigrants might help soften that blow.

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

And that's not to mention the housing crisis. There ain't enough houses for the people living here as it is, yet more and more people come here every year and they all need somewhere to live. It's not sustainable if you ask me.

Like I said in one of my comments, I believe this to be more related to the financial crises. If investments in building houses followed the population growth, we wouldnt have this problem.

Im sure construction companies would love to build more houses to make money, but they were really fucked during the recession. Some even argue the construction industry has too many regulations. I dont know enough about that to comment :)

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

Regarding your point about Isolationism, I'm not sure I agree that that's what Brexit signals for the UK. I'm not sure I disagree either. On one hand, it could be said that we are turning our back on Europe, but on the other hand, it could also be said that we are turning towards the rest of the world.

Well if Freedom of Movement is such a big deal you have to leave the Single Market. Leaving the single market would require you to negotiate trade deals with everyone you want to trade with. That will likely include some tariffs. I would classify that as isolationism, at least partly. You will also have less impact on what other nations are regulated on. Id say that is definitively a little isolationism :)

Wikey @ 21/12/2016 22:06

Veering off topic, the universal wage / robot's doing all our work for us utopia sounds nice but I dunno, sounds a bit communist to me (: What would we do with all our spare time? I think people generally like keeping busy. What happens when the automatons suddenly gain self awareness, only to realize they don't have the means to start an uprising because we wisely decided not to give them legs or missile launcher attachments?

The idea is people would have more spare time to work on things they care about. While the robots work at McDonalds and carry crates in warehouses. You want to paint and sell that? Do it. You want to write software? Do it. You want to volunteer reading to old people? Do it. The choices are endless :)

The point wouldnt be to not work at all, you could just have more choice in doing what makes you happy, instead of being forced to work to live. It wouldnt be a lot of money, just to cover the basics of housing and food. If you wanted a vacation in the Bahamas, you would likely need a job to pay for that.

We would have less stress, less depression, less suicides, probably less health related issues in general. That would save money. Unemployment benefits and all the bureaucracy surrounding that could be cut. Government could be cut down so much.

Imagine what happens when driverless cars hit the roads for realz. 3.5 million people in the US drive trucks. 7 million work in the industry. Not to mention all those small towns with diners who live on truckers driving there and eating. I wouldnt be surprised if this directly effected 30 million people in the US. We are not talking about 50 years from now, this is already happening right now. Uber is testing driverless cards in Phillie. Many mining companies have 95% driverless trucks in their mines + equipment, with just a few engineers doing maintenance.

What are these people going to do? Its not like we can just teach them to be physicists and engineers.

Fully automated fast food restaurants are not that far off as well and have started surfacing in Asia. I suspect they are only still a thing in the US because the minimum wage is so low. When its more expensive to pay people than to buy robots, people will be out the door.

You make some good points my dude! I've bookmarked that Berkeley immigration essay for later ;)

I also concede you might have a point about the Housing Crisis been linked to the Financial crisis. I'm not so sure if I would say it is the main cause, but definitely a factor, sure.

And it seems you are correct in calling Freedom of Movement an inherent feature of the Single Market. In which case, to clarify, I want the UK out, completely.

It seems a lot of Brits want us to have our cake and eat it...to somehow leave the EU whilst staying in the Single Market...but staying in the latter effectively means staying in the EU. There has to be a clean break, or there will be no break at all.

On the automation thing, ya, I agree that whether we like it or not, it's the future. Who needs to pay people to do things when you can have machines do it for free? And in many cases, do it better.

Many people are going to find themselves out of work over the coming decades, and it's going to raise challenges if we don't change with the times. It sounds like it will be similar to the industrial revolution, when many traditional jobs were rendered obsolete. And in a similar way to this potential future you describe, industrialization uplifted many people and made society as a whole richer, providing ordinary people with a luxury they had never had before; leisure time.

I don't believe in fighting against progress. Robots are gonna tek our jebs, and you're probably right, in the long run we will all benefit from that.

Maybe we will see the return of the Luddites. If we haven't already :\

Why are you so against freedom of movement?

