There is no Common Market in Services. — Inis

False, Single Market for Services

This is totally uninformative for two obvious of reasons:

• It doesn't reflect trade in services;
• It doesn't reflect trade made possible with non-EU countries (e.g. third countries) thanks to EU negotiated trade deals or EU internal rules.

For instance, the possibility for UK based financial institutions to act as a gateway for third country persons to access the EU financial market will be largely lost after Brexit. No number of bilateral trade deals with third countries is going to reopen the EU market for UK based financial firms. This fragmentation is bad for both the EU and the UK but more so for the UK - just have a look at where the UK platforms are relocating (mostly the Netherlands) and the UK banks (mostly Frankfurt) that are opening EU27 offices and relocating personnel.

In fact, the recent exemption to continue to allow EU institutions to meet their clearing obligations by clearing at LCH, while again good for those EU institutions, would've spelled disaster for a number of large UK-based swap dealers. I expect it will be phased out in the long run, moving euro-denominated swap business to the EU27. That's a business at LCH with a present value of that swap portfolio of around 100 billion euros - and if a chunk of it moves to EUREX, jobs are sure to follow.

Xenophobia is not a real term, but a "shut up!" word. — DiegoT

It's a real term. I'm not sure what a shut up word is.

If you research the origin of civilization (that is the culture adapted to living in urban environments) the really new, paramount institution is the citizen as a subject of rights and duties, as opposed to a mere part of a tribe or social group. — DiegoT

This is all a matter of definitions which makes it less interesting. You seem to be suggesting people had no rights and duties in tribes, which simply isn't true.

Chinese people who come to the civilized world, should undergo a de-programming stage, to help those people instead of importing the post-civilized system that is also appearing in other nations. When we notice that Chinese people work even when they should be having free time, we should not praise them, we should realize they have a psychological problem that needs to be mended. They are not happy. Their families aren´t either. — DiegoT

The issue was Law, secularism, human rights and democracy. Not their perceived psychological problems arising from a different work ethic. I'm just going to ignore this as it's another tangent.

Please explain this list of Chinese people if they are the type of people we should build walls against :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chinese_democracy_activists

My problem is that I don´t believe our species has different races; apparently Anthropology does not support the existence of subspecies in Homo Sapiens. That is why I get confused with accusations of racism. For example, how is to be born in Mexico a race? I think it is just a nationality. I honestly don´t understand this racist approach. When Americans talk about racial stuff, I feel like they are talking about the races in the Lord of the Rings; like Mexicans were hobbits. — DiegoT

It's xenophobia. But whatever. It's quite clear taking everything Trump has said and done that he is indeed a racist. You know, those people who don't accept the science that there aren't any subspecies.

But let's go back to what you thought was the underlying principle that people from certain countries (since you agreed Mexicans should be kept out) don't share certain characteristics to support civilisation. Which countries are those?

You are being naughty...I did not say "countries", but individual people who can move around. It´s your ideological defense filters talking, because deep in your brain you know what I mean and you agree. The filters will prevent this realization (for now). — DiegoT

So, you're saying that the context in which you were discussing is irrelevant? Trump talks about "Mexicans" and you say it isn't racism but do agree with the underlying principle for his policy proposals, which is to keep out people from a specific country: Mexico. Again, which people from which countries have these problems or be clear about what you mean exactly which has the appearance of something I will probably disagree with but not because of any filters but because you so far suck at making a coherent argument even when I ask for a clarification.

Perhaps you mean Trump wants to filter out people who don´t have the level of civilization (democratic values, respect for secular Law, respect for human rights, and the abstract thinking skills required to understand those notions) — DiegoT

Wait. People from certain countries don't want/believe/share democratic values, respect law, human rights and in top of that don't have abstract thinking skills? Which countries are those?

This said, what we all suffer are the infamous filter bubbles where different people end up thinking the same and recognizing the same (fictional) reality. — DiegoT

How do you tell in which bubble someone is in? What bubble you're in? How do you reach people in bubbles other than your own? I think that background is key.

Please do not care about "my background"; only care about my arguments that are sometimes more right than wrong, other times more wrong than right. — DiegoT

I think backgrounds are important as to how to frame arguments and to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Some issues I will not automatically understand because I don't live the reality of being black, a minority, poor, uneducated etc. because of my background. So to me the Guardian and BBC News seem sensible because I share a lot of background with the typical reporter - but it's just a view among many. I read Breitbart as well, especially the comments. It never resonates with me but it gives me some idea of where people with whom it does resonate are coming from. The Democrats just want them to be idiots andracists and while most likely all stupid racists voted for Trump not every Trump-voter is a racist or stupid.

