Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #166275 > unrolled thread

Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-07-02 06:59 +0100
    Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-02 07:40 +0100
      Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-07-02 12:59 +0000
    Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-02 08:09 +0000
    Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-02 19:53 -0400
      Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 07:11 -0400
        Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-07-03 11:40 -0400
          Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-07-03 17:22 +0100
            Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 16:15 -0400
              Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-03 20:38 +0000
                Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 18:55 -0400
                  Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-07-04 06:53 +0000
              Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-03 23:33 +0200
                Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-04 09:34 +0000
              Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-03 22:39 +0100
                Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-07-04 00:20 +0200
                  Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust mausg@mail.com - 2016-07-04 09:43 +0000
                Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-03 18:55 -0400

#166275 — Re: "Computer & Automation" later issues--anti-establishment thrust

in 667507 20160701 214058 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:55:10 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-06-30, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I recommend using less theory and more adaptive rules.
>>>>>> Like we do now, a little capitalism, a little socialism,
>>>>>> whatever works for this time and place.
>>>>
>>>>> Oooh, I see a lot of ideologues coming after you with
>>>>> torches and pitchforks...
>>>>
>>>> I'm ideologically wedded to freedom and democracy.
>>>
>>> Who doesn't want freedom.  But there have to limits to even that.
>>>
>>> As far as democracy, most "democratic" nations use a representative
>>> form of government.  Pure democracy leads to stuff like BREXIT.
>>> Not really a good thing.
>>
>> That's what happens when the "representatives" no longer represent the
>> people who elected them. I don't claim to be an expert on Europe, but it
>> seems from my vantage point that too much is being done by organizations
>> that are not responsive to the electorate, maybe intentionally.
>
>I'm not following.
>
>The BREXIT decision was the result of a direct application
>of democracy.  The population was allowed to vote directly
>on the issue, rather than voting for a representative
>that the voters trust to represent them.

But the politicians on both sides lied, deceived and exaggerated,
and most voters believed Leave lies over the experts who were unanimous
in advising Remain,
Under the circumstances the result should be null and void and the lying
politicians jailed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI


>Giving the vote on issues directly to voters leads to
>the tyranny of the majority.
>
>We try to create "informed" voters with our education system,
>but given the average intelligence and interest of the population, that
>doesn't work.  At least in today's culture.
>
>Better is a representative system, where we hope that we can count
>on voters to pick people better than themselves and thereby get more
>informed decisions.
>
>As I've said, no system can be perfect because the system is run
>by and for imperfect people.
>
>--
>Dan Espen

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#166277

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 06:59:50 BST
Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:

> But the politicians on both sides lied, deceived and exaggerated,

	Like just about every issue they talk about.

> and most voters believed Leave lies over the experts who were unanimous
> in advising Remain,

	Yep politicians are experts at selling lies.

> Under the circumstances the result should be null and void and the lying
> politicians jailed.

	Personally I think that any politician found to be lying to the
public or their colleagues should be a) banned from office permanently and
b) spend time in the stocks.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166302

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 06:59:50 BST
> Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> But the politicians on both sides lied, deceived and exaggerated,
>
>     Like just about every issue they talk about.
>
>> and most voters believed Leave lies over the experts who were unanimous
>> in advising Remain,
>
>     Yep politicians are experts at selling lies.
>
>> Under the circumstances the result should be null and void and the lying
>> politicians jailed.
>
>     Personally I think that any politician found to be lying to the
> public or their colleagues should be a) banned from office permanently and
> b) spend time in the stocks.
>
<grin>  Now define lying.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166281

On 2016-07-02, Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
> in 667507 20160701 214058 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> Under the circumstances the result should be null and void and the lying
> politicians jailed.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI
>
>
There is a precedent, During the run-up to the Lisbon Agreement, a
referendum was run in Ireland for agreement with it. The result was
"No".. Immediate panic in official Ireland.

It simply was not as significent as the British "Brexit" thing, but
showed increasing disenchantment with the EU. The Irish like
being in the EU, but dislike the niggling reulations that it brings.

Official Ireland decided that the referendum be rerun, aand it was
passed the second time. Coming out of the polling station, after
voting 'no', I met a friend and observed that it must be the worse
insult that a country be given, that it be forced to rerun a referendum.

All he could say, was that the country was not a disgrace in Europe
any more. 

