Modern mov files are just mp4 containers.
18 karma · joined June 22, 2018
That's what the media like to repeat, but I would suggest that you ignore them and take a broader view.
Reality is that both the UK and EU government failed to keep the population happy and continuously messed up. So much so, that the majority of people voted to leave the EU as they were discontent with their current situation. As someone who lives in the UK is that very little really has changed yet pre-brexit and post-brexit. It turns out outside of some temporary instabilities, things aren't doom and gloom. They're still crap like before though.
The only place where housing was really affordable in the UK was in Northern Ireland and sure enough, it's still very affordable in Northern Ireland.
General rule for getting on the housing ladder in the UK is the best time to buy was yesterday, the next best is now. Even if the housing market has a price crisis. It will never return to pricing to match up a decade ago; so don't live a fantasy waiting for it.
I don't have to worry for my life walking on a pavement that in the next moment a cyclist may decide to go on the pavement because there is a red light on the road at full speed, or almost knock me over, going across a zebra crossing when the light is green for pedestrians. Cyclists in London seem to think they can go regardless and no rule applies to them.
It wouldn't be too surprising in such a circumstance that they don't particularly feel safer with bike lanes.
I don't think this is a numbers issue.
In the EU, we pay VAT on practically everything, so, US prices are still cheaper with credit cards etc.
To add to your point further, the Good Friday agreement (which brought some peace in Northern Ireland) actually is supposed to bind the UK to the ECHR.
The examples provided on your link are Galileo, business investment and huamnitarian crises, terrorism and security threats. To be honest, these aren't very good examples from my understanding.
With Galileo, I'm not sure why leaving it to the ESA exclusively instead of this shared setup with the EU is better or more 'efficient'.
For business investments, the EU has caused some of the very problems they are "investing in", including making farmers and fisheries dependent on grants to operate or just go out of business. The imposed VAT rates and conditions cause less spending that lead to very situations that require this to start up in such an environment. With more self autonomy, governments could look to more effectively focus on industries that are more effective for their geography and avoid much of the red tape that prevents these industries from being viable. This does not seem efficient to me.
EU's recent history on humantarian, crises and threats has shown it is lacking significantly.
Let's take Greece for example, if Greece were operating independently, it would have been allowed to withdraw from the Euro (which it was prevented from doing so), moving to it's own currency and then devalue it's currency over the period of some years which would increase external investment into the country, floating the country's economy and returning it's economy to normality, not unlike other countries that suffered a financial crisis not too long ago, such as Iceland. Instead, they are just funding Greece with no working plan for recovery, while driving other countries into debt to support it. This does not seem efficient to me.
The EU completely failed to manage and appropriately deal with the refugee crisis and economic migrant crisis on the EU level despite it being there. It was a significant waste of money and then, to further the pain, it tried to take the work off it self by paying Turkey to deal with it; which is now blackmailing the EU into providing further funds. This is not efficient and I think the ECHR should really get more involved in this matter.
Regarding threats, the EU gave a lot of promises and love to Ukraine, annoyed the Russian bear which now occupies half the country.
> the admin overhead for the budget is about 6%
I'm not seeing the value in return, sorry.
Greece actually campaigned for it and the EU imposed more austerity instead.
The European Convention on Human Rights is not an EU institution. The EU has had problems causing conflict with it, such as with the European Arrest Warrant.
> When the stability of the Euro has been at stake, rules always take second-place.
And when the Euro isn't at stake either, after all, they integrated Greece when it failed the checks and balances, pushing it through anyway.
If I was a non-UK but EU business, I may even consider moving off .eu sooner rather than later (assuming they actually did this to the UK)... If I was a new business, I'd probably avoid .eu altogether.
What do you think?
When I said "reduced economic activity in the EU", I mean as a whole. This is an over simplfiication, but imagine a situation where everything is 20% more expensive than the normal asking price, this leads to less purchases being made as a whole. It doesn't matter if you're purchasing from outside the EU too, because it's still 20% more expensive. The overall economic activity in such an area is simply reduced.
The trade numbers simply are the way they are because importing doesn't really reduce the costs either. It should also be noted that exporting products outside of the EU has additional fees that make us less competitive than the alternatives outside of the EU too, so our exports are impacted too.
It doesn't really matter how many trade deals or what the trade deals are when VAT, import fees are applied in such a way to equalize the costs of external trade, to the point there isn't much benefit of trading with outside the EU unless they're some how able to significantly reduce costs or pioneer an industry that doesn't exist in the EU.
Even with just the UK utiliziling only the WTO (which the UK has no control over in the EU), the UK could stand to get better trading with the rest of the world than it can within the EU. But, this is not just because it can set the WTO rates.
The UK is not obligated to apply VAT and other fees after it leaves the EU on any imports and it doesn't have to be concerned about applying protectionism in industries that don't even exist in the UK.
> Protectionism is what we like to think of as standards. It improves lives in Europe.
I'm not really sure about which standards you're talking about, but I'll take a couple of the earliest and longest implemented standards that the EU requires, something that Greenland left over in the beginning.
The standards of the common agriculture policy and the common fisheries policies that the UK farming and fishing industires have been lobbying to fix for multiple decades has only lead to the destruction of environments, forcing farmers on quotas who then can't sell their products being forced to then depend on EU subsidies and grants to operate, it has lead to the destruction of much of the industry in the UK which in turn has made in particular, numerous farming and fishing towns become welfare dependent... It's been over 20 years of consistent failing to address these issues.
The worst part of this all is that these issues were completely avoidable, the EU and UK could have actually solved these problems and not let the situation deteriorate to the point that people have become that unhappy that they just want out. I am interested though to hear an opposing view how this improved lives in Europe.
The EU has a history of being really slow at negotiating trade deals unfortunately.
Further, the EU enforces VAT fees and implements protectionism with these methods to favour EU-based businesses, even when no EU competitors exist. These fees have a trendency to reduce economic activity within the EU and prevent cheaper alterantives from outside of the EU being effective as they end up becoming a similar prices or more expensive when the customs fees are applied (despite trying to pass on the savings from signficantly lower production/service costs with less gross income than an EU company which results in a similarly priced product that the customer sees).
Even with a worse trade deal than the EU, the UK can stand to benefit because it won't be required to tack expensive fees on top for the purposes of protectionism of industries that may not even be in the UK to begin with.
I think you're wilfully ignoring what has been happening in Ireland, Greece, France and Italy in recent years.
Gamespy and Steam's multiplayer system already did that for free.
> a lot of benefits were realized including centralizing your multiplayer experience (community and content)
Again, same thing.
> not having to maintain multiple subscriptions for different game services
I never needed to ever, except for MMOs, which I was still required to pay for on XBL at the time.
> That is and was worth the premium
No it wasn't, the fact you had to play multiplayer hosted on your own console, hosted on your own internet connection, by software you already bought is ridiculous. They offered "free updates", community features and other services completely free. But, multiplayer, the only thing most of us wanted and none of this "value add", you had to pay.