So in daily life I end up talking to a lot of people like me and that way I miss out on the type of thinking of that woman in a wheelchair from my previous post. I watched her on video yesterday with my colleagues and most everyone was laughing because they thought she was so stupid. So if most people with my background look down on people like her as if they don't know what they're talking about and that the "elite" should just educate her because we know better, we're missing out on her view. So we end up writing laws and regulations that benefit the elite as it only addresses elite problems as we're blind to problems other people have. The bureacracy is such that only the elite understands it because it wasn't written or designed for illiterates. So yeah, I think background matters a lot if we're supposed to have a real conversation.

Interesting, by the way, that you mention individual rights. That's a decidedly liberal idea and not typically left. I consider individual rights things that are granted and taken away in the liberal sense. In the "leftist" sense you take it because as people we have that power. And you take it from the government and from the monied elite and the big corporations.

because Podemos (radical left paid by Iran) — DiegoT

I was like "that has to be fake news" and googled it. What the hell? How did that (probably) happen?

No, because we do know the physics of fusion. The reaction doesn't change because it's cold, it's cold because the coulomb barrier is supposedly breached without the application of intense heat (e.g. plasma). Maybe you should first read up on fusion and fission before reading LENR as you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between bullshit and actual science.

BBC News (The top provider of fake news in the U.K.) is a good source of irrational slogans to be exposed. — DiegoT

Translation: I disagree with what the BBC News reports. I don't know your background but it's becoming rather obvious you have a background that is significantly different than the typical BBC or Guardian reporter. What they report isn't fake news, it's a different view. If you want to be heard, you need to listen as well instead of dismissing what others say out of hand.

That said, you've finally written something worthwhile in the second paragraph about what sort of immigration a society should allow and what we should do to avoid influx of people who we don't want as immigrants and how to implement that.

Let's start with the obvious questions:
- fugitives from wars? In or out or depends?
- fugitives from natural disasters? In or out or depends?
- economic immigrants? In or out or depends?

Meanwhile, in the pursuit of economic growth and profit there certainly is an international system in place where production is outsourced at the expense of local low-schooled labour and generally also at the expense of the workers in those other countries in terms of health and safety regulation, work hours and the ability to collectively negotiate pay (and therefore shitty pay).

The West (e.g. Europe and the US) have a fair hand in various conflicts as well whether directly or through proxy wars. I think it is quite obvious such injustices and instability result in bigger immigration flows than would occur naturally.

Immigration policy cannot be disjoined from economic and foreign policy in my view as the alternative would be cracking down on immigration by turning society into a semi-police state.

The distrust a lot of people have towards their governments and the EU at the moment is because nobody is asking people other than the ruling elite (in NL that's white, male, educated, not openly religious, west-NL asking each other what they think and expect about immigration. And if regular people don't trust the government, they'll be susceptible to believing all sorts of falsities. An example in the Netherlands where a woman didn't want a refugee centre housing 600 people because they'd get a job within 4 months at the expense of her foster child who wants to work as well.

So here's a woman (in a wheelchair) who made one of the noblest sacrifices by raising a child that isn't hers yet she's refusing to help others (these were mostly Syrian war refugees) for what are actually rational grounds even if based on wrong facts (refugees don't just get jobs like that).

http://brillouinenergy.com/ — Wallows

Scam and bullshit.

https://deneum.com/ — Wallows

More bullshit. It isn't renewable as it uses deuterium as a fuel. Oh, and it's a scam. Both utilise the same old "we're not going to approach institutional investors because they'll just bury a product that is a multi-billion dollar profit cow". Totally absurd. Investors don't invest because they demand reproducable results, which no LENR company has been able to provide. And although a Shell might be threatened by it, banks that aren't invested in Shell aren't. Or if they are invested and think it will be a success, they can sell there shares and avoid a loss! What a miracle!

