On 30/10/13 18:22, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/10/13 15:00, Tim Streater wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:38:49 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:
Would that be the same Scotland who'll have no option but to sign
up to the Euro and Schengen if they wish to rejoin the EU (which the
SNP've sworn they will do)?

But these UKIP voters won't get that. They'll get Ed Millibroon and Co
if they vote UKIP.

they will get Ed Millibroon and Co if they dont vote UKIP

Or the equally pointless Camerdribble.

It is really a no brainer. Vote kip with a 20:1 shot of making a
difference, don't vote UKIP and 100% chance that nothing changes.

It is really a no brainer. Vote UKIP, get Ed Millibroon and *no* EU
referendum. Vote Tory, get Cameron and an EU Referendum. It's the only
option. Otherwise you guarantee that you /don't/ get a referendum.


"Vote Tory, get Cameron and an EU Referendum"

I dont do faith Tim..

I voted cameron last time and no referendum. No repeal of fox huntung
ban. No bonfire of the quangos.

All we got was a liberal democrat energy policy.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Not a member, and no intention of becoming one ...

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:41:44 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

Suspect away dear boy, it's all the same to me. Link? Try:

http://www.twitter.com
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 30/10/13 19:32, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/10/13 18:22, Tim Streater wrote:

"Vote Tory, get Cameron and an EU Referendum"

I dont do faith Tim..

I voted cameron last time and no referendum. No repeal of fox huntung
ban. No bonfire of the quangos.

All we got was a liberal democrat energy policy.

There was no referendum because the Treaty had already been signed (by
one G. Brown). The referendum was going to ask "should we sign this?",
making any promise *not* to sign it a bit moot.

weasel

Reneging on Treaties
can be done, but would seriously harm your rep if done too often. From
abroad, Mr J. Foreigner is not interested in the subtleties of who is
running Britain, he just sees a sudden reversal of a recently
entered-into agreement and wonders WTF is going on. Rather easier if
you haven't signed the thing.

double reverse ferret

As for the rest, well the country is run by what is known as a
"Coalition". That rather limits what can be achieved in government.

weak
I
don't like coalitions - they are unnecessary because any political
party is almost certainly *already* a coalition. And, by definition,
whatever was promised before the election goes into the rubbish bin.
You have to start from scratch and the resulting agreement, manifesto
if you like, is born from negotiation between the parties. That of
course is another reason to dislike coalitions, because the platform
you are then forced to govern on is not something anyone had a chance
to see, and use to decide how to vote, before the election took place.
So the electorate is bound to feel deceived. But that's no reason to
sulk and go off and vote for some loonies, or to accuse Cameron (or
indeed Clegg, which some of his supporters are doing) of deceit. What
you do is work for a majority government the next time.


So the price of the coalition is a liberal democrat government?

Weak, weak, and weak.

No balls, no leadership, no political risks, nada = conservative vote
wasted.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:32:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I voted cameron last time and no referendum.

There was no referendum because the Treaty had already been signed (by
one G. Brown). The referendum was going to ask "should we sign this?",
making any promise *not* to sign it a bit moot.

weasel

It's so easy to ignore reality with a throw-away insult, isn't it?

AFAICR, some years ago I was the first major poster here to mention in
a major thread that population levels are a problem.

The difference is that I don't distinguish between immigration from
different sources - I don't care whether someone wants to come here
from the EU, or Australia, Canada, US, etc. AFAIAC the country is
full and the sign says "No Vacancies" to all, no matter how educated,
distinguished, skilled, or talented, and regardless of race, creed, or
religion.

Boat people are not from within Europe, so there is every reason to
repatriate them at the first opportunity.

Much illegal immigration into this country happens with the connivance
of business, because it can exploit such people more easily than the
native born population, as has been seen from various news stories
such as the drownings in Morecambe Bay. This in turn leads to the
involvement of criminal gangs, perhaps even organised crime, with gang
leaders skimming wages, etc. Employers in the country should be
prepared to pay legal minimum wages to native residents, with fines
too awful to comtemplate if found conniving in illegal activity.

If migrant workers here on temporary work permits become unemployed,
AIUI there is no reason they shouldn't immediately be repatriated,
even if from within the EU, and if I'm wrong about that, then that is
something that needs to be changed, but it's not a reason to leave the
EU.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:23:48 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

Already happened, but that's too hard for hayseeds like JJ to
understand.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:32:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

So the price of the coalition is a liberal democrat government?

