Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.os.development > #8747 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-11 19:11 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-11-01 09:07 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 142 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.os.development
C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-11 19:11 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 05:10 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 04:41 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 02:37 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 07:20 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 18:37 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 21:03 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 13:49 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 06:27 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 19:02 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 15:10 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 20:30 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 20:07 -0700
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-20 18:48 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 20:04 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:32 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:51 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 17:35 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 17:09 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-16 14:30 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:40 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 07:34 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-18 08:37 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 23:35 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-19 12:52 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-19 13:09 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-19 21:46 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 11:15 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-21 21:48 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:16 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-22 23:02 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-01-23 17:04 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 15:27 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-02-29 09:26 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:02 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 20:48 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-29 09:00 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-09 22:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:36 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-03-29 09:01 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 10:13 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-10 19:33 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-04-15 16:27 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:10 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:17 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 08:44 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-29 12:05 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:28 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 08:46 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-26 23:58 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK (was: C parser ramblings, language design, etc) Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 00:08 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 06:40 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 17:45 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 18:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 23:44 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-03 16:56 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:23 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 11:47 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-06 19:34 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 12:51 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 19:20 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 01:46 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 21:43 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 09:36 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-08 15:34 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 11:25 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-10 17:32 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-10 18:25 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:06 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-07 21:32 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 07:41 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 14:59 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-20 21:13 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-20 21:17 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 08:04 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-05-21 11:16 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-05-20 22:51 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-21 07:29 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 08:33 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400
UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-06-11 14:34 -0400
Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:28 +0100
Re: UK pronunciation was, [Re: OT: Obama in the UK, was C lang parser ramblings] Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:21 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-25 21:54 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 10:02 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfrze.cam> - 2016-07-26 07:56 -0400
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:26 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: OT: Obama in the UK James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 09:25 +0100
Re: OT: Obama in the UK Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:11 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 07:59 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 00:01 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:28 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 05:42 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 17:16 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-04-27 18:05 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:29 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:42 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-03 20:14 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 14:34 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 11:27 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 16:34 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-05-21 21:10 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:10 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2016-06-01 19:22 +0200
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 18:29 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-26 11:47 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:08 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2016-01-28 11:54 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:47 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 10:13 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 18:29 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:15 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-27 17:31 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 11:07 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-19 22:28 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:04 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> - 2016-01-25 17:48 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-27 17:16 +0000
Re: cows and bulls game, was [Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc] "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-27 21:19 -0500
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:32 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:13 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-05 21:56 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:56 +0000
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-21 19:46 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 15:38 +0100
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-13 07:10 -0400
Re: C parser ramblings, language design, etc "s_dubrovich@yahoo.com" <s_dubrovich@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-01 09:07 -0800
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 18:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160427182524.157c870c@_> |
| In reply to | #9471 |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:45:24 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 10:25, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 06:40:35 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/04/2016 04:58, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:46:52 +0100 > >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 15/04/2016 15:27, Bernhard Schornak wrote: > >>>>> Myself scribbled: > >>>>>> James Harris schrieb: > >>>> The most memorable thing he said was that if the UK left the EU > >>>> then, in terms of US trade deals, the UK would find itself "at > >>>> the back of the queue". > >>>> > >>> > >>> I doubt he used the word "queue," > >> > >> But he did! That was one of the surprises. It suggested he had > >> planned to say what he said and wanted to be understood by a > >> British audience. And what a thing to say! > > > > Yes, definitely planned then. We don't use it in speech. > > I see Ted Cruz has 'slapped Obama down' for what he said in the UK. > > [link] > > What is Cruz like? I'd never heard of him prior to this, but I'm not into politics. Politics is probably, literally, the last, or next to last thing in this world that I'm interested in. He's from Texas, apparently their U.S. Senator. He seems like a decent guy. He's not excessively religious like Mitt Romney came off as. > Does he have any chance of beating Trump to the Republican nomination? No. IMO, he didn't even a while back when we first talked. He, like the other Republican politicians this year, just didn't have the brand or reputation or recognition or pull or aura that Trump has. The Northeastern U.S. is usually needed to support a candidate, due to high population New York City. People in the Northeast U.S. don't usually support candidates from the South. The West tends to not like candidates from the East, etc. The four big population states are New York, California, Florida, and Texas. Texas is more conservative, i.e., many Christians and churches, for marriage, against abortion, for gun rights, a big hunting state, a big ranch and farming state, against big government, and for businesses. California is very liberal, i.e., not that religious, for abortion, for divorce, for gay and lesbian rights, anti-guns, for protecting the environment and animals, but also somewhat anti-business, such as heavy taxation. Even with an anti-business state government, the GDP of California is large due to their variety of successful industries, e.g., Hollywood movie industry, Silicon Valley electronics, Bay Area software and internet companies, etc. It's expensive to live in those areas. Florida is a mix, liberal, but also pro-gun, with lots of retirees, orange groves, horse farms, mix of conservative and liberal wealth, etc. New York is more class-oriented, conservative, but also anti-gun due to New York City's organized crime, a very high tax state, and very expensive to live in New York City, comparable to London. The rest of the state of New York is fairly rural country, farmland, ski resorts, and smaller towns, almost forgotten. Every U.S. Census the states with larger populations receive higher numbers of representative voters, i.e., "electors." See Electoral College: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29 > >> Not trying to boast. Just saying that the UK doesn't like to be > >> pushed around or disrespected. Not even by the US president. > > > > As I said, old wounds die hard. We're not a British colony > > anymore. > > I think that Britain has treated people even worse than yourselves. > People starved in Ireland when there was grain in English ports. > Britain used its navy to force China to accept opium which harmed its > people. Etc. I may be British and not know much about our history but > I have heard some bad things. I was just messing with you a tad bit. You weren't referring to the U.S. in your comments at that point about the UK being pushed around or disrespected, but I was, i.e., by the U.S. during revolutionary war, therefore, your country's old wounds die hard. ;-) Anyway, AFAIK, all my great grand parents are of English descent. I.e., my family tree is likely in both countries during their "worst" periods, according to you. > That said, the attitudes that led to those bad actions are very much > in the past. If anything the UK has now become too soft and lost its > motivation and positivity. Hence, Banksy ... I don't really agree with many of his messages, not being from the U.K., but his presentation and perspective is unique. > Obama is possibly under the same impression as Petraeus, above, and > thinks that an independent UK would be isolated from the EU. Well, if you'd rather be the 51st state, we can accommodate that too, I think ... The cable TV might be a bit better. ;-) The only real problem I see with that is most of the liberals here are on the West coast or off the West coast (Hawaii). You guys would be off the East coast. :-) > Basically, AISI we would lose influence in the EU in the small > matters that it deals with but I suspect we would gain influence (up > to a point) on large matters. Various people would still want Europe > to speak with one voice even though the UK had left the EU. The > attempts to achieve a common position would actually give us a > greater influence. As an independent nation again the UK could not > simply be voted down or outnumbered. > "... want Europe to speak with one voice ..." I thought there were a bunch of countries around (non-Russian) Europe who aren't part of the E.U. ... Canada does just fine by itself, but it does benefit from our economy and military strengths in the region. The same is likely true of the U.K. and E.U., if the U.K. chooses Brexit. If separation is what you guys truly want, don't fear it, just go for it! At worst, you can only end up where you already are: regret. At best, you end up somewhere else, not regretting. I already voiced my opinion that think it's best to stay. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 23:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <ng8l1n$j0i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9473 |
On 27/04/2016 23:25, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:45:24 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> Basically, AISI we would lose influence in the EU in the small >> matters that it deals with but I suspect we would gain influence (up >> to a point) on large matters. Various people would still want Europe >> to speak with one voice even though the UK had left the EU. The >> attempts to achieve a common position would actually give us a >> greater influence. As an independent nation again the UK could not >> simply be voted down or outnumbered. >> > > "... want Europe to speak with one voice ..." > > I thought there were a bunch of countries around (non-Russian) Europe > who aren't part of the E.U. ... Yes, there are many small European countries which are not in the EU. I gather a number of them want to join. That is completely understandable. As well as trading links they would receive significant direct funding as part of their membership. In the following link if you click on the "Net contribution" button you will see a useful graph showing which countries pay in to the EU and which get money out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm Basically the richer countries contribute money which goes to the poorer ones. That makes the EU very attractive to the latter. > Canada does just fine by itself, but it does benefit from our economy > and military strengths in the region. The same is likely true of the > U.K. and E.U., if the U.K. chooses Brexit. There wouldn't be a military benefit to the UK to have the EU nearby. The EU is not a military power (yet) and its views would often differ from those of the UK. Besides, military alliances are more about similar mindsets than proximity. In many ways, not just on foreign policies, the UK and the countries of continental Europe think and act differently. > If separation is what you > guys truly want, don't fear it, just go for it! At worst, you can only > end up where you already are: regret. At best, you end up somewhere > else, not regretting. At the moment the issue seems to be quite evenly split: roughly 45% for remaining, 45% for leaving, and 10% undecided. It is impossible in a few words here to convey the scaremongering the British people are being bombarded with to try to make them stay in the EU, or how determined the establishment is to get a Remain outcome. We have had the government, the EU, foreign leaders, the G20, the IMF, the OECD, the CBI and many other bodies all saying - often in very strong terms - that Britain should remain in the EU. The government has blatantly stacked the deck by spending £9 million (of public money) on a leafleting and social media campaign. Officially, each side is only allowed to spend £7 million so this governmental £9 million effectively doubles their side's advertising firepower! All of that makes it all the more surprising that opinion polls show a rough balance. (Of course, the polls could be wrong but their stability is nonetheless surprising.) > I already voiced my opinion that think it's best > to stay. Can you remind me of why? Here is a lighter moment re. Lt Columbo but which nevertheless gives an interesting summary: https://twitter.com/bernerlap/status/727213876157267970?lang=en-gb -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-03 16:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160503165607.659dc82d@_> |
| In reply to | #9476 |
On Mon, 2 May 2016 23:44:07 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/04/2016 23:25, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:45:24 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > I already voiced my opinion that think it's best to stay. > > Can you remind me of why? Well, I posted about a dozen reasons, about half for and half against, in this thread and also the "Flow of keystroke messages in a UI" thread where the conversation started back in February. Basically, I think that long-term the U.K.'s economy and political power the U.K. would be better off if the U.K. remains, even though the situation is apparently not satisfactory at the moment. I just saw another article today which might be why Obama wants the U.K. to stay in the E.U. The U.S. and E.U. has been working on a trade agreement known at TIPP. I'd assume he'd want the U.K to be part of that treaty, otherwise the U.S. might not be able to sell some products in the U.K. That's assuming TIPP doesn't fail. Apparently, leaked documents indicate the E.U. would need to relax certain laws to allow U.S. companies to export products to the E.U. under the treaty. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 09:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <ngcbbv$fph$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9486 |
On 03/05/2016 21:56, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Mon, 2 May 2016 23:44:07 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/04/2016 23:25, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:45:24 +0100 >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I already voiced my opinion that think it's best to stay. >> >> Can you remind me of why? > > Well, I posted about a dozen reasons, about half for and half against, > in this thread and also the "Flow of keystroke messages in a UI" thread > where the conversation started back in February. > > Basically, I think that long-term the U.K.'s economy and political > power the U.K. would be better off if the U.K. remains, even though the > situation is apparently not satisfactory at the moment. I am not sure I quite follow. _Why_ would the UK's economy and political power be better in the EU? > I just saw another article today which might be why Obama wants the > U.K. to stay in the E.U. The U.S. and E.U. has been working on a trade > agreement known at TIPP. I'd assume he'd want the U.K to be part of > that treaty, otherwise the U.S. might not be able to sell some products > in the U.K. That's assuming TIPP doesn't fail. Apparently, leaked > documents indicate the E.U. would need to relax certain laws to allow > U.S. companies to export products to the E.U. under the treaty. Yes, TTIP is causing disquiet in Europe. Bernhard also spoke out against it in a recent post. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 17:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160504172245.46a1cde8@_> |
| In reply to | #9491 |
On Wed, 4 May 2016 09:23:25 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/05/2016 21:56, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Mon, 2 May 2016 23:44:07 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 27/04/2016 23:25, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:45:24 +0100 > >>> James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I already voiced my opinion that think it's best to stay. > >> > >> Can you remind me of why? > > > > Well, I posted about a dozen reasons, about half for and half > > against, in this thread and also the "Flow of keystroke messages in > > a UI" thread where the conversation started back in February. > > > > Basically, I think that long-term the U.K.'s economy and political > > power the U.K. would be better off if the U.K. remains, even though > > the situation is apparently not satisfactory at the moment. > > I am not sure I quite follow. _Why_ would the UK's economy and > political power be better in the EU? > My presumption is that things change and power shifts. Once that happens, then the laws, structure of the E.U., can be changed to be more fair, more respectful of laws of member countries, and more equally represent non-dominant partners, i.e., not so focused and controlled by Germany. The common currency lowers transaction costs, and import or export tariffs to the E.U. from the U.K. would also likely be lower as a member. I'd also expect the E.U. to shift from a more authoritarian to more democratic as other smaller countries press for reforms. Lost freedoms can always be regained at a later point in time. It's really just a question of what "you" (i.e., country of U.K.) want. Most of these trade, tax, and legal treaties are basically - as you've seen with the formation of the E.U. - a way to merge the economics, politics, legal systems, and law enforcement of all countries in the world into a one world government. Did you really think that this was just a conspiracy theory? ... You only need look at what the UN, OECD, World Bank, Interpol, and IMF are doing. Unified police force. Unified trade laws. Unified economies. Unified laws. Universal taxation. Universal rights. Universal copyright law. Universal identification. Universal police video monitoring in public. Universal money flow monitoring via banks and electronic funds. Etc. It's "Big Brother" for the entire world. These actions are all driven by either money or fear or both. Together, there is one direction where the world is moving. It's moving, slowly, continuously, progressively, towards a single totalitarian state. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-06 11:47 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nghsid$v28$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9494 |
