What would "No Deal" mean for you?

[Galant]

News today: UK able to remain in CTC even in a no deal scenario.


https://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki...it-892655.html

"The CTC covers the European Union, European Free Trade Association states Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, as well as Turkey, Macedonia and Serbia.

The UK has been invited to remain in the CTC even if there is a no-deal Brexit in March 2019.

British Financial Secretary to the Treasury Mel Stride said: "We are a great trading nation and our goods are in demand all over the world.

That's why we are committed to ensuring that trade can continue to flow with as little friction as possible when we leave the EU.

Membership of the convention will support traders both under a new trade agreement with the EU, or in the unlikely event of no deal."

"This gives businesses the continuity and certainty they need to plan for the future."

The CTC means goods do not need to complete import and export declarations each time they cross a new border and traders only have to make customs declarations and pay import duties when they arrive at their final destination.

The UK Government hopes it will make border clearances easier at key ports and airports, such as Dover and Holyhead."

[Corky34]

I didn't claim a regulation had stifled my career path, I claimed a regulatory culture did, and provided an easy to understand example of that culture. Remoaners gotta remoan.

Say again!!

Brexit came too late for me. I left the UK because oppressive EU regulation stifled the career path I wanted to follow, and I'll never move back.

Was it you who was lecturing on fallacies recently?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Do you have any experience in the field (of commercial aviation training)? To my mind, without such experience you would lack the the requisite qualification to trvialise the response.


I understood the answer suggested a succesession of smaller, incremental changes had combined to create an opressive regulatory regime. If that is the case, and it is a regular complaint against EU regulation, your question would be disengenuos. Death by a thousand cuts is not less fatal.

Indeed i was and if you had been following along with that i also said it's fine to use fallacies for rhetorical effect but not to base your argument on them, and if you had been following along with this latest's exchange you'd know that's exactly what being done here.

I asked someone who said they'd left the UK because oppressive EU regulation stifled the career path they wanted to follow to name just one of those regulations, a single one mind you, something that shouldn't have been hard if there was indeed a regulatory culture, something that should have been like shooting fish in a barrel if indeed there were so many EU regulations that they were being oppressive.

I used a rhetorical devices to expose an unsubstantiated claim and the maliciousness of an extremist.

News today: UK able to remain in CTC even in a no deal scenario.

Any idea on costs involved or for how long?

[cheesemp]

A no deal probably means my pension funds I mostly moved out of the UK following the vote will do even better? (There has to be one upside to brexit)

It will probably reduce my view of politicians and our political process to below the zero mark?

Otherwise I've already started stocking up a bit on the long life staples as I just don't trust UK gov not to mess it up and I don't want to be panic buying food...

[badass]

Say again!!

Those two quoted statements prove TeePee right not you.

They said: "Brexit came too late for me. I left the UK because oppressive EU regulation stifled the career path I wanted to follow, and I'll never move back."

They did not say: "Brexit came too late for me. I left the UK because an oppressive EU regulation stifled the career path I wanted to follow, and I'll never move back.

Now, I appreciate this is the internet, and being right and thus proving the other party wrong is the number one priority in any discussion, however lets move on, accept that the statement was misread/misunderstood and get back to discussion how a no deal Brexit affects us individually.

I accept any accusations of hypocrisy BTW. I'd just rather not see yet another Brexit related thread that could bring up some interesting information that I hadn't considered before get dragged down into pointless arguments over a point that is completely irrelevant to everyone else.

[Corky34]

An oppressive EU regulation is implied when saying oppressive EU regulation as you can't have oppressive EU regulation without an oppressive EU regulation.

It's not about being right, it's about sorting fact from fiction, it's about debunking some of the quiet frankly ludicrous myths that the UK media have been pedaling for the last 20 years.

[peterb]

An oppressive EU regulation is implied when saying oppressive EU regulation as you can't have oppressive EU regulation without an oppressive EU regulation.

I think you can - “oppressive EU regulation” refers to a general description of the EU approach to regulation while “an oppressive EU regulation” means a specific regulation

[adidan]

Ok let's deal with the so called oppressive EU laws and regulations.

According to the LSE between 2009 and 2015 the UK was on the 'winning' side in 88% of the votes. Although a very decent % it's not surprising it's not higher as we were talking about a referendum.

Prior to this between 2004 and 2009 the UK was on the majority 'winning' side in 97% of the votes.

We lost out on some votes, surely that must be bad. Well, no. Some of the votes we 'lost' on including improving rail safety. Grrr, * shakes fist *, damn you rail safety!

So yeah going by the facts i've never bought the "oppressive laws and regulations" opinion. As the saying goes,the exception proves the rule. We also have vetos on several different areas anyway.

[badass]

An oppressive EU regulation is implied when saying oppressive EU regulation as you can't have oppressive EU regulation without an oppressive EU regulation.

It's not about being right, it's about sorting fact from fiction, it's about debunking some of the quiet frankly ludicrous myths that the UK media have been pedaling for the last 20 years.

Fine. Lets agree to disagree and move on. To some of us, TeePee was referring to the regulatory environment. To others, they were referring to a single regulation that made all of the difference.

I was just about to point out how it is possible to have an oppressive regulatory environment without a single oppressive regulation then realised where that would go. I don;t fancy getting into a multi page discussion about a point that is irrelevant to the discussion and I don;t really care about.

[Corky34]

So yeah going by the facts i've never bought the "oppressive laws and regulations" opinion. As the saying goes,the exception proves the rule. We also have vetos on several different areas anyway.

