In message , Adrian
writes
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.
I would agree with that last comment.
--
bert

In message , Jethro_uk
writes
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:38:49 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:35:32 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

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

A good reason to vote for an independent Scotland ...

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)?

Actually, if the EU want to standardise something, book sizes would be
a good place to start. Ever tried to pack a variety of books into a
trunk?

How about phone chargers ?

Phone chargers _have_ been standardised for a few years. Well, all apart
from Apple, who are "special".

In which case they aren't standard. The Nokia 5800 I had in 2009 wasn't
standard.

Problem with standardisation is it can stifle innovation.
They should have come up with a decision back in the 90s. A useful
exercise for an EU-sceptic might be to work out how much carbon emissions
have been wasted by the proliferation of chargers (every new phone with a
new charger plus the obligatory car version) versus how much has been
saved by closing down power stations ....

--
bert

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:38:41 +0000, bert wrote:

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.

No it isn't -see my other post

Which one? About two dozen replies from you seem to have arrived damn-
near simultaneously. Not one of which gives any kind of information as to
why the NHS isn't a UK decision.

The migration thing hasn't changed since the last referendum.

New countries have joined the EU so the impact is more significant.

Westminster agreed to that in advance.

On 31/10/2013 12:33, bert wrote:
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

They just hope they will get more cash like Ireland does.
They will need it to finance their bit of the debt, etc.

I still think the Scots should not get a vote unless we get one on if we
want them to go.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:52:38 +0000, Adrian wrote:

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.

No it isn't -see my other post

Which one? About two dozen replies from you seem to have arrived damn-
near simultaneously. Not one of which gives any kind of information as
to why the NHS isn't a UK decision.

I rather suspect you've completely misunderstood the NHS's problems with
the cross-border healthcare directive.

If and when that actually takes effect, it'll resolve many of the issues
that people whinge about with the NHS - because it'll give the NHS
stronger rights to bill "EU health tourists" home health systems for any
treatment they get in the UK.

Trouble is, the NHS can't do that currently, because the NHS would have
to publish a price list. And the NHS can't do that currently, because the
NHS is such a dog's dinner that they don't actually know what they should
charge, because they don't actually know what anything costs. If they
could be bothered to work it out, and to track who receives what
treatment, they could ALREADY recharge.

In message , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:38:41 +0000, bert wrote:

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.

No it isn't -see my other post

Which one? About two dozen replies from you seem to have arrived damn-
near simultaneously. Not one of which gives any kind of information as to
why the NHS isn't a UK decision.

Don't be silly. Be patient. It will be along soon. But if yo don't know
it does show that you are not as knowledgeable about EU matters as you
claim.
The migration thing hasn't changed since the last referendum.

New countries have joined the EU so the impact is more significant.

Westminster agreed to that in advance.
When or as JJ would say Link please.

--
bert

In message om,
"dennis@home" writes
On 31/10/2013 12:33, bert wrote:
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

They just hope they will get more cash like Ireland does.
They will need it to finance their bit of the debt, etc.

I still think the Scots should not get a vote unless we get one on if
we want them to go.
Well they are an independent country in a voluntary union so if they
want to leave the UK that's up to them. Similarly if at any time England
wanted to leave the UK we could do so.
All of which makes the wording of referendum a bit nonsensical. I would
had asked Do you want Scotland to leave the united kingdom.
--
bert

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:55:35 +0000, bert wrote:

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.

No it isn't -see my other post

Which one? About two dozen replies from you seem to have arrived damn-
near simultaneously. Not one of which gives any kind of information as
to why the NHS isn't a UK decision.

Don't be silly. Be patient. It will be along soon.

What will? Your answer?

The migration thing hasn't changed since the last referendum.

New countries have joined the EU so the impact is more significant.

Westminster agreed to that in advance.

When or as JJ would say Link please.

Treaty of Accession, 2003. Signed by Tony Blair for the UK.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:00:20 +0000, bert wrote:

I still think the Scots should not get a vote unless we get one on if we
want them to go.

Well they are an independent country in a voluntary union

Who? Scotland? They haven't been an "independent country" since 1707.

In message , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:55:35 +0000, bert wrote:

The NHS is entirely a UK decision.

No it isn't -see my other post

Which one? About two dozen replies from you seem to have arrived damn-
near simultaneously. Not one of which gives any kind of information as
to why the NHS isn't a UK decision.

Don't be silly. Be patient. It will be along soon.

What will? Your answer?

The migration thing hasn't changed since the last referendum.

New countries have joined the EU so the impact is more significant.

Westminster agreed to that in advance.

When or as JJ would say Link please.