Since nobody had a majority, the alternative would have been another
election. Or a minority government.

TBH, given the situation a couple of years ago, I went into the election
thinking a blue/yellow coalition would have been the best outcome. Labour
deserved to lose, and lose heavily. They'd left an absolute poisoned
chalice for whoever replaced them, that really did need both the other
parties to pull together rather than fight over it.

I don't think the opprobrium that's been heaped on Clegg over it all has
been remotely fair. They're very much the minority partner. The main
character deserving of opprobrium has been Cable, who's proven petulant.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:42:34 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

Employers in the country should be prepared to pay legal minimum wages
to native residents

To all _legal_ employees, regardless of origin.

If migrant workers here on temporary work permits become unemployed,
AIUI there is no reason they shouldn't immediately be repatriated, even
if from within the EU, and if I'm wrong about that, then that is
something that needs to be changed, but it's not a reason to leave the
EU.

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the EU is
freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it was the exact
same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a "common market", a
single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes a mockery of the whole
concept.

On 30/10/13 21:38, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:32:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I voted cameron last time and no referendum.

There was no referendum because the Treaty had already been signed (by
one G. Brown). The referendum was going to ask "should we sign this?",
making any promise *not* to sign it a bit moot.

weasel

It's so easy to ignore reality with a throw-away insult, isn't it?

It's so easy to break promises with a throwaway excuse, isnt it?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

AFAIAA, there is no evidence that politicians are stupider than the
rest of the country - greedier, very possibly; more corrupt, very
possibly; more vain, very possibly; short term thinkers, very
possibly; but stupider, no - for example compare the level of debate
in both Houses with that here; unfortunately, we come out worse.

And still you seem oblivious to the fact that your post one exchange
up thread is irrelevant to my previous point to which it purported to
be a reply. But hey, that's your problem, not mine.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:09:11 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

But the fact that you've asked that shows that you've completely
missed the point I was making ... again.

Best for the country in whose opinion?
I think the collective mind of the population is far ahead of stupid
politicians.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:14:36 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

We would be able to deport foreign criminals for a start.

We can do so now.

We would not have all these stupid regulations for another.

We'd have other equivalent regulations.

We wouldn't have the expense of all this EU crap and basket case ex commie
countries to support

Harry, just for once, disengage bigotry, engage brain. There is no
evidence at all for this pathetic assertion. For example in 2007, the
only "basket case ex commie country" to receive more EU funding than
the UK was Poland; each of the rest received less than half of what we
did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm

Not to mention them coming over here taking jobs, accommodation, education
and public facilities.

Answered elsewhere. If businesses didn't employ them they wouldn't
come, and that applies to legal as well as illegal immigrants. The
problem is the businesses who employ them.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 30/10/2013 21:46, Adrian wrote:

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the EU is
freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it was the exact
same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a "common market", a
single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes a mockery of the whole
concept.

But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict benefits
for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same situation in
the foreigner's country of origin.

--
Roger Chapman

On 30/10/2013 22:15, Java Jive wrote:

We wouldn't have the expense of all this EU crap and basket case ex commie
countries to support

Harry, just for once, disengage bigotry, engage brain. There is no
evidence at all for this pathetic assertion. For example in 2007, the
only "basket case ex commie country" to receive more EU funding than
the UK was Poland; each of the rest received less than half of what we
did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm

Talk about being economical with the truth. JJ conveniently ignores that
part of the BBC report which shows the way in which the EU is funded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm

'Spending' will take you to the report cited by JJ.

'Payments' 'Net contribution' (or net by population) shows that for
once Harry has a point although he ignores the fact that the biggest
pain in the wallet are not the East Europeans but Greece and Portugal
and also the biggest free loaders of all who are the Irish who have a
gdp per capita higher than that of the UK.
--
Roger Chapman

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
AFAICR, some years ago I was the first major poster here to mention in
a major thread that population levels are a problem.

The difference is that I don't distinguish between immigration from
different sources - I don't care whether someone wants to come here
from the EU, or Australia, Canada, US, etc. AFAIAC the country is
full and the sign says "No Vacancies" to all, no matter how educated,
distinguished, skilled, or talented, and regardless of race, creed, or
religion.

