5 ms·

> If you're pro-small business, then you should be excited about the opportunities we have now. Such as? Please elaborate. One thing we can look forwards to

> If you're pro-small business, then you should be excited about the opportunities we have now. Such as? Please elaborate. One thing we can look forwards to is paying VAT to every EU country individually. That's going to be fun.

x5n1 10y ago
Yes right now. This can be fixed without giving up sovereignty. Many things that the EU is supposed to be solve can be solved via individual treaties. There is no need to give away the farm to get small benefits. At the end of the day the world is better off without conglomeration of power. Any of them are a bad idea. Individual treaties for problem points are the way to go.
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  Conglomeration of power is very useful in some situations. For example, global environmental problems. Have one conglomerate force everyone to do better. If each country acted independently, each country is incentivised to not think about the bigger picture and act in their own short term interests. This was my main reason for voting in.
  - x5n1 10y ago
    It can go the other way as well. If you have a large conglomeration of power it's easy for a few people with capital to take over and make all the rules and potentially destroy the environment. See the United States for an example of this, especially in terms of fracking. People who don't necessarily suffer due to bad policy but profit from it. For instance this quote from the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States#Environmental_and_health_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_Un... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States#Environmental_and_health_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_Un... "A majority of the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board advised the EPA to scale back proposed toxity testing of fracking chemicals, and not pursue development of tracer chemicals to be added to frack treatments, because of time limitations. Chesapeake Energy agreed with the recommendation." Conglomerations of power benefit people with power the most. That can be a positive or a negative depending on what policies those people want to pursue.
  - genzoman 10y ago
    I do not live in Europe, but this line struck me: "force everyone to do better". Which I interpret as you can't make decisions on your own, big daddy government must make those decisions for you.
    - Scirra_Tom 10y ago
      Yep, sometimes government can be a force for good you know. I'm assuming your from the US (that's where I generally find the "big daddy government" rhetoric mainly comes from).
    - mioelnir 10y ago
      The EU forces a minimum standard for you have to implement, correct. Like not pumping unfiltered sewage into a freshwater reservoir, giving a damn about air pollution, non-toxic children's toys etc. These are not made-up examples.
      - masklinn 10y ago
        > The EU forces a minimum standard for you have to implement, correct. Like not pumping unfiltered sewage into a freshwater reservoir, giving a damn about air pollution, non-toxic children's toys etc. And it's not just health or industrial standards, the EU forces a bunch of legal and human rights onto countries as well, many EU countries have gotten repeatedly and rightfully dinged over various deficiencies.
    - ncallaway 10y ago
      No, it's a recognition of the tragedy of the commons. If there is a super-entity that regulates the commons you get better results for every individual. If each entity acts in their own self-interest — which nations very regularly do — then you get worse results for every individual.
- nickbauman 10y ago
  Except the EU charter expressly forbids Britain from making trade agreements with individual member states. So Britain will have to negotiate trade deals with the union as a whole anyway. Vie La Difference ?
robk 10y ago
How's that? An American company doesn't charge VAT unless they have a EU subsidiary. UK would be closer to that treatment
- mioelnir 10y ago
  Why would the EU give such a favorable deal to a country as unimportant as UK? The EU-member UK leaving is an important signal; but non-EU-member Uk is an irrelevant tiny market. The Brexit camps idea that they could leave so they could finally pick whatever they like, as they have been trying to do for the last 40 years, is cute but laughably naive. They will not continue to receive the free travel, trade access and EU subsidies to the tune of 200 million euro per week. All of that will be revoked, only if to set an example that you will not get those benefits without buy-in. In my view, there are currently two equally likely scenarios to unfold: they leave with nothing as farewell gift (as has already been hinted at by the EU), or they will ignore the vote and stay in because they realize how bad of an idea this was - but are now in such a bad position they will likely lose all special privileges they enjoyed over the last 40 years. This can be clearly seen by how many leave-voters are now in shock that they leave, and want to be able to vote again to remain. This was a powerplay for a better negotiation position. It backfired and now they can eat it.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    That is what I'm hoping for. I'm hoping that in a few weeks, after the international wake up call has finally reached the ears of those who voted with emotion instead of logic, there will actually be a full election in the UK. I then hope that with the backing of the people's vote getting new officials in to office that they resist the call to invoke Article 50, and instead bring grievances to the EU along with some ways that a more fair union can continue moving forward. This would show a more mature and world class level of leadership; and help to restore the confidence in the rest of the world that the UK won't cut off it's own legs out of spite.
    - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      I'd hope that too. I'm not optimistic. If mature world class leadership were likely, we wouldn't be here.

x5n1 10y ago

Yes right now. This can be fixed without giving up sovereignty. Many things that the EU is supposed to be solve can be solved via individual treaties. There is no need to give away the farm to get small benefits. At the end of the day the world is better off without conglomeration of power. Any of them are a bad idea. Individual treaties for problem points are the way to go.

