EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[L00b]

Perhaps there is no consensus outside the EU that additional regulation in this area is wise.

Perhaps indeed.

 

Whence situations as e.g. in the US per tzijlstra's link above endure outside the EU

[unbeliever]

No, there is no framework in place to implement additional regulation. It is as simple as that. Your position on this is thoroughly flawed and frankly indefensible.

 

Explain then where the rest of international law and cross-border law in general came from.

[tzijlstra]

Most people don't spend their holidays constantly checking their phone. That's why they go on holiday to get away from all that.

 

There is a strong possibility that someone on holiday in the EU will meet someone foreign. In fact I would say its impossible and slightly bonkers to go to a foreign country and not want to meet foreigners...

 

I don't know if you ever met someone who is abroad for business, but they exist. In fact, the majority of travel is work-related. And they do spend a lot of time on their phone, it is part of their job.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2016 at 13:07 ----------

 

Explain then where the rest of international law and cross-border law in general came from.

 

There is absolutely no onus on me to explain that at all. The onus is on you to explain why these malpractices still occur on a global level despite the existence (in your mind) of suitable frameworks to combat it.

[unbeliever]

I don't know if you ever met someone who is abroad for business, but they exist. In fact, the majority of travel is work-related. And they do spend a lot of time on their phone, it is part of their job.

 

So it is those people. Largely professional and on above average salaries which will benefit from this law. And it may (yet to be seen) lead to an increase in charges for other mobile services which are used by everybody down to the lowest incomes.

Glad we've finally established that.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2016 at 13:09 ----------

 

 

There is absolutely no onus on me to explain that at all. The onus is on you to explain why these malpractices still occur on a global level despite the existence (in your mind) of suitable frameworks to combat it.

 

Malpractice is a very strong word. It's a transparent contract. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it immoral.

[tzijlstra]

So it is those people. Largely professional and on above average salaries which will benefit from this law. And it may (yet to be seen) lead to an increase in charges for other mobile services which are used by everybody down to the lowest incomes.

Glad we've finally established that.

We haven't established anything other than that you are looking for rather pathetic excuses to talk down the impact of this ruling, simply because it is EU ruling and therefore by default bad in your opinion.

[L00b]

Explain then where the rest of international law and cross-border law in general came from.

Talk about whattaboutery! Come on now, unbeliever.

 

International law and cross-border law "in general" as it exists right this minute, is the result of decades and, in some fields (e.g. maritime law) centuries of earlier topic- or field-specific international, bilateral, multilateral <etc.> treaties, agreements and other instruments between two, three or more countries and other supranational groups over time.

 

Take the EU currently: it can trace its origins directly in the ECSC of 1951 (which I briefly mentioned above), it did not just materialise when the UK acceded in 1973, and it has changed a lot since, and it continues to change. Same with most other international law and cross-border law "in general".

 

In that context, mobiles and roaming charges just 'appeared yesterday'. They're an inconsequential side-show, relative to more fundamental treaties and agreements such as the WTO, the Treaty of Rome <etc.>...but, in its own little way, the 2016 EU Directive about roaming fees is itself such a tidbit of international law: it applies to 28 countries.

Edited May 3, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

We haven't established anything other than that you are looking for rather pathetic excuses to talk down the impact of this ruling, simply because it is EU ruling and therefore by default bad in your opinion.

 

It's just not my style.

Thing too expensive: make law to make it cheaper. I'm automatically suspicious. I've also ranted about Labour's talk of rent control and other similar measures from their last manifesto.

I'm of the opinion that this sort of market manipulation always does more harm than good. Doesn't help that it's from the EU of course.

[L00b]

It's just not my style.

You're putting me this >< close of calling bull, because-

Thing too expensive: make law to make it cheaper.

-that's a gross and quite self-serving oversimplification here, and I daresay you know it: the crucial bit which you missed from the dumbo-level analogy, is the international aspect of the 'thing'.

 

Roaming fees only arise out of cross-border use, and sovereign countries (e.g. France or Germany) cannot legislate fees which overseas operators (e.g. Vodafone UK) charge their customers (in the UK) for calls made whilst visiting (-France or Germany).

 

You need a framework for all 3 countries of my example to regulate or ban roaming fees in each: either a tripartite ('international') agreement about roaming fees (DE, FR and UK all sign on the dotted line) or, if the 3 countries are already part of a trading club (such as the EU), then new club rules about roaming fees.

 

In the overall context of the thread, what many Brexiters are continuously refusing to acknowledge, are the practical consequences which a Brexit would have in respect of many such international treaties, to which the UK is a party (and the benefits of which the UK enjoys) only by virtue of its EU membership. I've already touched on these in a few posts in my professional context, there are very many more. And no practical plan or solution in sight by the Brexit camp.

 

You can take that as a partisan opinion all you want, all I'm doing is stating objective facts: Brexit = no more protection under, nor any direct access to the EU trademarks and designs system; no more direct access to the international design system; all resulting in loss of revenue (and tax income to No.11) for UK professionals and increased costs for UK applicants (work, income and associated tax-take will go directly to EU competitors/countries).

 

I'm waiting for a plan or solution for the Brexit camp, so I can tell my clients what's the UK plan if Brexit, to try and keep the work in the UK rather than see it walk out the door to France or Germany. So, Brexiters...let's hear it. You've got 1 month. Tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc...

Edited May 3, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

You're putting me this >< close of calling bull, because-

-that's a gross and quite self-serving oversimplification here, and I daresay you know it: the crucial bit which you missed from the dumbo-level analogy, is the international aspect of the 'thing'.

 

Roaming fees only arise out of cross-border use, and sovereign countries (e.g. France or Germany) cannot legislate fees which overseas operators (e.g. Vodafone UK) charge their customers (in the UK) for calls made whilst visiting (-France or Germany).

 

 

So there is national legislation in each country capping the prices for domestic mobile services? Or the threat of such capping is the only thing keeping prices low?

If so, I had no idea. Why has competition failed to keep prices under control in this service when it has succeeded in so many others?

Is there evidence of illegal collusion and/or other anti-competitive activity in the industry?

[tzijlstra]

It's just not my style.

Thing too expensive: make law to make it cheaper. I'm automatically suspicious. I've also ranted about Labour's talk of rent control and other similar measures from their last manifesto.

I'm of the opinion that this sort of market manipulation always does more harm than good. Doesn't help that it's from the EU of course.

 

This isn't rent control, this is an open market authority enforcing equal accessibility to the services provided by carriers throughout the EU because they were previously overcharging ridiculous amounts for a service that is no more expensive to deliver in Hungary than it is in the UK. It really is that simple.