Boat people are not from within Europe, so there is every reason to
repatriate them at the first opportunity.

Much illegal immigration into this country happens with the connivance
of business, because it can exploit such people more easily than the
native born population, as has been seen from various news stories
such as the drownings in Morecambe Bay. This in turn leads to the
involvement of criminal gangs, perhaps even organised crime, with gang
leaders skimming wages, etc. Employers in the country should be
prepared to pay legal minimum wages to native residents, with fines
too awful to comtemplate if found conniving in illegal activity.

If migrant workers here on temporary work permits become unemployed,
AIUI there is no reason they shouldn't immediately be repatriated,
even if from within the EU, and if I'm wrong about that, then that is
something that needs to be changed, but it's not a reason to leave the
EU.

Quite right.
But we need to get our own idle gits off their arses first.

The socialists like immigration because they think they are importing
voters.
The Tories like immigration because it's cheap labour.

And f**k our own people.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:42:34 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

Employers in the country should be prepared to pay legal minimum wages
to native residents

To all _legal_ employees, regardless of origin.

If migrant workers here on temporary work permits become unemployed,
AIUI there is no reason they shouldn't immediately be repatriated, even
if from within the EU, and if I'm wrong about that, then that is
something that needs to be changed, but it's not a reason to leave the
EU.

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the EU is
freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it was the exact
same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a "common market", a
single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes a mockery of the whole
concept.

Goods yes, people no.

And it became stupid when they let the basket cases in.
Obvious they were going to flock to the nicer places bringing all their
crap/issues with them.

Obvious too that criminals would move to new territories with fresh pickings
where they were unknown.

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
AFAIAA, there is no evidence that politicians are stupider than the
rest of the country - greedier, very possibly; more corrupt, very
possibly; more vain, very possibly; short term thinkers, very
possibly; but stupider, no - for example compare the level of debate
in both Houses with that here; unfortunately, we come out worse.

And still you seem oblivious to the fact that your post one exchange
up thread is irrelevant to my previous point to which it purported to
be a reply. But hey, that's your problem, not mine.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:09:11 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

But the fact that you've asked that shows that you've completely
missed the point I was making ... again.

Best for the country in whose opinion?
I think the collective mind of the population is far ahead of stupid
politicians.

Well if you'd stop your stupid top posting there'd be a lot less confusion.

If politicians eren't stupid we wouldn't be whee we are with electricty, the
economy , society, immigration etc etc.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/10/13 15:00, Tim Streater wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:38:49 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:
Would that be the same Scotland who'll have no option but to sign
up to the Euro and Schengen if they wish to rejoin the EU (which the
SNP've sworn they will do)?

But these UKIP voters won't get that. They'll get Ed Millibroon and Co
if they vote UKIP.

they will get Ed Millibroon and Co if they dont vote UKIP

Or the equally pointless Camerdribble.

It is really a no brainer. Vote kip with a 20:1 shot of making a
difference, don't vote UKIP and 100% chance that nothing changes.

It is really a no brainer. Vote UKIP, get Ed Millibroon and *no* EU
referendum. Vote Tory, get Cameron and an EU Referendum. It's the only
option. Otherwise you guarantee that you /don't/ get a referendum.


CMD is a liar.
He will get no concessions.
He will try to wriggle out of a referendum.
If there is one, it will be the wrong question.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:16:34 +0000, harryagain wrote:

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the EU
is freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it was the
exact same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a "common
market", a single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes a mockery
of the whole concept.

Goods yes, people no.

Wrong. It was explicitly within the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:09:14 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the EU
is freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it was the
exact same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a "common
market", a single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes a mockery
of the whole concept.

But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict benefits
for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same situation in
the foreigner's country of origin.

That's exactly what happens.

It's a very simple concept.

Somebody in country X gets treated exactly the same, whether they're a
"local" or originally from another EU country.

So, yes, a Brit in country X DOES get treated exactly the same as a
local.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:18:21 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

He will get no concessions.

If you mean Cameron and negotiating improvements to the EU, then I
suspect you're probably right.

I seem to recall him getting some very substantial concessions a little
while back.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:20:08 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the
EU is freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it
was the exact same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a
"common market", a single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes
a mockery of the whole concept.

