Brexit

[Xier0]

EU company law
EU legislation is binding for EU member states. The governments of member states must incorporate EU laws into their national legislation.

Some EU company law is also in the form of non-binding 'recommendations' or 'opinions'.

The European Commission has developed and implemented various policy measures to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Europe. These policies are intended to help the set up and continuing success of SMEs.

EU-wide technical and safety standards ensure that if you meet UK standards you'll also meet the standards of other EU countries.

Does this look like removing trade barriers to you? The EU is a regulatory body - it can only make trade less free.

 

Does this look like removing trade barriers to you? The EU is a regulatory body - it can only make trade less free.

Look at the list of the 53 countries the EU negotiated with and tell me who else they need to trade with, and remind me who is the largest and most crucial trading partner to the UK and why.

Keep this in mind:

With the facts I've given you, in what way is trade "more difficult" for the UK under the EU?

 

[Xier0]

In what way is trade "more difficult" for the UK under the EU?

The EU passes legislation that regulates businesses in member states.

 

The EU passes legislation that regulates businesses in member states.

Care to explain?

 

[Xier0]

Care to explain?

Yes. Business regulations lead to

-Less competition in services
-Creation of trade barriers
-Increase of business costs
-Reduced business efficiency
-Creation of anti-competitive practices, such as monopolies

 

Yes. Business regulations lead to

-Less competition in services
-Creation of trade barriers
-Increase of business costs
-Reduced business efficiency
-Creation of anti-competitive practices, such as monopolies

It does the opposite.

 

[Xier0]

It does the opposite.

So how do business regulations increase business efficiency?

 

So how do business regulations increase business efficiency?

You literally took bullets points in the sourced link I gave and put the opposite of what's true without explanation or sources.

When businesses are under the same ruling, it adds fluidity, makes things faster when dealing with one another. It's common sense.

I'd like some sources to back up your claims however.

 

[Xier0]

When businesses are under the same ruling, it adds fluidity, makes things faster.

False. If all businesses must follow the same regulations, it eliminates competition. I can no longer choose between a business that follows EU regulations and a business that doesn't follow EU regulations but provides a better services at a better cost.

 

False. If all businesses must follow the same regulations, it eliminates competition. I can no longer choose between a business that follows EU regulations and a business that doesn't follow EU regulations but provides a better services at a better cost.

How exactly is that false? You didn't refute my point, you went off on a different tangent not relevant to my post.

Speed =/= Competition

Also, the reduction in trade barriers in Europe through the Single Market Programme (SMP) was intended to increase competition in European markets, and hence welfare and efficiency. You keep spewing things that are false.

Give me a source that supports your argument.

 

[Xier0]

How exactly is that false?

A business being under the regulations of a third party does not increase the speed or fluidity of that businesses' operations. It creates another step in the supply chain.

 

A business being under the regulations of a third party does not increase the speed or fluidity of that businesses' operations. It creates another step in the supply chain.

Educate yourself. The EU's purpose is to make trade easier, and it does so effectively by regulation. You keep spewing false information.

What does the EU do?

Also, are you going to stop skipping over my points? You haven't replied to 90% of the content I post within each reply.

Give me a source that supports your argument.

Reply to this.

Also, the reduction in trade barriers in Europe through the Single Market Programme (SMP) was intended to increase competition in European markets, and hence welfare and efficiency. You keep spewing things that are false.

Reply to this.

You literally took bullets points in the sourced link I gave and put the opposite of what's true without explanation or sources.

Explain this.

Respond to this post.

 

[Xier0]

The EU's purpose is to make trade easier, and it does so effectively

Bob buys an apple from John for $1.

How can the EU make this trade deal easier? It can't. As I've mentioned before: GOVERNMENTS DO NOT CREATE TRADE. GOVERNMENTS CANNOT ASSIST TRADE. GOVERNMENTS ONLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPEDE THIS TRANSACTION, CREATING ECONOMIC LOSS.

Give me a source that supports your argument.

Mises? If you want an article to tell you that business regulations cost money, I can link you an article if general economic theory is too difficult to wrap your head around.

$46.6B Annual Cost of Hated EU Rules Caused the Brexit

the reduction in trade barriers in Europe through the Single Market Programme (SMP) was intended to increase competition in European markets, and hence welfare and efficiency.

There's nothing wrong with removing tariffs, I'm not arguing against that.

You literally took bullets points I gave

You said the EU reduces trade barriers which helps trade, but you linked a source that shows how the EU creates trade barriers, which hurts trade. Your claims that the EU creates free trade can't be supported by proof that the EU hurts free trade. This is directly from your source:

The European Commission has developed and implemented various policy measures to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Europe. These policies are intended to help the set up and continuing success of SMEs.

EU-wide technical and safety standards ensure that if you meet UK standards you'll also meet the standards of other EU countries.

Respond to this post.

I already did, your source proved me right, remember? This isn't free trade:

EU company law
EU legislation is binding for EU member states. The governments of member states must incorporate EU laws into their national legislation.

Some EU company law is also in the form of non-binding 'recommendations' or 'opinions'.

The European Commission has developed and implemented various policy measures to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Europe. These policies are intended to help the set up and continuing success of SMEs.

EU-wide technical and safety standards ensure that if you meet UK standards you'll also meet the standards of other EU countries.

Does this look like removing trade barriers to you? The EU is a regulatory body - it can only make trade less free.

 

Bob buys an apple from John for $1.

How can the EU make this trade deal easier? It can't. As I've mentioned before: GOVERNMENTS DO NOT CREATE TRADE. GOVERNMENTS CANNOT ASSIST TRADE. GOVERNMENTS ONLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPEDE THIS TRANSACTION, CREATING ECONOMIC LOSS.

You're not reading my replies, something you do often.

