Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Since Doha (last round of WTO talks in 2001) most developed nations have increased their bilateral (and multilateral) trade policy.

As most regulations are internationally set (Codex, UN, WTO etc) this has made it much easier to form trade agreements.

Only when countries agree formal trading relationships can tariffs be eliminated/reduced.

Trade agreements come in various manifestations, dependent on sectoral agreement (areas which can be agreed between partners). The most common include a Free Trade Agreement, (FTAs) – eg NAFTA, (Canada, Mexico, and the US).

Or mutual recognition (MRA’s) in which partners agree to have slightly different regulations, but both sets are reciprocally accepted. The EU for example has MRA’s with the US, China, and Japan (to name but three) which means UK businesses which have Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) status in the UK can do so in the EU and in other countries which the EU has an MRA with.

Harmonisation; partners agree to adopt the same internationally recognised standards, Equivalence; as the name suggests, regulations between partners are equal. Or a custom union (removal of duty between partners).

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_info_e.htm

The notion the UK can be unequivocally sovereign, and diverge from global trading regulations, whilst at the same time remain internationally competitive, and a credible trading partner, is one of absolute nonsense.

Unfortunately this appears to be current government policy. At least from certain sections.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Always NPE - 1,000,002 (U20804)
posted 9 hours, 46 minutes ago
History predominantly shows that independent nation states work better than compelled fantasist notions of unity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept of the nation state is about 200 years old.

Humans have been around for 2.5 million years; Homo sapiens around 150,000.

Of those 150,000 years, humans have been forming actively managed societal groups of more than a handful of family members for around 50,000 years and cooperative settlements for around 12,000 years.

Isolated fishing villages became agricultural settlements became metropoleis became empires and feudal states became monarchic realms.

The nation state is an incredibly young concept in cultural terms and has myriad problems in practice in the global age. It will have to adapt very rapidly to support the global citizen or it will disappear in the blink of an anthropological eye.

comment by rosso is facking happy (U17054)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Always NPE - 1,000,002 (U20804)
posted 9 hours, 46 minutes ago
History predominantly shows that independent nation states work better than compelled fantasist notions of unity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept of the nation state is about 200 years old.

Humans have been around for 2.5 million years; Homo sapiens around 150,000.

Of those 150,000 years, humans have been forming actively managed societal groups of more than a handful of family members for around 50,000 years and cooperative settlements for around 12,000 years.

Isolated fishing villages became agricultural settlements became metropoleis became empires and feudal states became monarchic realms.

The nation state is an incredibly young concept in cultural terms and has myriad problems in practice in the global age. It will have to adapt very rapidly to support the global citizen or it will disappear in the blink of an anthropological eye.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
well played

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Always NPE - 1,000,002 (U20804)
posted 48 seconds ago
The concept of the nation state is about 200 years old.
-

You mean the period of history when more progress was made than in even thousands of years that proceeded it?

Get to the back of queue. Thanks for playing

Next!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👏Well played.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Always NPE - 1,000,002 (U20804)
posted 2 hours, 3 minutes ago
The concept of the nation state is about 200 years old.
-

You mean the period of history when more progress was made than in even thousands of years that proceeded it?

Get to the back of queue. Thanks for playing

Next!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or, you could choose to look only at the post-war period, which has seen far more rapid - and increasing - rates of scientific and technological advancement thanks largely to the ever increasing influence of globalisation - academic, public and private cross-border collaboration; information and resource-sharing; freedom of movement of capital and labour, etc.

I think contemporary anthropologists are pretty unanimous on this. Human civilisation is continuing, as it has ever since the cognitive revolution, to form larger and ever more closely collaborative groups to meet mutual challenges. It's a pattern that Homo sapiens has followed for 50,000 years.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by thebluebellsareblue (U9292)
posted 9 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Always NPE - 1,000,002 (U20804)
posted 48 seconds ago
The concept of the nation state is about 200 years old.
-

You mean the period of history when more progress was made than in even thousands of years that proceeded it?

Get to the back of queue. Thanks for playing

Next!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👏Well played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever heard of the Great Pyramids in Cairo,Egypt built circa 5,000 years ago,that we still couldn't build with the same precision today?

Could'nt build pyramids with the same precision today.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Isn’t the United Kingdom of GB and NI an example of integration?

It comprises of 4 countries, and along with Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, and IoM, share a common travel area.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I’d argue there are many people in the UK do not have shared values.

People from the far edges of the political spectrum, different religious, social, backgrounds etc etc. Yet, much like the EU, these different countries and societies, with diverse antiquity live in relative harmony (all things considered).

In regard to the EU the TEU, much like Westminster, is based on democratically approved treaties by all member states.

https://europa.eu/european-union/law/treaties_en

It’s also worth noting the EU electoral system (proportional representation) is far more democratic than the (first past the post) system used in the UK.

Which is why Ukip were able to elect 24 MEPS to the European parliament, and have only ever had one MP (Carswell who defected from the Tories) despite millions of UK citizens voting Ukip.

Thanks to proportional representation, the EU parliament accommodates a vast array of political views. From ACRE (right leaning) to the ALDE (left) to right-wing populists like the MENF. Who have MEPs from all over Europe (France, Italy, Belgium to name three).

How is this not integration?

A consensual, shared cultural union of people with similar values.
.......................

Really?

Scottish Nationlists would disagree.

More Scottish constituencies voted SNP in the last 2 GE than all the others combined. More SNP MSPs than all the rest combined, their raison d'etre the break up of the UK.

comment by Always NPE - 1,000,002 (U20804)
posted 13 hours ago
Or, you could choose to look only at the post-war period, which has seen far more rapid - and increasing - rates of scientific and technological advancement thanks largely to the ever increasing influence of globalisation - academic, public and private cross-border collaboration; information and resource-sharing; freedom of movement of capital and labour, etc.

--

Which equals support for forced political union and anti democracy? Or instead proof that continuing enlightenment ideas and recognising we should make the most of the concept of nation states and relegate fantasies?

Keep trying buddy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't need to keep trying. I'm comfortable with my knowledge of and opinion on the matter. Yours is your business.

Whether you choose to give due consideration to the consensus amongst the academic community or not is your prerogative.

And if you are, I'd recommend the Noah Harari's accessible and excellent writing on the anthropocene - history, trends, the unification of human kind and the future of human civilisation - and particularly about the importance of the cognitive revolution and the arrow of human history.

We are heading in a very clear direction in terms of cooperation and collaboration, peace, the open transfer of knowledge and material goods, and the sharing of cultural ideas, trends and indeed standards.