Treaty of Accession, 2003. Signed by Tony Blair for the UK.
So not subject to any referendum

Now my answer on the NHS seems to have got lost in the ether so I will
repeat it.
The EU is currently in negotiation with the US on a new trade deal. The
EU is including in there opening up European Health services to
international (US) competition and that will include the NHS. So a
fundamental aspect of the NHS may no longer be a solely UK decision.
--
bert

In message , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:00:20 +0000, bert wrote:

I still think the Scots should not get a vote unless we get one on if we
want them to go.

Well they are an independent country in a voluntary union

Who? Scotland? They haven't been an "independent country" since 1707.
...when they voluntarily joined a union...... which they have a right to
leave by mutual consent so on that basis I suppose we should also have a
referendum in the rest of the UK to see if we are willing to let them
leave.

If you don't regard them as an independent country now then you must
accept they won't be any more independent if they leave the UK and join
the EU.
--
bert

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:56:05 +0000, bert wrote:

I still think the Scots should not get a vote unless we get one on if
we want them to go.

Well they are an independent country in a voluntary union

Who? Scotland? They haven't been an "independent country" since 1707.

If you don't regard them as an independent country now then you must
accept they won't be any more independent if they leave the UK and join
the EU.

Clearly the concept of a nation state (aka "independent country") is a
bit difficult for you, so I'll explain it in small words.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a nation
state. Being a member of the EU, NATO, the UN or any other body does not
affect that.

Scotland is - currently - a region of a nation state.
If the referendum says "Yes", then they will start down the road to being
a nation state, which can then join NATO, the UN, the EU or whatever
other body without affecting that statehood.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:51:25 +0000, bert wrote:

The migration thing hasn't changed since the last referendum.

New countries have joined the EU so the impact is more significant.

Westminster agreed to that in advance.

When or as JJ would say Link please.

Treaty of Accession, 2003. Signed by Tony Blair for the UK.

So not subject to any referendum

Oh, well spotted. If you look very hard, you might even begin to notice
that nobody suggested it had been.

Now my answer on the NHS seems to have got lost in the ether so I will
repeat it.
The EU is currently in negotiation with the US on a new trade deal.

Umm, yes, and...?

The EU is including in there opening up European Health services to
international (US) competition and that will include the NHS. So a
fundamental aspect of the NHS may no longer be a solely UK decision.

In case you hadn't noticed, the NHS is already free to sign up to
international deals - and already has. So, basically, no change.

On 31/10/13 16:35, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:56:05 +0000, bert wrote:

I still think the Scots should not get a vote unless we get one on if
we want them to go.

Well they are an independent country in a voluntary union

Who? Scotland? They haven't been an "independent country" since 1707.

If you don't regard them as an independent country now then you must
accept they won't be any more independent if they leave the UK and join
the EU.

Clearly the concept of a nation state (aka "independent country") is a
bit difficult for you, so I'll explain it in small words.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a nation
state. Being a member of the EU, NATO, the UN or any other body does not
affect that.


Er wrong. Under the EU framework the UK ceased to be a nation state and
is merely a set of 'regions' within Europe.




Scotland is - currently - a region of a nation state.
No, it's a region of Europe.

If the referendum says "Yes", then they will start down the road to being
a nation state, which can then join NATO, the UN, the EU or whatever
other body without affecting that statehood.

Not unless they leave the EU...


--
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 18:16:19 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a nation
state. Being a member of the EU, NATO, the UN or any other body does
not affect that.

Er wrong. Under the EU framework the UK ceased to be a nation state and
is merely a set of 'regions' within Europe.

I await even the vaguest, flimsiest proof of this assertion with bated
breath...

On 31/10/2013 18:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a nation
state. Being a member of the EU, NATO, the UN or any other body does not
affect that.

Er wrong. Under the EU framework the UK ceased to be a nation state and
is merely a set of 'regions' within Europe.

Am I still the only one who thinks TFP is absolutely bonkers?

Scotland is - currently - a region of a nation state.

No, it's a region of Europe.

If it was Scotland would not be able to charge students from England
university fees while providing free education for Scottish students and
students from other countries in the EU.

--
Roger Chapman

In message , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:51:25 +0000, bert wrote:

The migration thing hasn't changed since the last referendum.

New countries have joined the EU so the impact is more significant.

Westminster agreed to that in advance.

When or as JJ would say Link please.

Treaty of Accession, 2003. Signed by Tony Blair for the UK.

So not subject to any referendum

Oh, well spotted. If you look very hard, you might even begin to notice
that nobody suggested it had been.

Now my answer on the NHS seems to have got lost in the ether so I will
repeat it.
The EU is currently in negotiation with the US on a new trade deal.

Umm, yes, and...?

The EU is including in there opening up European Health services to
international (US) competition and that will include the NHS. So a
fundamental aspect of the NHS may no longer be a solely UK decision.