If the British referendum was rerun soon, the anti- people would
accuse the EU of forcing that. The result would probably be the same.



-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166358

Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:

> in 667507 20160701 214058 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:55:10 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-06-30, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recommend using less theory and more adaptive rules.
>>>>>>> Like we do now, a little capitalism, a little socialism,
>>>>>>> whatever works for this time and place.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oooh, I see a lot of ideologues coming after you with
>>>>>> torches and pitchforks...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm ideologically wedded to freedom and democracy.
>>>>
>>>> Who doesn't want freedom.  But there have to limits to even that.
>>>>
>>>> As far as democracy, most "democratic" nations use a representative
>>>> form of government.  Pure democracy leads to stuff like BREXIT.
>>>> Not really a good thing.
>>>
>>> That's what happens when the "representatives" no longer represent the
>>> people who elected them. I don't claim to be an expert on Europe, but it
>>> seems from my vantage point that too much is being done by organizations
>>> that are not responsive to the electorate, maybe intentionally.
>>
>>I'm not following.
>>
>>The BREXIT decision was the result of a direct application
>>of democracy.  The population was allowed to vote directly
>>on the issue, rather than voting for a representative
>>that the voters trust to represent them.
>
> But the politicians on both sides lied, deceived and exaggerated,
> and most voters believed Leave lies over the experts who were unanimous
> in advising Remain,
> Under the circumstances the result should be null and void and the lying
> politicians jailed.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI

The video blames lies told to the public about BREXIT.

That's not inconsistent with my statement that the fault lies
with giving the public a direct vote on an issue.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166385

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:
> 
>> in 667507 20160701 214058 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:55:10 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2016-06-30, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I recommend using less theory and more adaptive rules.
>>>>>>>> Like we do now, a little capitalism, a little socialism,
>>>>>>>> whatever works for this time and place.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Oooh, I see a lot of ideologues coming after you with
>>>>>>> torches and pitchforks...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm ideologically wedded to freedom and democracy.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Who doesn't want freedom.  But there have to limits to even that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As far as democracy, most "democratic" nations use a representative
>>>>> form of government.  Pure democracy leads to stuff like BREXIT.
>>>>> Not really a good thing.
>>>> 
>>>> That's what happens when the "representatives" no longer represent the
>>>> people who elected them. I don't claim to be an expert on Europe, but it
>>>> seems from my vantage point that too much is being done by organizations
>>>> that are not responsive to the electorate, maybe intentionally.
>>> 
>>> I'm not following.
>>> 
>>> The BREXIT decision was the result of a direct application
>>> of democracy.  The population was allowed to vote directly
>>> on the issue, rather than voting for a representative
>>> that the voters trust to represent them.
>> 
>> But the politicians on both sides lied, deceived and exaggerated,
>> and most voters believed Leave lies over the experts who were unanimous
>> in advising Remain,
>> Under the circumstances the result should be null and void and the lying
>> politicians jailed.
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI
> 
> The video blames lies told to the public about BREXIT.
> 
> That's not inconsistent with my statement that the fault lies
> with giving the public a direct vote on an issue.
> 

Both sides had plenty of time to get their messages out.  Both side appear
to me to have lied, a lot.  If the people picked one side over the other
that suggests that one set of lies resonated more than the other.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166416

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> writes:
>> 
>>> in 667507 20160701 214058 Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:55:10 PM UTC-6, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2016-06-30, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I recommend using less theory and more adaptive rules.
>>>>>>>>> Like we do now, a little capitalism, a little socialism,
>>>>>>>>> whatever works for this time and place.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Oooh, I see a lot of ideologues coming after you with
>>>>>>>> torches and pitchforks...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm ideologically wedded to freedom and democracy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Who doesn't want freedom.  But there have to limits to even that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As far as democracy, most "democratic" nations use a representative
>>>>>> form of government.  Pure democracy leads to stuff like BREXIT.
>>>>>> Not really a good thing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's what happens when the "representatives" no longer represent the
>>>>> people who elected them. I don't claim to be an expert on Europe, but it
>>>>> seems from my vantage point that too much is being done by organizations
>>>>> that are not responsive to the electorate, maybe intentionally.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not following.
>>>> 
>>>> The BREXIT decision was the result of a direct application
>>>> of democracy.  The population was allowed to vote directly
>>>> on the issue, rather than voting for a representative
>>>> that the voters trust to represent them.
>>> 
>>> But the politicians on both sides lied, deceived and exaggerated,
>>> and most voters believed Leave lies over the experts who were unanimous
>>> in advising Remain,
>>> Under the circumstances the result should be null and void and the lying
>>> politicians jailed.
>>> 
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dosmKwrAbI
>> 
>> The video blames lies told to the public about BREXIT.
>> 
>> That's not inconsistent with my statement that the fault lies
>> with giving the public a direct vote on an issue.
>> 
>
> Both sides had plenty of time to get their messages out.  Both side appear
> to me to have lied, a lot.  If the people picked one side over the other
> that suggests that one set of lies resonated more than the other.