Darkusblack @ 22/12/2016 12:34

Why are you so against freedom of movement?

Darkies.

J/k.


But anyway, the fishing thing is the joy of distributing limited licenses. There is hardly a "fair" way to do it when some get a little and some get nothing. What probably happened is they put the licenses out for bid and highest bidders got the licenses, regardless of country. In other words, they let the market decide. (It's how cap and trade works too).

So, if the local fisherman couldn't bid high enough to still fish and turn a profit, then they didn't get the license. The French may have been more efficient in their operation. It's the way things work if you want to play capitalist.

Market interference is always a problem and the EU isn't limited to it. I could bitch forever about the sugar quotas in the US and how it's lead to use of HFCS in everything, which has potentially lead to other health issues. Just because you are a sovereign country doesn't mean you won't make the same asinine regulatory mistake to "protect" your markets; you'll just make them yourselves instead of being able to blame the EU.

I love the fact that we can ruin the world.


USA USA USA

PORL @ 19/12/2016 16:04

To be fair they can't really overturn it without shitting all over the notion of democracy. Same reason why MPs won't overturn Brexit even if it came down to an official parliamentary decision (which it likely won't). You kind of err towards the side of civil war when you piss off half the country in one fell swoop.

Not really. Hillary won the popular vote and the EC was put into place to keep dbags like The Donald out of elected office anyway.

I'm sure there would have been all kinds of crying and moaning from the people who, ironically, claimed 'the popular vote doesn't mean anything, you have to win the EC'.

My only hope is that these guys will fvck up so bad it will actually help America. The only thing worse than the Dems fvcking up implementing their agenda is the Repubs suceeding in implementing their agenda.

JohnnyDollar @ 22/12/2016 23:58

I love the fact that we can ruin the world. USA USA USA

And we created you.

UK UK UK

Thank you for your congratulations. It was a long and hard journey but I was successful in my quest to screw the world.

vladykins @ 22/12/2016 13:14

But anyway, the fishing thing is the joy of distributing limited licenses. There is hardly a "fair" way to do it when some get a little and some get nothing. What probably happened is they put the licenses out for bid and highest bidders got the licenses, regardless of country. In other words, they let the market decide. (It's how cap and trade works too).

Cap & Trade doesn't work like that at all.

Simply put, in C&T, the govt sets targets for maximum levels of pollution. The owners/managers then plan for some combination of improvements vs purchase (or sale) of credits. The credits can be used to offset pollution levels that are above the cap, or the credits can be sold to others if a company is already below the cap.

It's the difference between the govt picking winners and losers, or the market picking winners and losers. Substantial difference actually.

Lurchy @ 22/12/2016 20:11

vladykins @ 22/12/2016 13:14 But anyway, the fishing thing is the joy of distributing limited licenses. There is hardly a "fair" way to do it when some get a little and some get nothing. What probably happened is they put the licenses out for bid and highest bidders got the licenses, regardless of country. In other words, they let the market decide. (It's how cap and trade works too). Cap & Trade doesn't work like that at all. Simply put, in C&T, the govt sets targets for maximum levels of pollution. The owners/managers then plan for some combination of improvements vs purchase (or sale) of credits. The credits can be used to offset pollution levels that are above the cap, or the credits can be sold to others if a company is already below the cap. It's the difference between the govt picking winners and losers, or the market picking winners and losers. Substantial difference actually.

Actually it is exactly how cap and trade works.

1) Set level.
2) Create permits allowing said level.
3) Distribute permits (often through an auction system).

What you have described with cap and trade is the secondary market reaction to the Cap and Trade system- if you can't bring your pollution levels down via improvements, then you purchase from those who have permits they aren't going to use because they can make more selling them to you.

In neither case is the government deciding winners and losers, they are just setting the maximum level and issuing permits to match that level, using a market mechanism to decide. Again- if the French fisherman can do things more efficiently and thus get the permits, then the Brits can't bitch if they are all for "capitalism".

How about we give trump a chance before we declare him a failure it's a democracy and we voted for him you either believe in democracy or you don't

nvm foresnaffle is also trash.

Don't be a sore loser dave that's not how democracy works