In case you hadn't noticed, the NHS is already free to sign up to
international deals - and already has. So, basically, no change.
But international companies cannot currently demand the right to bid for
NHS contracts. That would change.
--
bert

The quotes given show that it is a biased history. A biased history
is not a good history.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:23:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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

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 “Justice” and much to do with “Integration”. It should have,
more accurately, been called the European Court of Integration.
--
================================================== =======
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 Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:20:39 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

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

It's got nothing to do with posting style, and everything to do with
your over eagerness to rush into print without bothering to read
properly what others have written.

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

If those posting here such as yourself and TNP were in charge, we'd
certainly be in a lot worse state than we are now.
--
================================================== =======
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 22:50:18 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

Not entirely. I visited a local apple farm about a month ago.The bloke
running it said that all their pickers are eastern European. He has to
pay them the same as anyone local. For the foreigners, minimum wage is
good pay. For the Brits, it's not.

It would be better than being unemployed.

That is the first point. Second,
it's bloody hard work. He had a local couple who were determined to
pick at the same rate the foreigners could do. After the first day they
were exhausted.

Work on the land is hard work. It always has been, and probably
always will be.

Now, 50 years ago all that would most certainly have been picked by
locals. But unless you do it on a regular basis, then you're not gonna
be fit enough to be able to stick at it. And so people can't and don't.

If they want to work rather than rot on the dole, they will need to
get fit by continuing at the work rather than by giving up.
--
================================================== =======
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 Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:33:56 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

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

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.

I didn't ignore anything. That, not the one linked by you, happened
to be the page that come up in response to a search.

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.

There is nothing in either page which supports his claim that:

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

I seem to have at least a good understanding about European events as
anyone else here. Tim Streater made an unsubstantiated claim. It
still remains unsubstantiated.

So, link?

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:28:25 +0000, bert ] wrote:

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
--
================================================== =======
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 16:17, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:41:44 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I disagree with harry about most things, but there was an interesting
quote on Twitter the other day, attributed to Mr Gorbachev. He
apparently cannot understand why European politicians are trying to
recreate the Soviet Union in Western Europe.

One suspects that the claimed attribution is false. Certainly, it
shouldn't be believed until proven. Link?

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

http://www.twitter.com

A two minute google finds it on...
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quot...hail_Gorbachev
...and nowhere else. Nothing linking it to any context or other
information at all.

Smells lightly of haddock to me.

I found about 2300 references to it on the first search...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
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.

Which is exactly what happens.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:52:36 +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.

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 it gets harder every day to find where to put new infrastructure.
People coming to do crop picking live in accommodation on site provided
by the farmer for the purpose (which stands empty the rest of the
year), and therefore has no impact on general housing. These folk,
AFAIK, come from Eastern Europe but it'd make no difference whether
they come Inverness or Kerry.

The problem is these people coming here, taking jobs and sending the money
back home.
And making use of all our services.
Many work on the QT, cash in hand and pay no tax.

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?

Going from?????

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:43:01 +0000, Adrian wrote:

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.

That was my reading of the situation, and to be honest my hope. The idea
of a Tory majority throwing it's weight around was quite scary.


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.

Unfortunately whether by design, or just the way "things go", it's been
very very hard to see much LibDem tempering of the Tory tendencies. I am
not so naive as to think they could have things their own way, and
understand the tuition fees situation as a necessary part of doing
business with the Tories. However there have been lots of opportunities
for the LibDems to have softened Tory policies that appear to have been
missed.

The net result - for me - is that all 3 parties are simply too toxic. I
don't yet know what candidates will be up for selection in 2015. However,
I know that my vote will not go to Con/Lab/LibDem. Labour have revealed
their true Tory colours by voting *with* the government to
retrospectively deny compensation to people treated unlawfully by the
state. Something I think the courts will eventually overturn.

My hope for the next election is that no permanent coalition is possible,
and we have some enforced consensus politics.

You are in cloud cuckoo land.
The country has so much debt that there will be hard times for decades to
pay it off.
If you have personal debts, then you are truely f***d.
Anyone taking up this cheap mortgage deal is deranged.

There is a very real danger of total economic collapse.
Maybe even worldwide.
We will all be on bread and water if that happens.
Bliar/Broon and the rest really f***d us all up.

Where do you get this idea that everything can go on as before?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
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.

Which were?

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 07:45:35 +0000, harryagain wrote:

The problem is these people coming here, taking jobs and sending the
money back home.
And making use of all our services.
Many work on the QT, cash in hand and pay no tax.

There ought to be a law against it!

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:07:44 +0000, bert wrote:

The EU is including in there opening up European Health services to
international (US) competition and that will include the NHS. So a
fundamental aspect of the NHS may no longer be a solely UK decision.