Scirra_Tom 10y ago
Conglomeration of power is very useful in some situations. For example, global environmental problems. Have one conglomerate force everyone to do better. If each country acted independently, each country is incentivised to not think about the bigger picture and act in their own short term interests. This was my main reason for voting in.
- x5n1 10y ago
  It can go the other way as well. If you have a large conglomeration of power it's easy for a few people with capital to take over and make all the rules and potentially destroy the environment. See the United States for an example of this, especially in terms of fracking. People who don't necessarily suffer due to bad policy but profit from it. For instance this quote from the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States#Environmental_and_health_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_Un... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States#Environmental_and_health_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_Un... "A majority of the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board advised the EPA to scale back proposed toxity testing of fracking chemicals, and not pursue development of tracer chemicals to be added to frack treatments, because of time limitations. Chesapeake Energy agreed with the recommendation." Conglomerations of power benefit people with power the most. That can be a positive or a negative depending on what policies those people want to pursue.
- genzoman 10y ago
  I do not live in Europe, but this line struck me: "force everyone to do better". Which I interpret as you can't make decisions on your own, big daddy government must make those decisions for you.
  - Scirra_Tom 10y ago
    Yep, sometimes government can be a force for good you know. I'm assuming your from the US (that's where I generally find the "big daddy government" rhetoric mainly comes from).
  - mioelnir 10y ago
    The EU forces a minimum standard for you have to implement, correct. Like not pumping unfiltered sewage into a freshwater reservoir, giving a damn about air pollution, non-toxic children's toys etc. These are not made-up examples.
    - masklinn 10y ago
      > The EU forces a minimum standard for you have to implement, correct. Like not pumping unfiltered sewage into a freshwater reservoir, giving a damn about air pollution, non-toxic children's toys etc. And it's not just health or industrial standards, the EU forces a bunch of legal and human rights onto countries as well, many EU countries have gotten repeatedly and rightfully dinged over various deficiencies.
  - ncallaway 10y ago
    No, it's a recognition of the tragedy of the commons. If there is a super-entity that regulates the commons you get better results for every individual. If each entity acts in their own self-interest — which nations very regularly do — then you get worse results for every individual.
nickbauman 10y ago
Except the EU charter expressly forbids Britain from making trade agreements with individual member states. So Britain will have to negotiate trade deals with the union as a whole anyway. Vie La Difference ?

robk 10y ago

How's that? An American company doesn't charge VAT unless they have a EU subsidiary. UK would be closer to that treatment

mioelnir 10y ago
Why would the EU give such a favorable deal to a country as unimportant as UK? The EU-member UK leaving is an important signal; but non-EU-member Uk is an irrelevant tiny market. The Brexit camps idea that they could leave so they could finally pick whatever they like, as they have been trying to do for the last 40 years, is cute but laughably naive. They will not continue to receive the free travel, trade access and EU subsidies to the tune of 200 million euro per week. All of that will be revoked, only if to set an example that you will not get those benefits without buy-in. In my view, there are currently two equally likely scenarios to unfold: they leave with nothing as farewell gift (as has already been hinted at by the EU), or they will ignore the vote and stay in because they realize how bad of an idea this was - but are now in such a bad position they will likely lose all special privileges they enjoyed over the last 40 years. This can be clearly seen by how many leave-voters are now in shock that they leave, and want to be able to vote again to remain. This was a powerplay for a better negotiation position. It backfired and now they can eat it.
- mjevans 10y ago
  That is what I'm hoping for. I'm hoping that in a few weeks, after the international wake up call has finally reached the ears of those who voted with emotion instead of logic, there will actually be a full election in the UK. I then hope that with the backing of the people's vote getting new officials in to office that they resist the call to invoke Article 50, and instead bring grievances to the EU along with some ways that a more fair union can continue moving forward. This would show a more mature and world class level of leadership; and help to restore the confidence in the rest of the world that the UK won't cut off it's own legs out of spite.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    I'd hope that too. I'm not optimistic. If mature world class leadership were likely, we wouldn't be here.