The directive covers cross border payments. When you buy something online from France, it is the French online retailer's payment processor who might impose the charge. This brings us back to consumer protection. How do you know that "Consumers just see a price and choose whether to pay it"? How do you know that UK tourists using an atm in Spain know what charges and rate are being used?

As is typical of the anti-European brexiter, you completely ignore the major advantages and transparency of a Single Market initiative and pick up on minor apparent disadvantages. I remember when roaming charges were abolished, anti European types howling that "they will just put the charges up".

How do you think the size of population and demographic that benefits from this because they travel regularly, and the size of the financial impact to those people, compares to the population and demographic that is bearing the increased costs on cash transactions?

As is typical of pro EU remainer, you are ignoring the costs and risks of this method of government to the broader population, and pick up on minor convenience benefits for a wealthy middle class niche and business owning elite

You still refuse to get it. You seem to believe that we're going to be charged an extra 50p when we pop round to the corner shop to buy toothpaste with cash.

Incidentally the cost of handling cash - banking it, additional insurance costs for robbery and employee theft risks - is included in the price that non cash payers pay. It just isn't transparent.

Anyway, instead of simply passing on card charges to consumers, businesses will actually have to manage this as a cost by actively looking for cheaper solutions. If they don't they will lose business to rivals who do. I can't see how that is bad.

Also it is noteworthy that you think that the Single Market simply applies to
"a wealthy middle class niche and business owning elite".

No, I thought that the benefits you mentioned of avoiding inconsistent ATM charges when travelling across Europe applies to this group. Obviously the full range of costs and benefits can be wider reaching.

Are the current national borders the ideal country size? Why not split up existing nations so you can be an even bigger part of the electorate? Then we can have even more experiments. Let's start with an independent Scotland and Wales, and Cornwall while we are at it, with their different cultures and language and all.
We could keep splitting until we are back to medieval city states.

Calm down. AlexDb explains his view, and countering by straw manning a hysterical extreme the other way doesn't seem a good argument supporting ever increasing state sizes with ever reducing democracy to me. If you don't think you were doing that, then okay, I can play that game - shouldn't your world view mean we should just have one world government, and that any smaller unit (like the EU) is contrary to the best model, the one world government model?

Personally, leaving nations the size they are seems perfectly reasonable, rather than subsuming them in some experiment to see what happens when we cram states into one lump (like the previous experiments of the USSR and Yugoslavia)

Yep. Do you see why?

Catalonia disagrees.

Sigh

Okay, I change previous point to

Yep, mostly. DUCY?

OK, if those populations want to.

Sure, if they want to.

I think you'll find that countries that have been stable for a long period are that way from a kind of natural selection that suggested that the cultural ties among citizens are sufficient to hold that nation together across a range of historical scenarios.

I agree that might not apply to Spain.

Your small trading nation city-state idea is linked to a serious theory.

What makes you think that the current borders at this specific point in time are somehow (mostly) optimal until the end of times?

Global dynamics change and our governmental structures may need adjustment over time, they are not set in stone. Country sizes that may have been fine 50 years ago can become suboptimal at a later time. Do you disagree with any of this?

I don't disagree.

I disagree with the assumption merging into larger homogenous political units is the best course for countries as a rote fact.

It may suit two countries or areas to merge maybe at points, just as it may suit a country to break into two or more units at other times.

It may suit the odd areas here and there, but every country in Europe? Pffft

His many times do we have to see countries forced into an artificial confederation to become a single political unit, only to see a way down the line it fall apart in acrimony, before it's clear such forced statehood is a bad idea?

The only examples you have are countries forced together as a result of war. Italy is still together, so is the USA and Germany. Nobody is forcing countries to join the EU. They even let you leave without acrimony if your population is dumb enough to think that is a better. option.

The current national borders are optimal because the current borders are optimal.

DB logic.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Wessex should declare it's independence.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

countries should generally be smaller but cooperate on more stuff internationally.

anyway, this brexit thing is incredibly boring. any chance we can get berlusconi involved in it soon?

I think the USA currently demonstrates the disadvantages quite well.

Of what, being a large nation?

Yes, massive inequality, lots of nonsense politics and perverse incentives for business.

Wow, you are really doing that. You are really putting forward the idea that the USA is a good example for smaller countries tending to perform better as the USA is historically such a failure compared to smaller countries. That is quite the hot take.

Of course most countries are optimal size given history, geography, culture etc, otherwise they'd be different.

I realise some people need that explaining, but most intelligent people get that completely without being pandered to

For once I hope Farage still has some influence.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...kill-off-issue

You really need to define "optimal" size if you want to peddle this line. On the face of it that statement is just insane.

It sounds like you may be defining words in such a way as to make the statement a meaningless tautology, then questioning the intelligence of others who are assuming that the statement actually has meaning.

At first I assumed that he must be strangely confident of the result he wants, perhaps confident that the UK won't stop even more Russian interference etc, but looking at the comments of others it's far more likely that the self absorbed weasel just wants to remain relevant for a little longer.

You define it, you're the one whining about a definition