But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict
benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same
situation in the foreigner's country of origin.

That's exactly what happens.

It's a very simple concept.

Somebody in country X gets treated exactly the same, whether they're
a "local" or originally from another EU country.

So, yes, a Brit in country X DOES get treated exactly the same as a
local.

That's the exact opposite of what Roger just said.

No, it really isn't. Roger called for equality of treatment. That's
equality of treatment.

"restrict benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the
same situation in the foreigner's country of origin". That's exactly what
happens. The recipient of a benefit gets the rate paid locally. Just the
same as a Brit would get in the other country.

Of course, what Roger might have _meant_ is that somebody who happens to
be British should be entitled to the full British whack wherever in the
EU they happen to live...? After all, they're British, dammit, so
inherently superior.

****ing hell, just watch Europe get tipped upside-down in the rush to
move around. All those Scandis on high benefits'd be straight to the
cheap-to-live warm countries, followed straight away by half of Britain.
Which, of course, would leave **** all "locals" to fill jobs here.

On 30/10/2013 22:41, Tim Streater wrote:

[1] Except of course the Libs reneged on boundary changes and reducing
the number of MPs (so much for "fairness", eh). I think Cameron should
have called their bluff on that one.

None so blind as them that will not see. What would you expect when the
Tories had already torpedoed the quid pro quo of Lords reform - roll
over and play doormat?
--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:52:36 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

That's the exact opposite of what Roger just said.

No, it really isn't. Roger called for equality of treatment. That's
equality of treatment.

"restrict benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the
same situation in the foreigner's country of origin". That's exactly
what happens. The recipient of a benefit gets the rate paid locally.
Just the same as a Brit would get in the other country.

Of course, what Roger might have _meant_ is that somebody who happens
to be British should be entitled to the full British whack wherever in
the EU they happen to live...? After all, they're British, dammit, so
inherently superior.

I don't recall him mentioning what the Brits might get in those other
countries.

What Roger _really_ said...
But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict
benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same
situation in the foreigner's country of origin.

****ing hell, just watch Europe get tipped upside-down in the rush to
move around. All those Scandis on high benefits'd be straight to the
cheap-to-live warm countries, followed straight away by half of
Britain. Which, of course, would leave **** all "locals" to fill jobs
here.

And of course who would fund it.

Quite.

No, what anyone not in their own country should get in terms of
benefits is the lower of the local rate and what they'd get at home.

Not every EU country has _any_ unemployment or pension at all...

That would stop all this benefit tourism business (assuming it exists).

It doesn't. Isn't it odd that, a quarter of a century ago, a big-name
right-wing Tory was calling for people to "get on their bike" and go and
chase jobs, rather than waiting for them to come to them. Now, it appears
that's a _bad_ thing in the eyes of the right-wing of the Tory party...

If somebody's willing to get off their arse and turn their life upside-
down in a bid to earn money and change their family's lot, fair play to
'em. Does it really matter if they're going from Inverness, Kerry, or
Gdansk to London?

On 31/10/2013 08:32, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:09:14 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the EU
is freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it was the
exact same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a "common
market", a single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes a mockery
of the whole concept.

But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict benefits
for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same situation in
the foreigner's country of origin.

That's exactly what happens.

No it isn't. The foreigner in the UK is likely to get much better
benefits from the state than the Brit in a foreign land.

It's a very simple concept.

Somebody in country X gets treated exactly the same, whether they're a
"local" or originally from another EU country.

So, yes, a Brit in country X DOES get treated exactly the same as a
local.

I don't think that is actually true but since I have never been in the
situation where I have needed state aid from a foreign power I won't
argue the point.



--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:03:49 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict
benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same
situation in the foreigner's country of origin.

That's exactly what happens.

No it isn't. The foreigner in the UK is likely to get much better
benefits from the state than the Brit in a foreign land.

They will get the local rate. To do otherwise would be illegal.

It's a very simple concept.

Somebody in country X gets treated exactly the same, whether they're
a "local" or originally from another EU country.

So, yes, a Brit in country X DOES get treated exactly the same as a
local.

I don't think that is actually true but since I have never been in the
situation where I have needed state aid from a foreign power I won't
argue the point.