With voters ignorant about trade and treaties.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166425

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:40:55 -0400
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:

> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:

> > Both sides had plenty of time to get their messages out.  Both side
> > appear to me to have lied, a lot.  If the people picked one side over
> > the other that suggests that one set of lies resonated more than the
> > other.
> 
> With voters ignorant about trade and treaties.

	The truly crazy part is that the terms of exit were not known at
the time of the vote and are still not known. Nobody knows exactly what
they voted for - nobody can know because it hasn't yet been negotiated.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166441

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:40:55 -0400
> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>>> Both sides had plenty of time to get their messages out.  Both side
>>> appear to me to have lied, a lot.  If the people picked one side over
>>> the other that suggests that one set of lies resonated more than the
>>> other.
>> 
>> With voters ignorant about trade and treaties.
> 
> 	The truly crazy part is that the terms of exit were not known at
> the time of the vote and are still not known. Nobody knows exactly what
> they voted for - nobody can know because it hasn't yet been negotiated.
> 

I don't want to continue commenting because I don't know the details, but
both sides were making stuff up, it appears. The "remain" group predicted
locusts, rains of blood, and slaying of the firstborn if the "leaves" won.
The "leaves" on the other hand predicted all the good stuff that would
follow by getting out.

I don't see why the politicians aren't amenable to negotiating a free-trade
agreement like NAFTA, which doesn't come with all the baggage they want to
tag on, except that they want to be as nasty and disagreeable as possible.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166443

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 16:15:06 -0400, Peter Flass wrote:

> I don't see why the politicians aren't amenable to negotiating a
> free-trade agreement like NAFTA, which doesn't come with all the baggage
> they want to tag on, except that they want to be as nasty and
> disagreeable as possible.

Because the EU won't countenance a trade agreement with them unless it 
comes with open borders?
-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166451

Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 16:15:06 -0400, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> I don't see why the politicians aren't amenable to negotiating a
>> free-trade agreement like NAFTA, which doesn't come with all the baggage
>> they want to tag on, except that they want to be as nasty and
>> disagreeable as possible.
> 
> Because the EU won't countenance a trade agreement with them unless it 
> comes with open borders?

Same thing.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166463

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 18:55:10 -0400, Peter Flass wrote:

> Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 16:15:06 -0400, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't see why the politicians aren't amenable to negotiating a
>>> free-trade agreement like NAFTA, which doesn't come with all the
>>> baggage they want to tag on, except that they want to be as nasty and
>>> disagreeable as possible.
>> 
>> Because the EU won't countenance a trade agreement with them unless it
>> comes with open borders?
> 
> Same thing.

Since it's one of the basic tenets of the EU - no.



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166444

In article <616192635.489269254.973838.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:40:55 -0400
>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> 
>>>> Both sides had plenty of time to get their messages out.  Both side
>>>> appear to me to have lied, a lot.  If the people picked one side over
>>>> the other that suggests that one set of lies resonated more than the
>>>> other.
>>> 
>>> With voters ignorant about trade and treaties.
>> 
>> 	The truly crazy part is that the terms of exit were not known at
>> the time of the vote and are still not known. Nobody knows exactly what
>> they voted for - nobody can know because it hasn't yet been negotiated.
>> 
>
>I don't want to continue commenting because I don't know the details, but
>both sides were making stuff up, it appears. The "remain" group predicted
>locusts, rains of blood, and slaying of the firstborn if the "leaves" won.
>The "leaves" on the other hand predicted all the good stuff that would
>follow by getting out.
>
>I don't see why the politicians aren't amenable to negotiating a free-trade
>agreement like NAFTA, which doesn't come with all the baggage they want to
>tag on, except that they want to be as nasty and disagreeable as possible.