On 04/05/2016 22:22, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, 4 May 2016 09:23:25 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 03/05/2016 21:56, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... >>> Basically, I think that long-term the U.K.'s economy and political >>> power the U.K. would be better off if the U.K. remains, even though >>> the situation is apparently not satisfactory at the moment. >> >> I am not sure I quite follow. _Why_ would the UK's economy and >> political power be better in the EU? >> > > My presumption is that things change and power shifts. Once that > happens, then the laws, structure of the E.U., can be changed to > be more fair, more respectful of laws of member countries, and more > equally represent non-dominant partners, i.e., not so focused and > controlled by Germany. The EU is indeed in the process of change. Unfortunately, the changes are very much toward _more_ control from the centre, not less! Where the US has a liberal approach to people's lives, many in Europe feel differently. Humorously, you could say that their approach is "if it moves, regulate it"! Many Europeans see absence of regulation as akin to lawlessness. Yet, increases in regulation hold back things like the enterprise that has allowed the US to flourish. I hadn't thought of it in these terms before but as you used the term "totalitarian" below it prompted me to realise that the EU is becoming increasingly totalitarian. As well as controlling more and more of people's lives (under the presumably laudable guise of regulating trade standards and working conditions) it has virtually no opposition. > The common currency lowers transaction costs, Yes, that is a benefit of the single currency. Unfortunately, it also locks participating countries into two things: 1. Elements of a common fiscal policy which, by its nature, is controlled by the EU as a body which sits above the governments, rather than by the governments themselves. In other words, those governments lose some of the levers they would normally use in order to govern. 2. An unmodifiable exchange rate. This prevents countries devaluing in times of crisis. That, in turn, reduces their chances of attracting the foreign money they need to help them out of the crisis. Instead they have to go to the big banks (and wealthy nations such as Germany). These banks and nations then impose various policies as a condition of the loans. Thus the country in a crisis loses more power to the banks and the wealthy countries. Margaret Thatcher predicted that a single currency would lead to mass unemployment and mass migrations of people. https://twitter.com/chrisg0000/status/725090747586859008?lang=en-gb It turns out she was absolutely right. Greece and Spain which are both in the Eurozone have over 20% unemployment. The UK, outside the Euro, has an unemployment rate of just 5%. And that is despite being a human migration target! http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Unemployment_rates,_seasonally_adjusted,_March_2016.png Speaking of migration, the US has a population density per square km of 35. That of the UK is 267. England is full! We don't have the infrastructure or the housing to accommodate further population increases. Yet, the EU does not allow the UK to limit immigration from other EU states. Is my desire that the UK leave the EU beginning to make sense...? ;-) Going back to the single currency, IMV it may one day work for people but only once they amalgamate the zone to make it a single country. It is the current half-way house which is having such a bad effect on many lives. > and import or export tariffs to the E.U. from the U.K. would also > likely be lower as a member. Well, there are zero tariffs between EU countries so _all_ trade between EU countries is tariff free. But AIUI the EU has imposed relatively high tariffs on external trade. That makes many of the goods we buy more expensive rather than less so. Also, _international_ trade tariffs have come down dramatically over the last few decades. I cannot find the graph but IIRC the figures were circa 15% in the 1970s and only about 3% now. Finally, the EU does not permit member countries to set their own tariffs. To illustrate why that is a problem consider that the USA recently imposed a high tariff on steel to protect US steelworks. EU countries are not allowed to do that. The UK currently has steelworks which are closing (at least one has already closed, others have uncertain futures and are up for sale). > I'd also expect the E.U. to shift > from a more authoritarian to more democratic as other smaller > countries press for reforms. That would be nice but, unfortunately, the EU is in the process of going in the other direction! > Lost freedoms can always be regained > at a later point in time. If only! The history of the EU is exactly the opposite: freedoms, once ceded to the EU, do not come back. That may sound surprising but it is how the European mind works. The dominant European view is to want to be collegiate, and to amalgamate. You guys in the US and we in the UK tend to think differently. We want to cooperate but not to amalgamate. As I say, a European superstate may be a goal that Europeans, on average, are happy with. But in so many areas it is not a model that Britain wants. We just don't think the same way. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-06 19:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160506193443.3ac849a8@_> |
| In reply to | #9498 |
On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:47:38 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/05/2016 22:22, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Wed, 4 May 2016 09:23:25 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 03/05/2016 21:56, Rod Pemberton wrote: [snip] > Where the US has a liberal approach to people's lives, many in Europe > feel differently. Humorously, you could say that their approach is > "if it moves, regulate it"! Many Europeans see absence of regulation > as akin to lawlessness. ... > I hadn't thought of it in these terms before but as you used the term > "totalitarian" below it prompted me to realise that the EU is > becoming increasingly totalitarian. As well as controlling more and > more of people's lives (under the presumably laudable guise of > regulating trade standards and working conditions) it has virtually > no opposition. Well, I know you guys don't seem to care for Trump, but he basically encouraged Brexit. That is surprising to me as well. I.e., I seem him as businessman who would support trade agreements. I wouldn't doubt it that he merely opposing Obama's position. > > The common currency lowers transaction costs, > > Yes, that is a benefit of the single currency. > > Unfortunately, it also locks participating countries into two things: > > 1. Elements of a common fiscal policy which, by its nature, is > controlled by the EU as a body which sits above the governments, > rather than by the governments themselves. In other words, those > governments lose some of the levers they would normally use in order > to govern. I'm getting the impression that the U.K., Germany, France, Spain, and Italy all have the same problem. Other countries have never been empires and so seem to be more willing to become a state as part of a union. The stronger countries have been empires at some point in history. They're likely less willing to give up their authority and rights they fought hard to earn to become a subject of another power. If there is to be a union with those countries in it, that must happen. > 2. An unmodifiable exchange rate. This prevents countries devaluing > in times of crisis. That, in turn, reduces their chances of > attracting the foreign money they need to help them out of the > crisis. Instead they have to go to the big banks (and wealthy nations > such as Germany). These banks and nations then impose various > policies as a condition of the loans. Thus the country in a crisis > loses more power to the banks and the wealthy countries. The U.S. has a common currency. Some states go into recessions while others are growing rapidly. We have regional federal banks which control the money supply. I'd suspect they do so regionally by making more or fewer loans, and adjusting local interest rates. The rates are always higher around large cities. Also, the effective value of our currency varies by region. You may pay $7 a meal at a fast food restaurant in one city, then fly to another and pay $22. Ditto housing, etc. I'm not an expert in our money supply, but we've managed to manage it, somehow, much of the time. So, I'm having a hard time grasping why E.U. countries would have problems with devaluing when needed. Does the E.U. have a central bank and regional banks? Or, is each country still attempting to control their own supply independently of the E.U.? Or, is the E.U. failing to regionally manage the money supply? Isn't this an effect of each country still issuing their own currency? I.e., there would be no exchange rate between the E.U.'s EUR and the U.K.'s GBP, if the U.K.'s GBP didn't exist. There is only one currency in the U.S.: USD. That may be part of the problem. > Speaking of migration, the US has a population density per square km > of 35. That of the UK is 267. England is full! We don't have the > infrastructure or the housing to accommodate further population > increases. Yet, the EU does not allow the UK to limit immigration > from other EU states. Other countries are more "full," like China ... Others are much less dense, like Russia. It seems Russia could handle some immigration from China or elsewhere. Russia is in desperate need of capital. I'd recommend that they sell half the country to China. It's my understanding that most of their population is in the eastern portion. Unfortunately, large parts of the U.S. are owned by the U.S. government, especially in the west. However, half the people still congregate and dwell in cities. So, that leaves much more room for the rest of us. My understanding is that in most E.U. countries, people live in the cities and don't really migrate or develop outwards. Our national highway system allowed for the development of the suburbs. > > and import or export tariffs to the E.U. from the U.K. would also > > likely be lower as a member. > > Well, there are zero tariffs between EU countries so _all_ trade > between EU countries is tariff free. But AIUI the EU has imposed > relatively high tariffs on external trade. That makes many of the > goods we buy more expensive rather than less so. Of course, the reverse is true. I.e., if the U.K. Brexit's, the U.K. will be on the other side of the "trade cost barrier." So, the U.K.'s goods will be overpriced in the E.U., perhaps like the U.S.' goods. Since the U.K.'s goods will be more expensive to those countries in the E.U., that will hurt the U.K.'s ability to sell product to and withing the E.U. This website visualizes imports and exports of countries. Atlas of Economic Complexity http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/ 57% of the U.K.'s exports are to the E.U. with 10% of that to Germany. 23% to Asia. 14% to Americas. 3% to Africa. 62% of the U.K.'s imports are from the E.U. with 15% of that from Germany. 21% from Asia. 12% from Americas. 4% from Africa. > Finally, the EU does not permit member countries to set their own > tariffs. Well, that's the job of the E.U. now ... I'm getting the impression that you don't see the E.U. as your equivalent of a federal government like in the U.S., and you don't see England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as state governments like in the U.S. You view the U.K. as it's own sovereign and country. That perception must change if the E.U. is to go forward. The E.U. must be the country and sovereign. > You guys in the US and we in the UK tend to think differently. > We want to cooperate but not to amalgamate. If that's so, then you're better off ideologically with a Brexit due to the different viewpoints. You'll only feel repressed by staying in a regime with contrary viewpoints as your own, even if it's economically advantageous. However, I still suspect an exit will harm you financially due to your trade dependence on the E.U., unless your country can quickly develop some new trading arrangements, e.g., perhaps with Americas including Mexico, India, China. I'd suggest giving the U.S. what it wants on FATCA or OECD on CRS tax reporting and hoping you can eliminate some trade barriers with the U.S. Even though the U.S. laws were derived from British common laws, the U.S. laws do not match your own. The U.K. will likely have to relax a bunch of laws to encourage more free trade, at least with the U.S. If you guys do exit, welcome to this side of the pond. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 12:51 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <ngkkks$a3b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9499 |
"Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message news:20160506193443.3ac849a8@_... > On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:47:38 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: ... > Well, I know you guys don't seem to care for Trump, > but he basically encouraged Brexit. That is surprising > to me as well. I.e., I seem him as businessman who > would support trade agreements. I wouldn't doubt it > that he merely opposing Obama's position. I heard his comment. It makes sense. While the UK being in the EU is probably good for Obama and the USA it is, as I have been saying, not good for the UK. Did I mention that one Australian Senator said that nations asking the UK to remain an EU member were asking the UK to pay a very high price? I am quite disgusted that Obama and, apparently, Clinton as well have both said the UK _should_ remain an EU member. By contrast, Trump's comment that we'd be better to leave is welcome. As you say, he could be merely opposing Obama's position. I will respond below to your point about trade agreements. ... > I'm getting the impression that the U.K., Germany, France, Spain, and > Italy all have the same problem. Other countries have never been > empires and so seem to be more willing to become a state as part of a > union. The stronger countries have been empires at some point in > history. They're likely less willing to give up their authority and > rights they fought hard to earn to become a subject of another power. > If there is to be a union with those countries in it, that must > happen. I have to say I don't think that's completely right. I cannot speak for Spain or Italy but France and Germany apparently want to be part of the political union. That is a common European view (i.e. continental Europe excluding the UK want to merge to become a single country). Bernhard's comments on this newsgroup are a good case in point. Such comments show a common European desire for amalgamation into a single state. >> 2. An unmodifiable exchange rate. This prevents countries devaluing >> in times of crisis. That, in turn, reduces their chances of >> attracting the foreign money they need to help them out of the >> crisis. Instead they have to go to the big banks (and wealthy nations >> such as Germany). These banks and nations then impose various >> policies as a condition of the loans. Thus the country in a crisis >> loses more power to the banks and the wealthy countries. > > The U.S. has a common currency. Some states go into recessions while > others are growing rapidly. We have regional federal banks which > control the money supply. I'd suspect they do so regionally by making > more or fewer loans, and adjusting local interest rates. The rates > are > always higher around large cities. Also, the effective value of our > currency varies by region. You may pay $7 a meal at a fast food > restaurant in one city, then fly to another and pay $22. Ditto > housing, etc. I'm not an expert in our money supply, but we've > managed > to manage it, somehow, much of the time. I don't know that it is a money /supply/ issue. After all, printing new money causes devaluation pressure in the entire currency zone, not just in a limited area. > So, I'm having a hard time > grasping why E.U. countries would have problems with devaluing when > needed. I am no expert either but AIUI, when the 2007/8 financial crash hit, most countries were able to let their currencies devalue or cause them to devalue by printing new money. That meant, broadly, that all transactions within the country remained at the same price but that exports and imports were affected. Exports became easier to find buyers for and imports became more expensive. That has the effect of bringing money in to the country (as long as it has products to export) which, in turn, starts to push the value of the currency back up again. I suppose it is like water flow. If a vessel is lowered then water will flow into it from linked vessels, tending to find a level. Lowering the level is like devaluing a currency. But when the 2007/8 crash hit, the countries in the eurozone were locked together. The hardest hit could not devalue independently. That is a consequence of having strong and weak economies using the same currency. In the USA, if some states or even some small areas became much weaker than others the central government could pull fiscal levers to boost the weak economies at the expense of the strong ones. But while the eurozone is under different governments that is not an option. There is no central government with the fiscal powers needed. Hence, my comment that they should either amalgamate completely or separate. The current half-way house is simply a bad idea. > Does the E.U. have a central bank and regional banks? AIUI the eurozone has the ECB as a central bank. > Or, is > each country still attempting to control their own supply > independently of the E.U.? Or, is the E.U. failing to regionally > manage the money supply? Isn't this an effect of each country still > issuing their own currency? AIUI all those things are done centrally. The ECB (European Central Bank) sets interest rates that apply to banks. And banks set rates that apply to their customers. In an effort to deal with trouble in the eurozone the ECB has been lowering rates. It recently set at least one rate _below_ zero. In other words, financial institutions would borrow money and, rather than paying for the privilege, they would be paid for borrowing the money! If that sounds like a desperate measure, my guess is that it is. > I.e., there would be no exchange rate > between the E.U.'s EUR and the U.K.'s GBP, if the U.K.'s GBP didn't > exist. There is only one currency in the U.S.: USD. That may be > part of the problem. > >> Speaking of migration, the US has a population density per square km >> of 35. That of the UK is 267. England is full! We don't have the >> infrastructure or the housing to accommodate further population >> increases. Yet, the EU does not allow the UK to limit immigration >> from other EU states. > > Other countries are more "full," like China ... Sorry, no. The latest World Bank data puts China's population density at 145 per square km. The UK's office for national statistics puts England's at 413. We really don't have space for all the people who are currently here. Nor do we have the housing. House prices have shot up over the last few years and lots of people can no longer afford a house. We are out of space for building more houses in many areas where the jobs are. People are talking about building over forest land and public green spaces. Yet, while we are in the EU we cannot limit how many people move to the UK. ... >> > and import or export tariffs to the E.U. from the U.K. would also >> > likely be lower as a member. >> >> Well, there are zero tariffs between EU countries so _all_ trade >> between EU countries is tariff free. But AIUI the EU has imposed >> relatively high tariffs on external trade. That makes many of the >> goods we buy more expensive rather than less so. > > Of course, the reverse is true. I.e., if the U.K. Brexit's, the U.K. > will be on the other side of the "trade cost barrier." So, the U.K.'s > goods will be overpriced in the E.U., perhaps like the U.S.' goods. > Since the U.K.'s goods will be more expensive to those countries in > the > E.U., that will hurt the U.K.'s ability to sell product to and withing > the E.U. That's not quite right. Many countries in Europe have free trade with the EU but they are not in the EU. For example, there is a free trade area called EFTA. It is closer in concept to your NAFTA, i.e. a trade area but not a political project. One option for the UK is to leave the EU and join EFTA. That is not perfect for the UK as it would not, be default, help with the population density problem but it _would_ allow the UK to trade without tariff barriers in the EU. ... >> Finally, the EU does not permit member countries to set their own >> tariffs. > > Well, that's the job of the E.U. now ... I'm getting the impression > that you don't see the E.U. as your equivalent of a federal government > like in the U.S., and you don't see England, Scotland, Wales, and > Northern Ireland as state governments like in the U.S. You view the > U.K. as it's own sovereign and country. Yes. Believe me, the EU is nothing like your federal government. > That perception must change if > the E.U. is to go forward. The E.U. must be the country and > sovereign. Some European countries want that and they can go down that route if they want. The UK absolutely does _not_ want that. The only arguments here for the UK staying in the EU are around the relative uncertainty of leaving. I have not heard anyone say that we should stay in to join a superstate. Such an idea would go down like a lead balloon. The EU is not even democratic! >> You guys in the US and we in the UK tend to think differently. >> We want to cooperate but not to amalgamate. > > If that's so, then you're better off ideologically with a Brexit due > to > the different viewpoints. You'll only feel repressed by staying in a > regime with contrary viewpoints as your own, even if it's economically > advantageous. Indeed. > However, I still suspect an exit will harm you > financially due to your trade dependence on the E.U., unless your > country can quickly develop some new trading arrangements, e.g., > perhaps with Americas including Mexico, India, China. As I say above, there are other trade arrangements we could make straight away, and keep our existing EU trading. Longer term, IMO, the UK needs to be able to make and adjust its own deals. It would be allowed to do that under EFTA. The EU is far too slow to make trade deals or to respond to changing world economic conditions. It is a 1960s behemoth that still exists while the world has moved on. As one campaigner here is fond of saying: there are only two continents in the world which are not growing. One is Europe. The other is Antarctica. Economically, the UK needs the freedom to arrange its own trade with the parts of the world where the growth is. > I'd suggest > giving the U.S. what it wants on FATCA or OECD on CRS tax reporting > and > hoping you can eliminate some trade barriers with the U.S. Even > though > the U.S. laws were derived from British common laws, the U.S. laws do > not match your own. The U.K. will likely have to relax a bunch of > laws > to encourage more free trade, at least with the U.S. If you guys do > exit, welcome to this side of the pond. On that, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the UK could conclude a deal with the US before the EU could, even though the EU has a few years' head start. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 19:20 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160507192018.1bda57bc@_> |
| In reply to | #9504 |