It's one of the most basic tenets of the EU that a state cannot treat a
national differently to a national of another EU state, with the
exception of a few specific cases - mainly national security related.

Free movement of people, remember? Treaty of Rome, 1957. In place when we
joined the EEC in 1975.

The perceived problem comes in the UK having, for example, one of the
very best and most generous health systems anywhere. Most other EU
countries, health is not free at the point of provision. So should the UK
remove or restrict that (for all, remember)?

On 31/10/13 08:31, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:16:34 +0000, harryagain wrote:

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the EU
is freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it was the
exact same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a "common
market", a single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes a mockery
of the whole concept.

Goods yes, people no.

Wrong. It was explicitly within the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

this is a good history

http://www.jamescarver.org.uk/blog.php?id=11

"The Treaty of Rome in 1957.

This set up the European Economic Community (EEC), known as the Common
Market. The Common Market sounds like economic co-operation only, but
the treaty set up all the machinery of a single superstate, including a
Council of Ministers, an executive Commission, a Parliament, a legal
system based on continental law and headed by a European Court of
Justice, a Central Bank and a tax system called VAT. There was also a
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), although Fishing was not yet included.
There was no way of changing any parts of the treaty unless all
signatories agreed to do so.

The European Court of Justice was set up to give judgements which must
always be in favour of closer political union. This court had little to
do with €œJustice€� and much to do with €œIntegration€�. It should have,
more accurately, been called the European Court of Integration.

This treaty, and all the others following, were drafted in accordance
with the €œAcquis Communautaire€� system, €œthat which is acquired by the
Community.€� It means power, once handed to Brussels, is never returned,
and cannot be re-negotiated. "



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:50:57 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

That would stop all this benefit tourism business (assuming it
exists).

It doesn't. Isn't it odd that, a quarter of a century ago, a big-name
right-wing Tory was calling for people to "get on their bike" and go
and chase jobs, rather than waiting for them to come to them. Now, it
appears that's a _bad_ thing in the eyes of the right-wing of the Tory
party...

If somebody's willing to get off their arse and turn their life upside-
down in a bid to earn money and change their family's lot, fair play to
'em. Does it really matter if they're going from Inverness, Kerry, or
Gdansk to London?

But that didn't seem to be what was under discussion. Looked to me like
the discussion was about people coming here, and then being on benefits.

Which they don't - can't - do.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/englan...ndex_benefits/
faq_benefits_entitlement_if_coming_from_abroad.htm

Remember, this is talking about EEA, not EU - so even if we left the EU,
they wouldn't change, unless we were to leave the EEA - which not even
Farage is suggesting.

"In practice, even if you come from one of these countries, you won't
automatically get benefits. For example, if youre an EEA jobseeker who
has never worked in the UK, you won't be able to claim benefits like
Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's allowance, Child Benefit,
Housing Benefit or Council Tax Reduction. But if you're an EEA worker who
has been employed in the UK before becoming unemployed, you might be able
to claim benefits whilst youre looking for new work. This depends on
which EEA country you're from and how long you've worked in the UK."

The problem, IMO, is about people coming here to be residents, when the
country is overcrowded to the point that there is a shortage of houses

....and yet people whine and whinge when a political party suggests that
people being funded to live in larger homes than their family requires
isn't ideal...

In message sting.com,
Artic writes
The Natural Philosopher scribbled...


One of the benefits of being on a UKIP mailing list is such delightful
snippets as these


http://www.euractiv.com/climate-envi...gulates-flushi
ng-to-news-531374

Less 'Part P', and more 'part-pee'..

"Further down, the minutes of one of the expert group meetings singles
out the following ?key findings?:

that ?toilet seats/covers are not really related to the product
function?;
that ?toilet seats/covers are often sold separately? from the main
?product?;
and that ?there is a high variability in consumer?s choice for
toilet seats/covers?.

Experts have agreed that two ?key elements? appear to affect the water
consumption of flushing toilets and urinals: their design and the user
behaviour. Regarding user behaviour and ?based on the discussions with
stakeholders?, the experts have decided to set the average flush volume
as "the arithmetic average of one full flush volume and three reduced
flush volumes".

Wow. I bow to the mighty EU! who would have known that! Or come up with
such a daring solution!