If you're really interested, here is a topic I started in regards to this issue some time back. It has grown significantly on Lenr-Forums. Have a look at tell me what you think:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5728-how-do-you-convince-a-skeptic/ — Wallows

As to this, you redirected me to it before. The "why are there no dead graduate students" related to Rossi's system, which claimed to produce copper from nickel through fusion. Let me remind you of the possibilities there.

these are your options when producing copper from nickel through fusion:

58Ni + 1H → 59Cu* → 59Ni + β+ + γ + νe,
60Ni + 1H → 61Cu* → 61Ni + β+ + γ + νe,
61Ni + 1H → 62Cu* → 62Ni + β+ + γ + νe,
62Ni + 1H → 63Cu* → 63Cu + γ,
64Ni + 1H → 65Cu* → 65Cu + γ.

Three decay back into nickel, while emitting gamma radiation. The other two decay into copper by radiating gamma radiation. By all accounts Rossi should be dead. He isn't. Then considering the lack of shielding on the e-cat, it's a scam. — Benkei

The fact those people react to "why isn't Rossi dead" by turning this into a general claim about all proposed fusion reactions goes to show how bad they are at reading since your OP is pretty damn clear on the matter.

Not again. We already discussed LENR recently here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4289/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-climate-change/p1

:vomit:

Funny how safe and peaceful it's been around here too.

So will be interesting if this isn't the final decision if it gets reversed, likewise if the ruling become final, or is already final, it's interesting how the EU would deal with future article 50 negotiation (or that they have to amend the treaty to make the "exit as a member state" immediate at the start of article 50 but a 2 year status quo agreement, or something along those lines). — boethius

It's a final decision. It's based on a request of another court on the interpretation of EU law, in this case a Scottish Court. People can appeal the decision of the Scottish Court but not the basis of that interpretation which is now established EU law.

The more I think about this, the more tricky it becomes. At the moment it isn't official, just the recommendation of some top EU lawyer. — boethius

Case law ECJ to revoke article 50

I haven't studied the decision in detail but a quick scan suggests that the article 50 notice is considered a declaration of intent to leave and not a formal notice. The distinction seems a bit silly so maybe someone who had more time can read the whole thing.

In any case, not just opinion.

I was replying to what you thought was a mistake. And perhaps as a contracts lawyer the obvious to me might be of interest to you but I assumed everybody knows parties can always change their agreement. That goes for agreements between sovereigns as well. Apparently that assumption is a bit too optimistic. At the same time, not everybody is aware of the ECJ ruling though because the right to unilateral action is usually restricted. Otherwise treaties wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on.

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for that apology for not reading carefully what I wrote and insisting I was wrong where I wasn't (twice).

Extending the deadline is not a unilateral action. That would have to be agreed. The only unilateral action available to the UK would be a revocation. My post didn't deal with any agreements to be made with the EU, because parties can always agree to whatever new terms they want. That isn't an interesting point to make.

It seems to me my post was spot on:

the UK can only do that unilaterally — Benkei

I'm not banking on the support of the EU for a delay at this point.

Given the deadline of March 29, I don't see how else it could work to have elections, a new government with new priorities, which will then negotiate with the EU over a new deal. Given the holidays they would have 3 months. That doesn't seem possible without delaying the deadline and the UK can only do that unilaterally by revoking its article 50 notice.

You can say that that seems unlikely, but the same can be said of May's deal passing a vote. So if we're setting aside these kind of considerations in our talk of what should happen, then my preference is for an alternative deal. — S

Sure. And for any government to have enough time to negotiate a new deal will require revocation of the article 50 notice. Works for me.

No, we should seek a better one. — S

What basis do you have to think there's a better deal? The government has prioritised control of the UK borders, goods over services. If you want a better deal you need to adjust priorities or there's nothing better to be had.

It's better than no deal.

Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are EFTA countries with strongly aligned laws with EU laws. They basically accept EU law (but can veto for themselves and other efta members) without having any say in how those laws come about. Moreover, they have had ample time to negotiate other trade and tax deals with other countries, which gives them a basis on which to deal with non - eu countries. The UK on the other hand is going to free fall into a situation with barely any trade deals into place.

Yes I agree a referendum doesn't seem likely. The plan seems to be to go right to the edge of the "crash out" and so force accepting May's deal; or at least this seems May's plan. I don't know enough about UK politicians to guess what other factions maybe planning. However, if this plan doesn't work, I wager a referendum is more likely than no-deal Brexit and the EU would supply more time if that's needed. Parliament just cancelling Brexit is also in the running but seems less likely to me. A no-deal Brexit seems insane, but so was a vague Brexit vote with vague promises of the vague results being totally binding. — boethius

The more I think about it the more likely I find it that the article 50 notice will be revoked if there's no deal to be had. At least to me that seems the only sane options if the alternative is a no-deal Brexit since there won't be enough time for another referendum.