On Sat, 7 May 2016 12:51:10 +0100 "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > "Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message > news:20160506193443.3ac849a8@_... > > On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:47:38 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2. An unmodifiable exchange rate. This prevents countries devaluing > >> in times of crisis. That, in turn, reduces their chances of > >> attracting the foreign money they need to help them out of the > >> crisis. Instead they have to go to the big banks (and wealthy > >> nations such as Germany). These banks and nations then impose > >> various policies as a condition of the loans. Thus the country in > >> a crisis loses more power to the banks and the wealthy countries. > > > > The U.S. has a common currency. Some states go into recessions > > while others are growing rapidly. We have regional federal banks > > which control the money supply. I'd suspect they do so regionally > > by making more or fewer loans, and adjusting local interest rates. > > The rates are > > always higher around large cities. Also, the effective value of our > > currency varies by region. You may pay $7 a meal at a fast food > > restaurant in one city, then fly to another and pay $22. Ditto > > housing, etc. I'm not an expert in our money supply, but we've > > managed > > to manage it, somehow, much of the time. > > I don't know that it is a money /supply/ issue. After all, printing > new money causes devaluation pressure in the entire currency zone, > not just in a limited area. No, that's not necessarily true. It depends on where that money goes. Money can be created electronically or physically printed without causing deflationary pressure. The key is for it to not enter into the supply of money already in circulation, i.e., held or stored by some legal entity. E.g., when foreign banks buy U.S. currency and the U.S. is "printing" money, that money goes offshore and is held by the banks. That money doesn't circulate, at least, not at first. I.e., in the main economy, the value of a dollar won't change because the supply hasn't changed there. This is because none of the new money was actually added to the money in circulation. This technique has been used by various central banks, including China. Once the foreign banks return the money into our economy, it'll deflate, e.g., China starts selling or dumping U.S. currency it once held. > In an effort to deal with trouble in the eurozone the ECB has been > lowering rates. It recently set at least one rate _below_ zero. In > other words, financial institutions would borrow money and, rather > than paying for the privilege, they would be paid for borrowing the > money! Yes, I read about that. That's an entire conversation by itself. I.e., first, they eliminated the gold standard. Now, they're eliminating fiat currency or cash. Electronic funds is all that remains. Something is afoot. Negative prices or rates are always interesting. It usually means the market is "broken" in some way. E.g., I recently read an article where the price "paid" for oil was negative. It was a type of oil that's not easy to process and the only refinery had reached maximum capacity. It was costing the oil producer too much money to store the oil. So, they paid the refinery to take the oil, resulting in a negative price paid by the refinery. > Many countries in Europe have free trade with > the EU but they are not in the EU. Well, one might say that that is rather interesting ... Now, why would that be? Why would non-E.U. European countries be allowed to have free trade within the E.U.'s EEA? If the U.K. Brexit's, would it be likely or unlikely that it formed a free trade agreement with Ireland? Old wounds die hard ... You mentioned the EFTA. Wikipedia says that only has four countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland. Joining EFTA would be a way for product to enter into the E.U after which it could possibly be shipped throughout the E.U. duty free. Unfortunately, my understanding is that Beek, Limburg, Netherlands is the primary distribution hub that serves the E.U. Are there other distribution hubs in the EFTA countries? I guess product could be shipped to Switzerland or Liechtenstein under the EFTA then shipped back to Netherlands for distribution ... (?) Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 01:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <ngm21t$30j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9507 |
On 08/05/2016 00:20, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2016 12:51:10 +0100 > "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >> Many countries in Europe have free trade with >> the EU but they are not in the EU. > > Well, one might say that that is rather interesting ... > > Now, why would that be? Why would non-E.U. European countries be > allowed to have free trade within the E.U.'s EEA? Why would they not? As long as the economies are compatible - e.g. will be able to trade without disruption or imbalance or marked adverse effect - why not have free trade? It is interesting the way you put it. Your phrasing could be interpreted as asking why the EU would allow the free trade. I don't see why the EU would not want the trade. Given the criteria I mentioned in the previous paragraph, trade liberalisation is surely to be welcomed on both sides. It can only bring prosperity. I don't see it in a combative sense. It is not one side versus the other. But, in fact, if you want to put a side to it, it would be better to ask why the UK would allow the EU to have free trade. The UK buys more in monetary terms from the EU than vice versa. On that basis it is principally in the EU's interests to keep access to the UK market. In percentage terms the converse is true but, even so, if the UK were to leave the EU it would, AIUI, be the remaining EU's single largest export market. No one wants that to come to an end. IMO _both_ sides - the UK and the EU - would be out of their minds to put up barriers to trade. A global downturn has been forecast and there is absolutely no need for either party to reduce the trade on which their future prosperity and ability to weather the storm are predicated. In addition, the EU's common currency is vulnerable, as we have discussed. For reasons of the global downturn and the weaknesses in the eurozone the EU countries won't want to lose access to the UK's net spending power. One final point, and this could work both ways. If the UK leaves the EU then the EU government will lose the UK's net budget payments which are significant. Estimates range between 8 and 14 billion pounds per year. They will have to adjust to that by asking more from the remaining members or they will have to reduce their outgoings. On one hand, that could cause resentment against the UK. On the other, it could reduce their freedom of movement and thus increase the UK's relative strength. Personally, I hope it will do neither and the two parties will just get on with it and form further positive relationships. > If the U.K. Brexit's, would it be likely or unlikely that it formed > a free trade agreement with Ireland? Old wounds die hard ... The UK and Ireland are friends these days. There have been some very popular attempts to heal the breach, and they have been largely successful. Besides, Ireland is not allowed (under EU rules, remember) to make its own trading deals. So any deal cut between the UK and the EU would also apply to Ireland. One concern I have is the effect of Brexit on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland but I think, on balance, that the effect will be smaller than some think, possibly more affected by circumstances than theory. (Will avoid going into details unless you want me to.) > You mentioned the EFTA. Wikipedia says that only has four countries: > Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland. Joining EFTA would be a > way for product to enter into the E.U after which it could possibly be > shipped throughout the E.U. duty free. Unfortunately, my understanding > is that Beek, Limburg, Netherlands is the primary distribution hub that > serves the E.U. Are there other distribution hubs in the EFTA > countries? I guess product could be shipped to Switzerland or > Liechtenstein under the EFTA then shipped back to Netherlands for > distribution ... (?) I don't know. But I cannot see a reason to change the physical flow of goods. In a free trade area I would have thought that distribution hubs would be selected for their locations on shipping routes. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 21:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160507214327.4015db66@_> |
| In reply to | #9508 |
On Sun, 8 May 2016 01:46:07 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/05/2016 00:20, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sat, 7 May 2016 12:51:10 +0100 > > "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Many countries in Europe have free trade with > >> the EU but they are not in the EU. > > > > Well, one might say that that is rather interesting ... > > > > Now, why would that be? Why would non-E.U. European countries be > > allowed to have free trade within the E.U.'s EEA? > > Why would they not? As long as the economies are compatible - e.g. > will be able to trade without disruption or imbalance or marked > adverse effect - why not have free trade? If they're trying to build a single European country, this would violate the national border controls of said country. I.e., they're not allowing free trade *with* the E.U., but are allowing free trade *within* the E.U. in violation of the national border. It would be like Tennessee negotiating a free trade agreement with Russia and the U.S. federal government respecting and allowing that agreement to occur. Tennessee is within the interior of the U.S., but the national border is around the U.S. The national border is controlled by the federal government. The U.S. federal government has legal control of all trade treaties allowing product to cross the national border. > It is interesting the way you put it. Your phrasing could be > interpreted as asking why the EU would allow the free trade. Yes. I framed it in my understanding of the U.S. I understand why they, the E.U., would allow free trade with countries outside a single European country, that they're attempting to create, but not within it. E.g., if Europe becomes a single country, it's likely that Switzerland and Liechtenstein are part of said country and are also deep inside it, much like Tennessee in my example. At that point, Switzerland and Liechtenstein should no longer be allowed to be part of a FTA with any other countries. Trade treaties should exclusively be under the control of the single European country's own directorates. Have I made my perspective clear now? > I don't see it in a combative sense. It is not one side versus the > other. But, in fact, if you want to put a side to it, it would be > better to ask why the UK would allow the EU to have free trade. The > UK buys more in monetary terms from the EU than vice versa. On that > basis it is principally in the EU's interests to keep access to the > UK market. It's just a matter of boundary and who controls the treaties for the national boundary of a single European country. > In percentage terms the converse is true but, even so, if the UK were > to leave the EU it would, AIUI, be the remaining EU's single largest > export market. No one wants that to come to an end. Ok. > IMO _both_ sides - the UK and the EU - would be out of their minds to > put up barriers to trade. A global downturn has been forecast and > there is absolutely no need for either party to reduce the trade on > which their future prosperity and ability to weather the storm are > predicated. True, but people, even politicians can react unexpectedly. Non-U.K. politicians may feel or think that the U.K. leaving is a stab in the back or a rejection, and may respond negatively towards the U.K. > For reasons of the global downturn and the weaknesses in the eurozone > the EU countries won't want to lose access to the UK's net spending > power. Good point. The weaker countries in the E.U. are still dependent on wealthier economies. > One final point, and this could work both ways. If the UK leaves the > EU then the EU government will lose the UK's net budget payments > which are significant. That's another good point. Could that be crippling to the E.U.? Has the E.U. offered any compromises yet to get the U.K. to stay? > Besides, Ireland is not allowed (under EU rules, remember) to make > its own trading deals. So any deal cut between the UK and the EU > would also apply to Ireland. Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland? I can understand Northern Ireland not being able to make it's own trading deals, as it's part of the U.K., but by "Ireland," I meant Republic of Ireland, here. Wouldn't the Republic of Ireland be allowed to make it's own trading deals with the E.U.? If not, could you tell me why not? ... I think you answered my question, but I wasn't sure which "Ireland" you were talking about at each point. So, to reiterate, would the U.K. be likely or unlikely to from a trading arrangement with the Republic of Ireland? Does it have one already? Or, are old wounds still in play? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 09:36 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <ngmtk2$a8i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9510 |