A plain free trade agreement is the "Canada" option. They are NOT within
the internal market, and still have to declare goods going in and out.
They need not implement the market legislation (which has a lot of 
implications) but will have to produce to these standards when selling
within the EU. You need not have free movement of people.

An extended free trade agreement is the "Swizerland" option. Via ca 50
free trade deals you are included into the internal market, and you 
will have to contribute financially and implement a large extent of
legislation. You will have free movement of people; today's statement
from several top people in the EU says as much. You do not get much 
say over the legislation you will have to import. This is a very time-
consuming option, and there are many unresolved legal issues.

The third option is the EEA treaty, the "Norway/Iceland" option. Except
for some specific areas such as agriculture, fisheries, non-electricity
energy etc you are inside the internal market, and have to adopt, or
protest, all EU legislation within these areas. There is a separate
overseeing body and associated courts to settle disputes. You do not
have much say over the imported legislation, but you do have the option
to make a protest. You do get to pay a substantial fee too, around as
much per capita as the Swiss version. You do get full immigration 
freedom for all the citizens, both ways. You even have to compensate
for hospital and pensions (this goes both ways).

None of them take part in the VAT union. The two latter can sign up
for Schengen, passport-free travel. 

EU does not want any more Switzerland deals, they have said so clearly.
The UK may cry themselves to one, but this is a long shot. The EEA has
also been used to include many overseas territories. Formerly the dutch
part of St Martin; but that is now a part of the Kingdom of the 
Netherlands. Like Tortola(still), they are part of the EU. [1]

-- mrr

[1] amusing tidbit : This makes the distance between the US (VI)
and the EU only around 900 meters with a max depth of around 25 meters.
I have considered doing that treverse as a dive some day, but realise
the hefty paperwork that will need to be done.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166539

On 2016-07-03, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <616192635.489269254.973838.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass  <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 11:40:55 -0400
>>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> 
> much per capita as the Swiss version. You do get full immigration 
> freedom for all the citizens, both ways. You even have to compensate
> for hospital and pensions (this goes both ways).
>
> None of them take part in the VAT union. The two latter can sign up
> for Schengen, passport-free travel. 
>
> EU does not want any more Switzerland deals, they have said so clearly.
> The UK may cry themselves to one, but this is a long shot. The EEA has
> also been used to include many overseas territories. Formerly the dutch
> part of St Martin; but that is now a part of the Kingdom of the 
> Netherlands. Like Tortola(still), they are part of the EU. [1]
>
> -- mrr
>
> [1] amusing tidbit : This makes the distance between the US (VI)
> and the EU only around 900 meters with a max depth of around 25 meters.
> I have considered doing that treverse as a dive some day, but realise
> the hefty paperwork that will need to be done.
>
>
>
Also your age, I understand that there are severe limits with age.


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166445

On 03/07/2016 21:15, Peter Flass wrote:
{snip}

> I don't see why the politicians aren't amenable to negotiating a free-trade
> agreement like NAFTA, which doesn't come with all the baggage they want to
> tag on, except that they want to be as nasty and disagreeable as possible.

Trump does not like NAFTA. Obama said Britain would be made to go to the 
end of the queue. Canada's PM is in some sort of feminist wonderland. 
Australia is having a general election. The UK is replacing its prime 
minister.

A son of NAFTA that includes the USA, Mexico, Canada, Australia, New 
Zealand, Britain and possibly the Irish Republic is one thing that may 
happen in the future.

Note: Many Continental politicians do not like free trade but prefer 
'managed trade'. In managed trade they give commands to companies and 
frequently get lots of bribes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166447

In article <iaGdnd-s7uSMG-TKnZ2dnUU78RfNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Andrew Swallow  <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 03/07/2016 21:15, Peter Flass wrote:
>{snip}
>
>> I don't see why the politicians aren't amenable to negotiating a free-trade
>> agreement like NAFTA, which doesn't come with all the baggage they want to
>> tag on, except that they want to be as nasty and disagreeable as possible.
>
>Trump does not like NAFTA. Obama said Britain would be made to go to the 
>end of the queue. Canada's PM is in some sort of feminist wonderland. 
>Australia is having a general election. The UK is replacing its prime 
>minister.
>
>A son of NAFTA that includes the USA, Mexico, Canada, Australia, New 
>Zealand, Britain and possibly the Irish Republic is one thing that may 
>happen in the future.

