Text 34166, 75 rader
Skriven 2016-06-28 22:55:39 av alexander koryagin (2:5020/2140.2)
  Kommentar till text 34144 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Re: BreXit & End of EU
==============================
Hi, Michiel Van Der Vlist!
I read your message from 27.06.2016 14:33

  MV>>> Of course it can. The people of the UK have choosen to do just
  MV>>> that. But what they can not have is to enjoy the benefits of
  MV>>> membership but not the liabilities. Out is out.

  ak>> I just wanted to hear of these benefits. The UK is a member of
  ak>> WTO, so it can trade with anybody on mutual benefit.

  MV> Trade is still possible, but it will be harder. For example. A car
  MV> produced in an EU country and which is type approved in that
  MV> country, is automatically type aproved in all other EU countries.
  MV> Cars imported from outside the EU, need to go through the EU type
  MV> aproval before it can be sold in the EU. After the completion of
  MV> the Brexit, cars produced in th UK, will no longer be automatically
  MV> have type aproval for the EU. That makes it harder for the UK car
  MV> manufacturers to sell their cars in the EU. Toyata has already
  MV> announced that they will move their car factory in the UK to the EU
  MV> continent.

Well, it is logical -- a car made for selling in the EU must met some 
demands, for instance CO2 emission limit. The UK has done such cars 
while in the EU, why do you think the UK's cars will be worse after the 
brexit?
Another matter the EU can impose sanctions on the UK in the form of high 
custom duties (do you remember Russia-Ukraine trade quarrels? :)). But 
as I said - all the contracts have been mutually beneficial. It means 
that the EU will harm itself also. The economical machine works well 
without Brussels' red tapists!

  ak>> The EU has never made its countries to buy any goods from the UK.
  ak>> The trade was beneficial mutually. No interest no purchase. Should
  ak>> the EU now cancel its own beneficial contracts? Just for the sake
  ak>> of revenge?

  MV> Not revenge, but protection. In order to allow UK made cars on our
  MV> roads, we must be sure that they are safe. And so the test need to
  MV> conform to EU standards. But thatis what the UK does not want. They
  MV> do not want the EU to tell them how test the cars for safety.

All the EU standards are clear and written in documents. It is not a 
problem for the UK to certify their cars if they are made properly. 
Another matter can be if the UK will be refused the certification of 
properly made cars on the ground of revenge.

  MV>>> To become a member of the EU a country has go to the end of the
  MV>>> que and it has to meet the requirements for membership.
  ak>> It is illogical - it is obvious that the UK is fully met with any
  ak>> demands for entering the EU.

  MV> Are you sure? The UK obviously qualified many years ago when she
  MV> joined the EU. Keep in mind that the special priviliges and
  MV> exceptions that the UK enjoys, will be gone when she leaves. If
  MV> she re-applies for membership in five years, she will have to start
  MV> from fresh. In five years, the UJ economy may be in the same state
  MV> as that of Greece...

Do you mean the UK should pass a long bureaucratic way as it did Latvia 
or Poland? The countries which join the EU are, roughly speaking, 
divided in two categories - the first category includes useless, poor 
countries that were accepted into the EU only because of political 
reasons. Let worthless bla-bla-bla be in the EU because it is better 
than let it be with Russia.
Another countries are countries which have great economies, great 
industry, who is capable to pay billions as a membership contribution. 
It will be a foolish idea IMHO to bar such a country. ;)
People of any country should have a right to try to go a new way. 
Especially if the old one looks nasty.

Bye, Michiel!
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.fidonews 2016
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
 * Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2)