On 08/05/2016 02:43, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, 8 May 2016 01:46:07 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 08/05/2016 00:20, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> On Sat, 7 May 2016 12:51:10 +0100 >>> "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Many countries in Europe have free trade with >>>> the EU but they are not in the EU. >>> >>> Well, one might say that that is rather interesting ... >>> >>> Now, why would that be? Why would non-E.U. European countries be >>> allowed to have free trade within the E.U.'s EEA? I am not completely sure of what you meant there but, given your analogy of Tennessee and the USA, below, it seems you were distinguishing "within the EU" from "with the EU". The thing is, I said that many countries in Europe have free trade *with* the EU (while not themselves being EU countries). That would be like American-continent countries having free trade deals with the USA, not like them having free trade deals with Tennessee. >> Why would they not? As long as the economies are compatible - e.g. >> will be able to trade without disruption or imbalance or marked >> adverse effect - why not have free trade? > > If they're trying to build a single European country, this would > violate the national border controls of said country. I.e., they're > not allowing free trade *with* the E.U., but are allowing free trade > *within* the E.U. in violation of the national border. I see the distinction between "with" and "within". Hope I have answered that, above. Let me know if not. Maybe this is just a semantics discrepancy. > It would be like > Tennessee negotiating a free trade agreement with Russia and the U.S. > federal government respecting and allowing that agreement to occur. > Tennessee is within the interior of the U.S., but the national border > is around the U.S. The national border is controlled by the federal > government. The U.S. federal government has legal control of all trade > treaties allowing product to cross the national border. AIUI, in America you have a free trade arrangement, NAFTA. That provides for free trade between Canada, the USA, and Mexico. Yet the each can still make its own trade deals wherever it wants. That would be akin to the UK being in a free trade area but still being able to make its own deals. >> It is interesting the way you put it. Your phrasing could be >> interpreted as asking why the EU would allow the free trade. > > Yes. I framed it in my understanding of the U.S. > > I understand why they, the E.U., would allow free trade with countries > outside a single European country, that they're attempting to create, > but not within it. E.g., if Europe becomes a single country, it's > likely that Switzerland and Liechtenstein are part of said country and > are also deep inside it, much like Tennessee in my example. At that > point, Switzerland and Liechtenstein should no longer be allowed to be > part of a FTA with any other countries. Trade treaties should > exclusively be under the control of the single European country's > own directorates. > > Have I made my perspective clear now? I think so. In your terms, if Europe became a single country then, yes, the states within it such as Switzerland would not be allowed to make their own trade deals with the rest of the world. That is, in fact, already the case for EU members such as Italy. It cannot make its own trade deals, even though the EU is not yet a country. ... >> IMO _both_ sides - the UK and the EU - would be out of their minds to >> put up barriers to trade. A global downturn has been forecast and >> there is absolutely no need for either party to reduce the trade on >> which their future prosperity and ability to weather the storm are >> predicated. > > > True, but people, even politicians can react unexpectedly. Non-U.K. > politicians may feel or think that the U.K. leaving is a stab in the > back or a rejection, and may respond negatively towards the U.K. They may react emotionally but there are factors which mitigate against their negative feelings translating into attempts at being punitive. First and foremost, the negotiators will have their own economies to think about, and will be under pressure from their businesses which sell into the UK. However they feel about matters, the dollar rules, as it were. Second, time. After a few months of huffing, puffing, and wringing of hands, reality can be expected to set in. Third, their own rulebook requires good behaviour, as follows. "The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness...." Fourth, the WTO has a principle: "Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members." And the EU, as a WTO member, will be expected to abide by that principle. More detail on those at http://pensites.com/politics/article-1119. ... >> One final point, and this could work both ways. If the UK leaves the >> EU then the EU government will lose the UK's net budget payments >> which are significant. > > That's another good point. Could that be crippling to the E.U.? It would be a big problem for them. I don't know if it would be crippling because they could reduce spending. The EU is essentially a high tax and high spend government. If they lose a big part of their tax income then they could become a low tax, low spend government instead! Their offices are awash with money and, in my opinion, that has led to them having delusions of grandeur. There is a gravy train in Brussels. I made some comments about it at: http://pensites.com/politics/article-1062/Is-the-EU-a-gravy-train At the end, that page points to reports of them thinking about having their own set of 'liveried chauffeurs'. AIUI they have since approved that measure! I could go on about waste in Brussels but I'll stop there. Basically, they could reduce their waste and their spending, although the latter would have knock-on effects. > Has the E.U. offered any compromises yet to get the U.K. to stay? The British Prime Minister undertook a renegotiation (with all other heads of state) prior to setting the date for the referendum. He came back boasting about a reformed Europe. The other heads of state went back to their countries boasting, effectively, that nothing had changed! Frankly, the results of the PM's negotiations are a bit of an embarrassment. The PM asked for almost nothing and didn't even get that. The London mayor said that the PM had got "two thirds of diddly-squat". Newspaper cartoonists have lampooned the PM in various ways. This won't be of much interest to you but here is my comment about the so-called renegotiation for anyone who is interested: http://pensites.com/politics/article-1096 As mentioned in the article, we have found out since that as well as achieving almost nothing, the PM *gave away* a right that could have been used for future leverage. So the net effect of his renegotiation is possibly negative! So, no. Even though they knew that the UK, their second largest contributor, was about to hold a referendum on leaving they still gave away nothing. They made no significant compromises to get the UK to stay. If we vote to leave they may change their minds as they have form on asking for another vote if the first doesn't go the way they want but I hope people won't fall for it. The EU is well called a bloc. It is bloated, inertial and intransigent. It is designed to resist fundamental reform. Besides which, most of the other members want to go a different way to the UK. With the best will in the world, I cannot any longer see the UK influencing the EU for good. >> Besides, Ireland is not allowed (under EU rules, remember) to make >> its own trading deals. So any deal cut between the UK and the EU >> would also apply to Ireland. > > Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland? I can understand Northern > Ireland not being able to make it's own trading deals, as it's part of > the U.K., but by "Ireland," I meant Republic of Ireland, here. Wouldn't > the Republic of Ireland be allowed to make it's own trading deals with > the E.U.? If not, could you tell me why not? ... The Republic of Ireland (which is what I thought you meant by Ireland) is an EU member so it is not allowed to make its own deals. > I think you answered my question, but I wasn't sure which "Ireland" > you were talking about at each point. So, to reiterate, would the U.K. > be likely or unlikely to from a trading arrangement with the Republic of > Ireland? Does it have one already? Or, are old wounds still in play? Ireland (the Republic) is an EU member so could not have its own trade deal with the UK post-Brexit. But any deal the UK cuts with the EU would apply to Ireland. The old wounds between Britain and Ireland are largely gone. Things are not perfect but much healing has gone on: * There has been a peace accord since 1999, power sharing between former avowed enemies, and the people of Ireland have welcomed the "peace dividend": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement * British PMs have apologised for past misdeeds of the UK: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/12/irish-famine http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/david-cameron-shows-class-on-bloody-sunday-apology-96436319-238036551.html * There was even a state visit to Ireland by Queen Elizabeth. That was quite remarkable in a few respects. For example, ** The people of Ireland warmly welcomed the Queen, even though she is the ultimate representative of the British state. ** She made a special effort to visit a place where British soldiers shot 14 civilians in 1920. ** She laid wreaths for those who had died fighting for Irish independence and those Irish soldiers who died in WW1. ** Perhaps most remarkable on a personal level: even though Martin McGuinness, a former IRA man, had likely been involved in the murder of her cousin, Louis Mountbatten, Elizabeth shook McGuinness's hand and greeted him with a warm smile which showed no signs of rancour. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29584402 -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-08 15:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160508153454.61aa7653@_> |
| In reply to | #9511 |