Yea neither have I and it's why I asked for a single example of one of these oppressive laws and regulations, unfortunately like every other time I've see this riposte no ones ever managed to provide an example, it seems this time is no different, having said that it's probably better to do as badass suggests and move on.

[DanceswithUnix]

Back to the original subject, I don't think no deal will really mean much to me. The company I work for trades internationally, not just with the EU, and it is a fairly niche product.

I would like it if those prompts on every single damned web site telling me that they use cookies would go away. It seems ironic that every single visit on some sites kicks up the prompt, so clearly if they are using cookies they aren't doing a good job of it.

[Jonatron]

Yea neither have I and it's why I asked for a single example of one of these oppressive laws and regulations, unfortunately like every other time I've see this riposte no ones ever managed to provide an example, it seems this time is no different, having said that it's probably better to do as badass suggests and move on.

I was personally affected by the EU cookie law - instead of working to improve this website, I was forced to annoy every user on this site for no good reason, making this site worse. In a more recent job, we had to have endless meetings about the GDPR, which is a vague and contradictory regulation. Article 13 Copyright sounds like a continuation of the EU's plan to ruin the internet. 3 examples just off the top of my head, all tech related.

[TooNice]

At the risk of taking this off track, I've been thinking a little (and yes, just a little, as I am really quite busy with other things, and as previously noted, and I am pretty much prepared to make another place home anyway - a big part due to what I've said about most form of Brexit do not work for me), and I.. still really struggle to understand the argument that a second referendum is undemocratic and whatnot.

Here is the way I see it. As long as there is no second referendum, the side that "won" is guaranteed to get what they want, in one form or another (whether it is their preferred form or not, I am just going to assume that the vast majority who vote for Brexit would rather have -any- form of Brexit than no Brexit at all).

The side that "lost" (*raises hand*) can only despair save for a second referendum, so of course they are going to want one.

So it comes down to the side that think like that hold the bag do not want to risk losing it, while the other side want a second chance. All fairly understandable.

What I do not see, is how not having a second referendum is viewed as "more democratic", or having a second referendum is somewhat "undemocratic".

If the outcome of the second referendum is the same as the first, then, score, you know that nothing changed in the last two years in light of everything that happened / hasn't happened. The will of the people from two years ago stands. You know it was no fluke.

If the outcome of the second referendum is a different outcome, then you know that something / some things have changed, and the will of the people has changed. Could you really call it "undemocratic" to then let the present rule over the past?

Of course it wouldn't be the end of it. Not least unless one side wins so overwhelmingly that the outcome won't be questioned in a long time.

But really, I would rather people be more honest and say "We won. Hahaha. Yeah it was close enough that we are afraid of going another round of it.. but you lot should just be good losers are take it up where the sun don't shine LOLL111". At least there is no pretence in that (and let's face it, the country *is* split, there isn't much love between the two sides, so the whole talk about democracy is just a front because how can a reconfirmation be undemocratic unless past > present?).

[Ttaskmaster]

I.. still really struggle to understand the argument that a second referendum is undemocratic and whatnot.

The vote was cast, the people decided, the government must now deliver what the people voted for.... but not whatever they thought they were voting for.
To have a second vote means the first did not really count, which is undemocratic... Kinda like asking Ireland to vote again on the Lisbon treaty.

And yet, now that we've voted for Brexit without having an actual exit strategy, any deal already in place, or any clue as to how we'd manage alone afterward... this second vote would basically be on whether we Brexit with or without any deal offered or not... which would be very democratic

But since many people voted without actually understanding what Brexit actually meant, with ideas of what we'd do afterward mostly being fuelled by media arguments used as political tools, this will now offer a firmer idea and everyone will have the chance to either vote a second time from a more informed position, or to just vote however their favourite newspaper tells them.

But democracy doesn't really apply to this, as such things as referenda aren't legally binding for the government, anyway!

[Corky34]

I was personally affected by the EU cookie law - instead of working to improve this website, I was forced to annoy every user on this site for no good reason, making this site worse. In a more recent job, we had to have endless meetings about the GDPR, which is a vague and contradictory regulation. Article 13 Copyright sounds like a continuation of the EU's plan to ruin the internet. 3 examples just off the top of my head, all tech related.

All good examples (TY), and i wasn't trying to imply that there isn't any laws and regulations that are a PITA or have disproportionate effect on certain groups or people more so than others, like yourself with the EU cookie law and GDPR, however i suspect, or at least hope, that laws and regulations are passed when they benefit more people than they disadvantage.

In other words EU cookie law and GDPR are most certainly something people like yourself could do without, however I'm guessing the majority of people welcome better control over how companies handle their data, with all that in mind i personally wouldn't call them oppressive or stifling, in the same way i wouldn't call the UK food safety regulations oppressive or stifling unless i was a caterer or burger van.

As for Article 13 I'm reserving judgment as it does seem rather pernicious but then again the UK's investigatory powers act (aka:Snoopers charter) seemed the same to me and that's largely gone unnoticed by the public.

[peterb]

Yea neither have I and it's why I asked for a single example of one of these oppressive laws and regulations, unfortunately like every other time I've see this riposte no ones ever managed to provide an example, it seems this time is no different, having said that it's probably better to do as badass suggests and move on.

The EU directive on restricting the power of vacuum cleaners - completely unnecessary.

The 'alignment' on VAT that means the UK can't zero-rate the cost of domestic heating.

The restrictions on State subsidies to domestic industry.

[Corky34]

Doesn't it supposedly reduce electricity usage and in turn reduce greenhouse gasses though, i think that was the reasoning behind it that i read - about.