Riedquat

Members
  • Content count

    10,651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Riedquat

  • Rank
    I live on HPC!
  1. You think there's a link there? "We aren't our jobs, we live for the weekend"? Well, yes, of course, the job is there to pay the bills, so what? To link that with "don't see work as something we need to do" is rather strange. My job is what I do to pay the bills, it certainly isn't what I am.
  2. But that brings us back to the point of then asking just what is the point of the EU? It all fits together if you start from the assumption that the EU must be protected above all else, but I certainly don't hold that position (obviously); the EU has no business existing if it's better for its members to leave, therefore I don't find protecting the EU (as opposed to the countries that make up the EU, because it should exist only to serve them, not the other way around) an argument with any merit. If they'd all do better by cherry picking without the EU (it would probably need some other organistion in place to keep it organised) then the EU should be quite happy to see itself go. If that is unthinkable to it then it is not serving its purpose. Asking "Is this good for the EU?" should be identical to asking "Is this good for France, the UK (for now), Germany, Slovenia, Greece, Portugal, Denmark etc." If it is not then you've got a problem.
  3. This discussion feels like that well-known moment in This Is Spinal Tap, where all he can think of in answer to questions like "Why not make ten the loudest?" is "This one goes to eleven" (or in this case "You've got to be in the club.")
  4. If the UK would be better off from being in the single market, and the EU would be better off with the UK being in the single market, what does the EU lose by granting the UK access to the single market, even without the rest of the package? I really don't understand your objection to that win-win situation. That doesn't compare with the Netflix example because Netflix ends up getting nothing if you leave. It's more like giving up a store loyalty card - sure, the store would rather be gathering all that information on you, but they're still happy with you shopping there without being in the club (some even call it a clubcard), because they get your money and you get some goods, win-win. You'd have Tescos refuse to do business with me because I don't have a card.
  5. I read the title as being about BTL being bailed out.
  6. Lazy and with too high an opinion or just won't accept being worked hard and treated like crap? There's possibly a bit of both but how about we fix our own problems instead of putting up with them and piling ever-increasing numbers of people in?
  7. Yet I don't have to be a member of Tescos in order to get something from Tescos, the model they've got (I get food, they get money, both benefit) works without membership. The club model is not necessary if two parties both have something to offer each other - in this case it's getting in the way of both benefitting. Clubs with similar interests will work with each other sometimes without having to be part of the same club, when both get something out of doing so. They'll do the same with individuals who have something to offer beyond their membership fee, even without them being members. Businesses do it all the time. "You've got to be in the club" does not answer the question "what has the EU got to lose?"
  8. My argument is that there seems to be no down side to the EU for keeping various things we may want to keep (not "everything"). In the event of the Scots leaving if there are any parts of the UK that they want to keep that have no downsides at all for the UK to let them have, then why not? The only answer to "why not?" I've got from the Europhiles on this thread is "because you've got to be a member."
  9. Whether it does or not is not relevent to this discussion - that's for a "should they leave or not" discussion, not a "given that they are leaving" type one. Even if you're trying to argue that the UK as a whole would benefit from it if Scotland left then that's still a more roundabout example, a cost to the UK that ultimately brings in benefits (if you believe that it would). In the UK - EU example that cost doesn't even exist, unless the emperor fears the consequences of someone pointing out that he's got no clothes on counts.
  10. There would be a clear cost to the rest of the UK if that were to happen. It is not a valid comparison.
  11. Yes, I'd agree that that's a reason to that particular example, at least for Texas not leaving in the first place (less so if it's going to leave anyway).
  12. If it brings economic benefits to the EU as well it should pay for itself, at least as far as the overheads are concerned. Yes, why would anyone stay in? That question should be making you question the purpose and viability of the EU, not whether some mutually beneficial terms should remain.
  13. Why would anyone join, what is the point of it? That's the question isn't it, and one that the EU's defenders aren't doing a terribly good job of answering, because it seems to me that if a win-win situation is theoretically possible without being a member of the EU then it doesn't have a purpose. If all they can fall back on are "those are our rules", rather than why these things simply couldn't possibly work no matter how much you changed the rules, then there's no argument for having the EU. For an oversimplified example - let's say group A has spare food but no shelter, group B has a big pile of bricks but no food, group A faces freezing and group B faces starving. Group A is saying "nope, can't trade with us unless you join our club, which has all sorts of other rules in place that you may not like." Perhaps Group A would prefer Group B being part of it, but even so both are still better off if they trade food and bricks, rather than saying "No membership, no trade." There's no downside to that trading no matter how much the diehards in Group A mumble about B wanting to have their cake and eat it by having access to their food without membership.
  14. If Texas wanted to keep some of those benefits and doing so was also a positive for the rest of the USA then let them keep them. It's not bending over backwards to help when you gain too. What's a good reason for not accepting that win-win?
  15. You tell me, you said yourself that voices inside the EU want a clean break (which clearly involves losing the benefits of membership) even if it has a cost to the EU. They don't want the UK to have things even if both would benefit from - it doesn't appear to be a case of the UK would gain but the EU would pay; that would be a good reason to reject the idea. They're either intending to punish or being obstinant, and neither of those paints the EU in a good light.