On Sun, 8 May 2016 09:36:35 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/05/2016 02:43, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sun, 8 May 2016 01:46:07 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 08/05/2016 00:20, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> On Sat, 7 May 2016 12:51:10 +0100 > >>> "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > >> Besides, Ireland is not allowed (under EU rules, remember) to make > >> its own trading deals. So any deal cut between the UK and the EU > >> would also apply to Ireland. > > > > Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland? I can understand Northern > > Ireland not being able to make it's own trading deals, as it's part > > of the U.K., but by "Ireland," I meant Republic of Ireland, here. > > Wouldn't the Republic of Ireland be allowed to make it's own > > trading deals with the E.U.? If not, could you tell me why > > not? ... > > The Republic of Ireland (which is what I thought you meant by > Ireland) is an EU member so it is not allowed to make its own deals. Alright. > > I think you answered my question, but I wasn't sure which "Ireland" > > you were talking about at each point. So, to reiterate, would the > > U.K. be likely or unlikely to from a trading arrangement with the > > Republic of Ireland? Does it have one already? Or, are old wounds > > still in play? > > Ireland (the Republic) is an EU member so could not have its own > trade deal with the UK post-Brexit. But any deal the UK cuts with the > EU would apply to Ireland. I'm assuming the final use of Ireland means "Northern Ireland." How do you guys usually keep the two separate or clarified in conversation? Is it purely based on context, or must someone specify? > The old wounds between Britain and Ireland are largely gone. Things > are not perfect but much healing has gone on: If the U.K. Brexits, will it ask Ireland (Republic of) to Irexit? There are still people who wish for an integration of both Irelands, yes? ... I know that was a sensitive and emotional topic for many. > ** Perhaps most remarkable on a personal level: even though Martin > McGuinness, a former IRA man, had likely been involved in the murder > of her cousin, Louis Mountbatten, Elizabeth shook McGuinness's hand > and greeted him with a warm smile which showed no signs of rancour. A person's public "face" and private beliefs are two different things. Some people are open and honest and are always the same person, but many are not. I would say most. Certain cultures are notorious for reinforcing this duality, e.g., Chinese. Those which have two faces, have a public persona which represents what family, society, government, work, and school demand of them. Then, they have their real personality which is only revealed to their closest friends or lover(s) or strangers. From laws and rules or mores, many people are punished. In time, they come to realize that they aren't accepted as who they are, but are respected or disrespected based on what laws or rules or mores they comply with. They learn that they will be punished for being who they are. They adapt to avoid being punished. No one likes being subjected to the force of will of others. So, they hide their true self where they know it isn't accepted. They become multiple people, or present an environment based persona to others. This happens even in the simplest of places, e.g., library or church or theater where everyone is asked to be quiet, or school where every student is asked to pay attention, or work where every employee is asked to perform, etc. I.e., quiet persona, obedient persona, worker persona. Yet, no one ever questions if they've been brainwashed or whether they actually have free will. If someone murders my relative (as has happened), what incentive do I truly have to forgive them? Even if there is a valid and legitimate reason for me to forgive someone for the murder they committed, why should I? They had no right to do so. I have free will and simply don't have to. I have the right to not forgive. Forgiveness is a decision, just like peace. So, I tend to be very skeptical of others who show forgiveness to the murderer of a loved one. I've come to the opinion that such behavior is usually only for show, not truly meant, and is done for the benefit of others they want to build relationships with. This is because it is almost always some sort of a public demonstration of forgiveness, and never a private one. Sometimes this is to demonstrate or prove the strength of that person's religious beliefs regarding forgiveness. Other times it seems to allow one to soothe their own feelings, grieve, heal, and move on. I.e., it has nothing to do with their feelings about the behavior of the murderer. I.e., I would suspect that your Queen's personal feeling don't match. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 11:25 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <ngscne$621$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9512 |
On 08/05/2016 20:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, 8 May 2016 09:36:35 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 08/05/2016 02:43, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... >>> I think you answered my question, but I wasn't sure which "Ireland" >>> you were talking about at each point. So, to reiterate, would the >>> U.K. be likely or unlikely to from a trading arrangement with the >>> Republic of Ireland? Does it have one already? Or, are old wounds >>> still in play? >> >> Ireland (the Republic) is an EU member so could not have its own >> trade deal with the UK post-Brexit. But any deal the UK cuts with the >> EU would apply to Ireland. > > I'm assuming the final use of Ireland means "Northern Ireland." No, still the Republic of Ireland. If the UK and the EU agree a deal then that deal will include the Republic of Ireland (as an EU member). If there were to be no deal then trade would go on under WTO terms. > How do > you guys usually keep the two separate or clarified in conversation? > Is it purely based on context, or must someone specify? Usually context but even that's not always enough, and the overlap of names causes confusion. AIUI the official name is the Republic of Ireland but that's a bit of a mouthful. >> The old wounds between Britain and Ireland are largely gone. Things >> are not perfect but much healing has gone on: > > If the U.K. Brexits, will it ask Ireland (Republic of) to Irexit? No. I think the two would be entirely separate issues. If Ireland wanted to Irexit then that would be up to them. > There > are still people who wish for an integration of both Irelands, > yes? Yes. > ... I know that was a sensitive and emotional topic for many. They have peace between North and South now. It is not complete as there are still occasional acts of violence but the situation is very different compared to what it was. And the people who live there welcome the peace dividend that they have. >> ** Perhaps most remarkable on a personal level: even though Martin >> McGuinness, a former IRA man, had likely been involved in the murder >> of her cousin, Louis Mountbatten, Elizabeth shook McGuinness's hand >> and greeted him with a warm smile which showed no signs of rancour. ... > I.e., I would suspect that your Queen's personal feeling don't match. Indeed! I was massively impressed at how well she managed the situation given how she might have been feeling inside. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 17:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160510173229.0ea6b8be@_> |
| In reply to | #9514 |
On Tue, 10 May 2016 11:25:05 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/05/2016 20:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sun, 8 May 2016 09:36:35 +0100 > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 08/05/2016 02:43, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >>> I think you answered my question, but I wasn't sure which > >>> "Ireland" you were talking about at each point. So, to > >>> reiterate, would the U.K. be likely or unlikely to from a trading > >>> arrangement with the Republic of Ireland? Does it have one > >>> already? Or, are old wounds still in play? > >> > >> Ireland (the Republic) is an EU member so could not have its own > >> trade deal with the UK post-Brexit. But any deal the UK cuts with > >> the EU would apply to Ireland. > > > > I'm assuming the final use of Ireland means "Northern Ireland." > > No, still the Republic of Ireland. If the UK and the EU agree a deal > then that deal will include the Republic of Ireland (as an EU > member). If there were to be no deal then trade would go on under WTO > terms. Sorry, despite your clarifications, I was still not thinking in terms of Ireland (Republic of) being an E.U. member. (Was that two or three times? ...) ;-) > >> The old wounds between Britain and Ireland are largely gone. Things > >> are not perfect but much healing has gone on: > > > > If the U.K. Brexits, will it ask Ireland (Republic of) to Irexit? > > No. I think the two would be entirely separate issues. If Ireland > wanted to Irexit then that would be up to them. One more ally wouldn't hurt. They're separated from mainland E.U. too. Asking doesn't hurt, at least, not usually or at first. Them also exiting the E.U. would help pave the way towards a unification. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-10 18:25 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160510182525.34782c58@_> |
| In reply to | #9515 |
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:32:29 -0400 Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2016 11:25:05 +0100 > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 08/05/2016 20:34, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > > On Sun, 8 May 2016 09:36:35 +0100 > > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 08/05/2016 02:43, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > >>> I think you answered my question, but I wasn't sure which > > >>> "Ireland" you were talking about at each point. So, to > > >>> reiterate, would the U.K. be likely or unlikely to from a > > >>> trading arrangement with the Republic of Ireland? Does it have > > >>> one already? Or, are old wounds still in play? > > >> > > >> Ireland (the Republic) is an EU member so could not have its own > > >> trade deal with the UK post-Brexit. But any deal the UK cuts with > > >> the EU would apply to Ireland. > > > > > > I'm assuming the final use of Ireland means "Northern > > > Ireland." > > > > No, still the Republic of Ireland. If the UK and the EU agree a > > deal then that deal will include the Republic of Ireland (as an EU > > member). If there were to be no deal then trade would go on under > > WTO terms. > > Sorry, despite your clarifications, I was still not thinking in terms > of Ireland (Republic of) being an E.U. member. (Was that two or three > times? ...) ;-) > Well, this E.U. situation is more messed up than I realized, having not really looked at it before ... European Union - 28 member states Eurozone - 19 of 28 member states - common EUR currency European Free Trade Association - 4 members European Economic Area - 28 member states plus 3 of 4 EFTA members - free trade region Are there any more such arrangements that I've missed? I had assumed that the free trade region and the common currency regions were the same. The entire E.U. has free trade but only 68% of the E.U. has a common currency. Why is it that there are so few Eurozone members as compared to E.E.A. members? From Wikipedia's maps, it appears that most of the non-E.E.A. members, except the U.K., are in Eastern Europe. The U.K. apparently wanted to keep control of it's own currency, but why would these other countries not embrace the EUR? As I said above, the entire E.U. has free trade but only 68% of the E.U. has a common currency. That would seem to me to allow for seriously profitable currency/trade arbitrage and/or money laundering opportunities. I.e., goods have a fixed value over a larger region than currencies. Countries which are EEA members, but not Eurozone members, would effectively have two prices for the exact same goods. If the good was paid for with EUR and imported under free trade, it would have one price. If the good was purchased with the local currency, which is then converted via exchange rate mechanism into EUR, and then the items are imported, that good would have a different price. Same goods. Two prices. As for money laundering, EUR cash would by goods in an Eurozone E.U. member country and export to non-Eurozone E.U. member and then simply sell the product in the local currency. Why isn't the E.U. and other governmental agencies opposed to this difference in currency versus trade regions? ... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 00:06 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nh8aqv$shd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9516 |