A military man with a blue collar background and liberal ideas and they're all set.

A moldy lettuce would be a compelling alternative from where I stand.

I mentioned three clear options to contrast with the first clear vs unclear referendum. I didn't mean to exclude the potential for even more options. Ranked choice seems to already deal with vote splitting. Do you think this wouldn't work for some reason, or are you against ranked choice in principle? — boethius

I think UK politicians will feel compelled to recognise the results of the first referendum and don't think that realistically their thinking will have evolved or will evolve in the time left that it would lead to a sensible referendum. So it seems politically impossible. Ignoring that I'd think it would be good to have a referendum although I'm still not sure if it is already ready for one considering the lack of detailed analyses of various options.

With the disclaimer that I'm not bwiddish but I'm certain that there's no bill passed dealing with it.

How do you know it would be permanent? — frank

That was a bad choice of words on my part. I meant the reduction will happen and you can't win it back, it's like running a 400 m race having to run 100 m extra compared to the rest of the track.

we're obviously talking Kelvin here.

However, a second referendum can be between three clear options: EU's offer, no-deal, or remain. — boethius

The referendum is already contaminated by the results of the first thereby unnecessarily restricting the offered options. Remain still doesn't in any way address the issues people want to vote on, whereas both leave options do to a certain extent. See my previous example with five possible options to give you an idea. So it will still be issue voting and the only reason remain could win is because the leave vote would be fractured as the issues people would vote for are captured by both leave options.

that the UK can't negotiate a better arrangement with the EU once they leave. — Hanover

This doesn't make sense if you really think about it. Why would the EU offer a better deal to non-member States? It's not going to happen barring some full scale disintegration of the EU.Also good luck with finding an alternative market as developed with similar purchasing power and the size of the EU. So they'll have GDP growth at some point again but the GDP reduction for the next 2 to 5 years will be real (and a permanent loss compared to remaining).

How do you know it would be permanent? The UK imports a hefty load from the EU, so it's not like they have no power to negotiate a nice deal. And there are other markets. — frank

The Dutch stand to lose 4.7% of GDP because of Brexit. We still closed ranks as part of the EU because the value of the EU is not only economic. There isn't a nice deal available as it would undermine the EU if not being part of it doesn't make you significantly worse off than being in it.

Well, they do take their precedents and tradition seriously so making it up as they go isn't quite how it works. :wink:

The problem for the UK is the loss of direct access to the EU market for goods, services and capital. That will lead to an immediate and permanent reduction in GDP.

The UK has no Constitution except for the Magna Carta, which isn't what we normally understand as being a Constitution. Referenda do not have a regulated place in the UK, so it's really a political decision what to do with the result.

I'd argue to revoke the article 50 notice. Just don't have brexit. A referendum the sort that they would probably have to resort to on short notice is going to be plagued with the same problems and be marred by issue voting.

Ah... more opinion with claims to facts and truth without offering... well, facts. I don't know anything about you except that your posts are devoid of arguments and facts and instead filled with opinion. I don't argue against opinion I only reveal that it is exactly that. So fine, you don't like the Guardian. At what point should I even care about your caricature of something you don't like? It's about as informative as complaining about the fact Toy Story doesn't deserve a 9 on IMDB because its pro-feminist and unamerican. Whatever.

Well this is good timing as well. Article on the preferendum

We know no such thing. — S

Sure. Deep down everyone is a murderer. :chin:

Frank, to clarify my earlier point about consequences be damned: if I were a politician in Parliament in the UK then I'd happily pursue a solution ignoring the referendum. I'm after all an elected representative in that case and I'm supposed to vote with good conscience based on the information I have. If that means I wouldn't be reelected, so what. If it diminishes trust in the political system for some (even if I'm sure those who want to remain would have an increase in trust), so what. I should do what I think is right and I think that's a simple rule to follow. Brexit is too important to leverage pursuing a personal political career like some have been doing. Boris. Cough. Cough.

We've finally arrived. Your point was that according to you the will of the people was to leave. So it should be the will of the people to shoot the mum but we know that's ridiculous. QED.