Or didn't they think that with most homes equipped with water meters and
spiralling costs, we shouldn't already not be flushing more than we had to?

And they wonder why UKIP membership is increasing faster than its
declining in the other parties....


No ****...
Yes, one in every four times you use the bog hence their calculation of
average flush.



--
bert

In message , Adrian
writes
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:53:09 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And they wonder why UKIP membership is increasing faster than its
declining in the other parties....

Perhaps because those liable to join UKIP are easily swayed by such
selective reporting?

I notice you omitted this bit...
"Experts have reported that in Netherlands, and maybe soon in France,
toilets with less than 6 litres per flush cannot be installed. Portugal
should face the same limitations. In the UK, new toilets with more than 6
l/flush are forbidden and installations of toilets with less than 6 l/
flush are encouraged though it depends on where and when the property was
built, the drainage system installed, etc. For Britain, the Commission
notes that some toilets already in place before the new legislation can
use 7 or 9 l/flush."

Sounds to me like standardisation might be a good plan...

Why? Seems to me such differences are of no consequence.
--
bert

In message , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:03:49 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict
benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same
situation in the foreigner's country of origin.

That's exactly what happens.

No it isn't. The foreigner in the UK is likely to get much better
benefits from the state than the Brit in a foreign land.

They will get the local rate. To do otherwise would be illegal.

It's a very simple concept.

Somebody in country X gets treated exactly the same, whether they're
a "local" or originally from another EU country.

So, yes, a Brit in country X DOES get treated exactly the same as a
local.

I don't think that is actually true but since I have never been in the
situation where I have needed state aid from a foreign power I won't
argue the point.

It's one of the most basic tenets of the EU that a state cannot treat a
national differently to a national of another EU state, with the
exception of a few specific cases - mainly national security related.

Free movement of people, remember? Treaty of Rome, 1957. In place when we
joined the EEC in 1975.

The perceived problem comes in the UK having, for example, one of the
very best and most generous health systems anywhere. Most other EU
countries, health is not free at the point of provision. So should the UK
remove or restrict that (for all, remember)?
Precisely the points that now need to be reviewed in a referendum on
whether we do or do not wish to be part of the EU as it exists today,
not as it was in 1975 I'm willing to give Cameron or whoever a couple
of years to see what changes if any can be achieved by negotiation.
--
bert

In message , Jethro_uk
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:11:33 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:03:49 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict
benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same
situation in the foreigner's country of origin.

That's exactly what happens.

No it isn't. The foreigner in the UK is likely to get much better
benefits from the state than the Brit in a foreign land.

They will get the local rate. To do otherwise would be illegal.

It's a very simple concept.

Somebody in country X gets treated exactly the same, whether they're
a "local" or originally from another EU country.

So, yes, a Brit in country X DOES get treated exactly the same as a
local.

I don't think that is actually true but since I have never been in the
situation where I have needed state aid from a foreign power I won't
argue the point.

It's one of the most basic tenets of the EU that a state cannot treat a
national differently to a national of another EU state, with the
exception of a few specific cases - mainly national security related.

Free movement of people, remember? Treaty of Rome, 1957. In place when
we joined the EEC in 1975.

The perceived problem comes in the UK having, for example, one of the
very best and most generous health systems anywhere. Most other EU
countries, health is not free at the point of provision. So should the
UK remove or restrict that (for all, remember)?

The problem the Tories will face if we do leave the EU (which I can't see
happening) will be explaining to the public how we left the EU to protect
our free health service which they will want to charge us for.
Staying in the EU may well prove to be the bigger threat to the NHS as
we know it as Europe is quite happy to include opening up our health
market to international competition as part of current trade
negotiations.
--
bert

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I bet everyone can name at least one MEP.
Nigel Farage.

A non-working one, poor example.

And Von Rompuy.

Is he an MEP? I know he fancies himself as "President" of something,
can't remember what though. And was that a typo or was it deliberate?

Wasn't he a commissioner who was then elected president as the majority
didn't hate him as much as they hated the others.
--
bert

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:09:02 +0000, harryagain wrote:

I seem to recall that they keep having a repeat reforendum until
they
get the answer they want.
(Ireland and Holland)
With "they" being the governments of Ireland and the Netherlands,
not some mythical eurocrats.