On 10/05/2016 23:25, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:32:29 -0400 > Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: ... > Well, this E.U. situation is more messed up than I realized, > having not really looked at it before ... It is "messed up" in more ways than one. Perhaps the worst is that it is like Tolkien's one ring! See what you think of this: http://pensites.com/politics/article-1134/The-EU-and-the-One-Ring > European Union - 28 member states > Eurozone - 19 of 28 member states - common EUR currency > European Free Trade Association - 4 members > European Economic Area - 28 member states plus 3 of 4 EFTA members - > free trade region > > Are there any more such arrangements that I've missed? None that I can spot. > I had assumed that the free trade region and the common > currency regions were the same. The entire E.U. has free > trade but only 68% of the E.U. has a common currency. Why > is it that there are so few Eurozone members as compared > to E.E.A. members? From Wikipedia's maps, it appears that > most of the non-E.E.A. members, except the U.K., are in > Eastern Europe. The U.K. apparently wanted to keep control > of it's own currency, but why would these other countries > not embrace the EUR? I don't know. It could be a mixture of the countries not wanting to join the single currency or not being ready. The UK did not join because its Prime Minister believed the time was not right. (What a blessing that turned out to be.) > As I said above, the entire E.U. has free trade but only > 68% of the E.U. has a common currency. There is free trade in Europe much wider than the EU. The EU's single market in goods is complete. It's services market, however, is not complete yet. I don't know which services are included and which are not but services are the main plank of the British economy. > That would seem > to me to allow for seriously profitable currency/trade > arbitrage and/or money laundering opportunities. I.e., > goods have a fixed value over a larger region than > currencies. Countries which are EEA members, but not > Eurozone members, would effectively have two prices for > the exact same goods. If the good was paid for with EUR > and imported under free trade, it would have one price. > If the good was purchased with the local currency, which > is then converted via exchange rate mechanism into EUR, > and then the items are imported, that good would have a > different price. Same goods. Two prices. As for money > laundering, EUR cash would by goods in an Eurozone E.U. > member country and export to non-Eurozone E.U. member and > then simply sell the product in the local currency. Why > isn't the E.U. and other governmental agencies opposed > to this difference in currency versus trade regions? ... I am no economist but, AIUI, the effective cost of goods will vary as the currency rates change so the effect you describe will be annulled. Whether the countries are in the single currency or not there will be a common external tariff. -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-07 21:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160507213205.5d81259c@_> |
| In reply to | #9507 |
On Sat, 7 May 2016 19:20:18 -0400 Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2016 12:51:10 +0100 > "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Rod Pemberton" <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> wrote in message > > news:20160506193443.3ac849a8@_... > > > On Fri, 6 May 2016 11:47:38 +0100 > > > James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't know that it is a money /supply/ issue. After all, printing > > new money causes devaluation pressure in the entire currency zone, > > not just in a limited area. > > No, that's not necessarily true. It depends on where that money > goes. Money can be created electronically or physically printed > without causing deflationary pressure. The key is for it to not Correction, not "deflationary pressure," but "inflationary pressure." > Once the foreign banks return the > money into our economy, it'll deflate, e.g., China starts selling or > dumping U.S. currency it once held. Correction, not "deflate," but "inflate." Sorry, I reversed the terms there, in part because you said "deflationary pressure" and in part because I wasn't paying sufficient attention. Deflation means a reduction in the amount of money in circulation, or an increase in general price level. "Printing" money increases the amount of money, but not necessarily the money in circulation. Increasing the money in circulation is inflationary. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 07:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <nioke4$9br$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #9507 |
On 08/05/2016 00:20, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sat, 7 May 2016 12:51:10 +0100 > "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: ... >> Many countries in Europe have free trade with >> the EU but they are not in the EU. > > Well, one might say that that is rather interesting ... > > Now, why would that be? Why would non-E.U. European countries be > allowed to have free trade within the E.U.'s EEA? Here's another answer to that. Consider why NAFTA allows free trade within North America. Presumably it is that it helps trade and prosperity and that it thereby helps reduce inequality and builds communication, etc. America as the biggest partner wouldn't say to Canada and Mexico that they cannot have free trade unless they become US states. In fact, I came back to this thread because I just saw this: http://heatst.com/uk/why-my-american-students-used-to-gasp-in-horror-when-they-learnt-about-the-eu/ I gathered that you were surprised at some of our anti-EU feeling. Perhaps that article helps make sense to those on your side of the pond...? -- James Harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 16:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Obama in the UK |
| Message-ID | <20160602162123.44984bf9@_> |
| In reply to | #9596 |
On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 07:41:04 +0100 James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/05/2016 00:20, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > On Sat, 7 May 2016 12:51:10 +0100 > > "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Many countries in Europe have free trade with > >> the EU but they are not in the EU. > > > > Well, one might say that that is rather interesting ... > > > > Now, why would that be? Why would non-E.U. European countries be > > allowed to have free trade within the E.U.'s EEA? > > Here's another answer to that. Consider why NAFTA allows free trade > within North America. Presumably it is that it helps trade and > prosperity and that it thereby helps reduce inequality and builds > communication, etc. America as the biggest partner wouldn't say to > Canada and Mexico that they cannot have free trade unless they become > US states. > In fact, I came back to this thread because I just saw this: > > http://heatst.com/uk/why-my-american-students-used-to-gasp-in-horror-when-they-learnt-about-the-eu/ It seems to make the point that I made that the E.U. is essentially becoming the equivalent of our federal government and formerly sovereign nations are relegated to becoming the equivalent of our states. > I gathered that you were surprised at some of our anti-EU feeling. > Perhaps that article helps make sense to those on your side of the > pond...? > Europeans always seem to be shocked when I attempt to tell them that international copyright law doesn't apply to us here, e.g., Berne convention. They claim that it applies to everyone. They claim that it applies to U.S. citizens because the U.S. federal government is a treaty member. The U.S. federal government has the right to make treaties, but U.S. state governments have the right to make laws on any issue not granted to the federal government. This includes copyrights. I.e., a federal treaty applies to federal laws but not state laws. By default, federal laws only apply to citizens for issues crossing boundaries and those citizens living in a non-state such as Washington, DC., e.g., such as copyright between states or between a state and a foreign country. States are not required to enforce federal laws or treaties within their territory, except where prescribed by the constitution. This means federal treaties generally don't apply within states, but only apply at the federal level. The only territory where federal law automatically applies to citizens is Washington, DC. Europeans seem to have an authoritarian mentality that the U.S federal government has the authority to force the U.S. states to comply with U.S federal laws and treaties. This isn't the case here. I.e., a citizen here is subject to state copyright laws, and can apply for federal copyright laws to have federal copyright protection in other states, or can apply in each state individually. States are not required to follow federal law, except when it's a federal right laid out in the constitution or the Supreme Court made a ruling that states must comply. E.g., marijuana is legal in some states in direct violation of federal law and federal treaties. The state does not have to enforce federal laws on issues it controls. E.g., marriage is a state level issue. So, gay and lesbian marriage was illegal under state laws even after it became legal under federal laws. The states didn't have to obey federal laws and states which didn't have laws against it passed last minute laws against it. It was only after the Supreme Court ruled otherwise that states had to enforce federal laws on the issue. From that, the Berne convention, as a treaty, only applies to us for copyright when both a federal (issue crosses a state boundary) and international issue is involved (involves someone outside the U.S.), in which case it will go to an U.S. international court. The reason this entire U.S. state law versus U.S. federal laws and treaties is important, is because a variety of policy organizations in the E.U., the OECD, U.N., keep attempting to have the U.S. federal government enforce tax treaties on U.S. states they consider to be tax havens, such as Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, etc. The U.S. federal government, even if it has signed a treaty to eliminated tax havens, doesn't have the legal right to force these U.S. states to comply with the treaties it has made. It only has the right to enforce the treaty on U.S. boundaries and non-state territories such as Washington, DC. These foreign entities are attempting to use treaties with the U.S. federal government as a backdoor to change U.S. laws nationwide, within U.S. states, but they can only change U.S federal law. They cannot usurp U.S. state power via a treaty since U.S. states do not have to apply U.S. federal treaties since the U.S. federal treaty doesn't apply within U.S. state territory. U.S. states are also prohibited from making treaties. So, the foreign entities literally have no control over U.S. states and the U.S. federal government cannot force them to comply either, unless a case goes to the Supreme Court and the court rules against the states. This would be exceptionally difficult as it would require the Supreme Court to weaken states' rights. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.os.development
csiph-web