That is a pipe dream. The economic gravitation of local trade will
win. 

The eurotunnel alone runs 6 freight trains an hour. 24x8x365. Both 
ways. (well 20-minute schedules on Chrismas and Easter days). They
take less than a third of the UK-EU traffic in goods. Ferries, ships
and planes chip in too. Manchester to Milano overnight.

US-UK traffic isn't within an order of magnitude of this.

And traffic France-Germany-Italy dwarfs this by a good margin.

The EU only has Finland, Ireland and Greece as outlying areas. 
Finland is beefing up rail transport around the Baltic to Sweden
quite radically.

The EU is way too logistically integrated by now to even consider
having limits to the Internal Market.

>Note: Many Continental politicians do not like free trade but prefer 
>'managed trade'. In managed trade they give commands to companies and 
>frequently get lots of bribes.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166549

On 2016-07-03, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <iaGdnd-s7uSMG-TKnZ2dnUU78RfNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Andrew Swallow  <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On 03/07/2016 21:15, Peter Flass wrote:
>>{snip}
>>
>>> I don't see why the politicians aren't amenable to negotiating a free-trade
>>> agreement like NAFTA, which doesn't come with all the baggage they want to
>>> tag on, except that they want to be as nasty and disagreeable as possible.
>>
>>Trump does not like NAFTA. Obama said Britain would be made to go to the 
>>end of the queue. Canada's PM is in some sort of feminist wonderland. 
>>Australia is having a general election. The UK is replacing its prime 
>>minister.
>>
>>A son of NAFTA that includes the USA, Mexico, Canada, Australia, New 
>>Zealand, Britain and possibly the Irish Republic is one thing that may 
>>happen in the future.
>
> That is a pipe dream. The economic gravitation of local trade will
> win. 
>
> The eurotunnel alone runs 6 freight trains an hour. 24x8x365. Both 
> ways. (well 20-minute schedules on Chrismas and Easter days). They
> take less than a third of the UK-EU traffic in goods. Ferries, ships
> and planes chip in too. Manchester to Milano overnight.
>
> US-UK traffic isn't within an order of magnitude of this.
>
> And traffic France-Germany-Italy dwarfs this by a good margin.
>
> The EU only has Finland, Ireland and Greece as outlying areas. 
> Finland is beefing up rail transport around the Baltic to Sweden
> quite radically.
>
> The EU is way too logistically integrated by now to even consider
> having limits to the Internal Market.
>
>>Note: Many Continental politicians do not like free trade but prefer 
>>'managed trade'. In managed trade they give commands to companies and 
>>frequently get lots of bribes.
>
> -- mrr
>
>

At one stage, there was a webcam that watched a Russia-Finland border
crossing, I think, about half-way North-South. Nothing would happen
for hours, then a truck would arrive. It was one of the first webcams 
online


-- 
greymaus.ireland.ie
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166452

Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2016 21:15, Peter Flass wrote:
> {snip}
> 
>> I don't see why the politicians aren't amenable to negotiating a free-trade
>> agreement like NAFTA, which doesn't come with all the baggage they want to
>> tag on, except that they want to be as nasty and disagreeable as possible.
> 
> Trump does not like NAFTA. Obama said Britain would be made to go to the 
> end of the queue. 

Obama is full of sh%t.  He was saying this to try to influence the vote,
but when he said it I expect that many people in the US, including many
congressmen, said "what?"

Canada's PM is in some sort of feminist wonderland. 
> Australia is having a general election. The UK is replacing its prime 
> minister.
> 
> A son of NAFTA that includes the USA, Mexico, Canada, Australia, New 
> Zealand, Britain and possibly the Irish Republic is one thing that may 
> happen in the future.

I like that option.  Except for Mexico all these countries share a  common
language and culture, and a legal system derived from English common law. 
Despite Trump, Mexico is joined to the US at the hip, and goods cross the
border possibly more than once during the manufacturing process.  I thought
this option should have been considered years ago.

> 
> Note: Many Continental politicians do not like free trade but prefer 
> 'managed trade'. In managed trade they give commands to companies and 
> frequently get lots of bribes.
> 



-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web