Well, you say that, but what was the reaction of EU bigwigs when the
Irish said no? "Oh, we can't have a little country derailing the grand
plan" Why d'ye think there are unlikely to be more treaties? Because
they know there will be *big* opposition to any more integration, from
like, y'know, the *people* (you may have heard of them, they live in
little huts, wear smocks, and have straw in their hair).

Thass why the last treaty contained an enabling clause, so these same
bigwigs can declare the next step enabled BY ORDER, with none of this
pesky consultation nonsense required. Clever, eh?

And of course some countries never got to vote at all. Every country
should have held their referendum on the same day.
--
bert

In message , Java Jive
writes
Link?

FFS stop bleating on about links. If you don't know such basic
information about political events in Europe you are hardly in a
position to say anything worth while on the subject. RTFN where N =
newspapers
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:35:41 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

They managed to throw out elected governments in Italy and Greece.

--
bert

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

Roll on the EU standard turd

I'd rather not, thanks, if it's all the same to you.

My dog probably will :-(
--
bert

In message , Brian Gaff
writes
actually this is rather interesting. I have a full old fashioned flushing
toilet, but I do not notice big bills indeed being on a meter they fell.

I imagine the break even point is dependent on the number of people at home
and for how long etc.
One thing that has intrigued me though, is how do they calculate the
processing of the waste water? some people send all their waste down, others
divert grey water to other things etc, so it has surely to be a veryrough
and ready calculation.
Also can I bill the water supplier for all the damage and work needed to
remove lime scale from things?

Brian

They assume it from the water input.
--
bert

In message , Java Jive
writes
The same - it would be preferable to being part of a UK run by UKIP.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:38:49 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

Would that be the same Scotland who'll have no option but to sign up to
the Euro and Schengen if they wish to rejoin the EU (which the SNP've
sworn they will do)?
It's rather amusing - voting for an "independent" Scotland - and then
signing up to the EU
--
bert

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:09:02 +0000, bert wrote:

It's one of the most basic tenets of the EU that a state cannot treat a
national differently to a national of another EU state, with the
exception of a few specific cases - mainly national security related.

Free movement of people, remember? Treaty of Rome, 1957. In place when
we joined the EEC in 1975.

The perceived problem comes in the UK having, for example, one of the
very best and most generous health systems anywhere. Most other EU
countries, health is not free at the point of provision. So should the
UK remove or restrict that (for all, remember)?

Precisely the points that now need to be reviewed in a referendum on
whether we do or do not wish to be part of the EU as it exists today,
not as it was in 1975

What are?

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.
The migration thing hasn't changed since the last referendum.

In message , Huge
writes

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 19:32:14 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

As for the rest, well the country is run by what is known as a
"Coalition". That rather limits what can be achieved in government. I
don't like coalitions -

The less Governments can do, the better.



I haven't noticed them doing less - except Vince Cable. What is his
purpose apart from picking at every other department's policies and then
claiming he supports them.
--
bert

In message , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:09:02 +0000, bert wrote:

It's one of the most basic tenets of the EU that a state cannot treat a
national differently to a national of another EU state, with the
exception of a few specific cases - mainly national security related.

Free movement of people, remember? Treaty of Rome, 1957. In place when
we joined the EEC in 1975.

The perceived problem comes in the UK having, for example, one of the
very best and most generous health systems anywhere. Most other EU
countries, health is not free at the point of provision. So should the
UK remove or restrict that (for all, remember)?

Precisely the points that now need to be reviewed in a referendum on
whether we do or do not wish to be part of the EU as it exists today,
not as it was in 1975

What are?

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.
No it isn't -see my other post
The migration thing hasn't changed since the last referendum.
New countries have joined the EU so the impact is more significant.
--
bert

In message , Roger Chapman
writes
On 30/10/2013 22:41, Tim Streater wrote:

[1] Except of course the Libs reneged on boundary changes and reducing
the number of MPs (so much for "fairness", eh). I think Cameron should
have called their bluff on that one.

None so blind as them that will not see. What would you expect when the
Tories had already torpedoed the quid pro quo of Lords reform - roll
over and play doormat?
There should not have been any quid-pro-quo. Both proposal should have
been above party bickering and each should have been treated on it's
merits.
--
bert