The EU has taken measures to reform and make it even easier for countries to trade with each other, such as:

• reducing paperwork
• harmonising standards - eg technical and safety standards
• introducing the euro - allowing a single currency to trade with
• enforcing the movement of people - allowing member state citizens to move freely between other countries

Trading with other EU countries offers a number of key benefits to businesses in the UK. The EU’s 28 member states include some of the world’s wealthiest and most productive countries. The EU is a huge market in which to sell your goods and services - it also gives you access to a huge source of suppliers.

At the core of the EU is the single market - the programme of freeing up the trade of goods and services and the movement of people between EU countries. The aim is that doing business with other EU countries should become increasingly like doing business within your own country.

Source

Mises? If you want an article to tell you that business regulations cost money, I can link you an article if general economic theory is too difficult to wrap your head around.

$46.6B Annual Cost of Hated EU Rules Caused the Brexit

How does that source support this argument:

False. If all businesses must follow the same regulations, it eliminates competition. I can no longer choose between a business that follows EU regulations and a business that doesn't follow EU regulations but provides a better services at a better cost.

Also, as a consumer, how can you "not" choose between whom you want to do business with under the EU regulations? Please explain.

There's nothing wrong with removing tariffs, I'm not arguing against that.

Yes. Business regulations lead to

-Less competition in services
-Creation of trade barriers
-Increase of business costs
-Reduced business efficiency
-Creation of anti-competitive practices, such as monopolies

That actually refutes your claim.

You said the EU reduces trade barriers which helps trade, but you linked a source that shows how the EU creates trade barriers, which hurts trade. Your claims that the EU creates free trade can't be supported by proof that the EU hurts free trade. This is directly from your source:

Reading might help.

You're contradicting yourself left and right.

Tariffs on trade within the European Union were abolished decades ago.

I already did, your source proved me right, remember? This isn't free trade:

You didn't respond to 90% of it.

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is an intergovernmental organisation set up for the promotion of free trade and economic integration to the benefit of its four Member States.

Free trade within the EU, but not part of the EU? Mind blowing.

EU company law
EU legislation is binding for EU member states. The governments of member states must incorporate EU laws into their national legislation.

Some EU company law is also in the form of non-binding 'recommendations' or 'opinions'.

The European Commission has developed and implemented various policy measures to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Europe. These policies are intended to help the set up and continuing success of SMEs.

EU-wide technical and safety standards ensure that if you meet UK standards you'll also meet the standards of other EU countries.

Also, this quote has nothing to do with free trade or the restriction of it. Read it again and you will see.

 

[Xier0]

How does that source support this argument

It shows how business that could provide better services at lower cost if they were not subject to EU regulations.

As a consumer, how can you "not" choose between whom you want to do business with under the EU regulations?

Businesses that don't follow EU regulations are shut down by the state. You have no choice but to use EU regulated businesses in EU member states.

That actually refutes your claim.

Bolding a line in a previous post is not a refutation. You have to make an argument.

 

Still avoiding my points I see.

It shows how business that could provide better services at lower cost if they were not subject to EU regulations.

How could they provide a "better" service?

Businesses that don't follow EU regulations are shut down by the state. You have no choice but to use EU regulated businesses in EU member states.

Businesses anywhere that don't follow legislation will be shutdown. You can choose to use businesses outside the EU within Europe, even if you live in a country regulated by the EU. You aren't prohibited from buying/using businesses outside the EU.

Bolding a line in a previous post is not a refutation. You have to make an argument.

You said creation of trade barriers, yet tariffs were abolished decades ago.

 

[Xier0]

How could they provide a "better" service?

By not following regulations that reduce value for the consumer.

Businesses anywhere that don't follow legislation will be shutdown.. You can choose to use businesses outside the EU within Europe, even if you live in a country regulated by the EU. You aren't prohibited from buying/using businesses outside the EU.

Exactly. EU regulations make it so that consumers/businesses must pay the extra costs of the regulation, or pay the extra costs of importing from a non-EU state since local businesses will be shut down if they try to compete.

You said creation of trade barriers, yet tariffs were abolished decades ago.

I didn't quote tarriffs, I quoted your source where it listed other trade barriers imposed by the EU (subsidies and regulations)

 

By not following regulations that reduce value for the consumer.



Exactly. EU regulations make it so that consumers/businesses must pay the extra costs of the regulation, or pay the extra costs of importing from a non-EU state since local businesses will be shut down if they try to compete.



I didn't quote tarriffs, I quoted your source where it listed other trade barriers (subsidies and regulations)

Markets that are regulated in a manner that results in greater competition such as the EU provided mandates results in a market that is closer to a perfectly competitive market and as such maximizes the overall economic gain for the entire system (think of the net gain as Entropy in terms of defining the system). Unfortunately tarriffs or taxes imposed in some of these systems can result in deadweight losses. Whether or not these deadweight losses exceed that of the economic profit for the UK would require significant economic analysis.

I don't know specifics of the EU situation exactly since I looked into the situation too much yet.

 

[Xier0]

Markets that are regulated in a manner that results in greater competition such as the EU provided mandates results in a market that is closer to a perfectly competitive market and as such maximizes the overall economic gain for the entire system (think of the net gain as Entropy in terms of defining the system). Unfortunately tarriffs or taxes imposed in some of these systems can result in deadweight losses. Whether or not these deadweight losses exceed that of the economic profit for the UK would require significant economic analysis.

Understood. I don't think the anyone would impose tarriffs on the UK for leaving the EU, however. The threat of loss of trade from potential future tarriffs seems like a good risk to take in order to get rid of current regulations.

 

[GTX 970]

Kiro is getting all his source information from the remain campaign, i personally would rather be out of pocket than to hear anymore foreign accents on the streets of Britain. Eu needs us more than we need them. Facts are facts.