That is not to minimise the problem that there is a lot of dubious argument and bad information out there in the first place but there is a redress to it. Lord Woolmer of Leeds 104. In one or two places you appear to be saying, and I would not want to put words in your mouth, that perhaps one of your principal concerns is that where there are regulations, not specifically aimed at e-commerce and the Net and so on, but about employment, about taxation and so on, your desire would be that at least they were consistent and harmonised rather than getting into a great deal of argument about whether taxes should be lower or higher, but whatever they were it is much more important that they are harmonised. I think I would be very disappointed if harmonisation went upward. In general, assuming that you do not manage uniquely to capture the worst of every jurisdiction, harmonisation is at least as important as, if not more important than, any specific inclusion.
Harmonisation is predictability.
It is the ability to know what you are going to do, understand what the set of issues and problems is and do it, move fast. One has always for a long time been able to find out where one can get medicines outside your own jurisdiction, if you work hard enough at it, and you could probably get somebody to send it to you, but what the Web does is enable you very easily, very quickly, very cheaply, to find out that information. It is not that there has been a change in the various legal relationships except that your access to the information and the number of people who access it is very much cheaper and hence more widespread. You would seek to prevent those coming across the border. For example, I am sure the Chinese can find out where they can buy medicines from America, but getting them into their homes in China would be regulated by the Chinese authorities in the way in which they have always been.