In case you hadn't noticed, the NHS is already free to sign up to
international deals - and already has. So, basically, no change.

But international companies cannot currently demand the right to bid for
NHS contracts. That would change.

Umm, and...?

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:26:56 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

I disagree with harry about most things, but there was an
interesting quote on Twitter the other day, attributed to Mr
Gorbachev. He apparently cannot understand why European politicians
are trying to recreate the Soviet Union in Western Europe.

One suspects that the claimed attribution is false. Certainly, it
shouldn't be believed until proven. Link?

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

http://www.twitter.com

A two minute google finds it on...
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quot...hail_Gorbachev ...and
nowhere else. Nothing linking it to any context or other information at
all.

Smells lightly of haddock to me.

I found about 2300 references to it on the first search...

That's nice, dear. I can find several million google results - but the
only ones that actually reference the quote lead straight back to
goodreads and nowhere else.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to share the search text you used, or
even a reference to an original, credible source?

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 07:46:23 +0000, harryagain wrote:

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?

Going from?????

Are you a bit hard of thinking, Harry?

On 31/10/2013 20:07, Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 07:33:56 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

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

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.

I didn't ignore anything. That, not the one linked by you, happened
to be the page that come up in response to a search.

But you were only looking for something to support your opinion, not at
the whole picture, or even at the whole of the BBC report that your cite
was a part of.

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.

There is nothing in either page which supports his claim that:

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

No? You didn't see all those east European countries filling out the
negative tail of the net contributions list? Of course you did. You just
don't want to lose face by acknowledging you were (and are) wrong.

--
Roger Chapman

In message , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:07:44 +0000, bert wrote:

The EU is including in there opening up European Health services to
international (US) competition and that will include the NHS. So a
fundamental aspect of the NHS may no longer be a solely UK decision.

In case you hadn't noticed, the NHS is already free to sign up to
international deals - and already has. So, basically, no change.

But international companies cannot currently demand the right to bid for
NHS contracts. That would change.

Umm, and...?
That means the NHS would no longer be entirely under the control of the
UK as you claimed. You really are hard work.
--
bert

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 12:02:35 +0000, bert wrote:

The EU is including in there opening up European Health services to
international (US) competition and that will include the NHS. So a
fundamental aspect of the NHS may no longer be a solely UK decision.

In case you hadn't noticed, the NHS is already free to sign up to
international deals - and already has. So, basically, no change.

But international companies cannot currently demand the right to bid
for NHS contracts. That would change.

Umm, and...?

That means the NHS would no longer be entirely under the control of the
UK as you claimed. You really are hard work.

So you really think that the NHS not being able to refuse international
companies from tendering is "no longer under the control of the UK"?

**** me, but you're almost as cretinous as Harry. thinks Are you Harry?

On 30/10/2013 18:23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , harryagain
wrote:

It's pretty self evident that if we have lots of immigrants they will
overload our services/housing.

Already happened, but that's too hard for hayseeds like JJ to
understand.

It certainly has. Our eldest son went into reception year in a class of
23 with three spare places. Three years later, our second son was 30th
on a list of 54 for the same class. The only change in that time was an
influx of East Europeans renting in the area, plus a few from Western
Europe. Every day there are dozens of conversations going on between
parents waiting in the playground in numerous languages. Most of them
are perfectly nice people, but it still does anger those of us that have
lived in the area all our lives and struggle to get our kids into the
local schools.

Our second son did get in in the end. We had to go through a formal,
legal, appeals procedure and two children were given places - there are
two limits, 30 per class maximum, plus floor area divided by how much
space each pupil requires and the latter is not a strict, legal limit.
The whole thing was very stressful and for two and a half months he had
no school place at all.

SteveW

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:25:29 +0000, SteveW wrote:

but it still does anger those of us that have lived in the area all our
lives and struggle to get our kids into the local schools.

Would it make a difference to your perceptions if the other parents had
moved to the area from 50 miles away?

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:44:04 +0000, Roger Chapman
wrote:

But you were only looking for something to support your opinion, not at
the whole picture, or even at the whole of the BBC report that your cite
was a part of.

I did what anyone else would do. I put suitable terms into a search
and clicked on the results.

There is nothing in either page which supports his claim that:

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

No? You didn't see all those east European countries filling out the
negative tail of the net contributions list? Of course you did. You just
don't want to lose face by acknowledging you were (and are) wrong.

I stand by my demonstration that his claims were based on prejudice
rather than fact.

Additionally, you have conveniently overlooked this paragraph from the
actual page that you linked (the same page as you are accusing me of
deliberately ignoring, when in fact I just simply didn't ever get to
see it) ...

"There is one other important part of the revenue calculations: the UK
rebate, which returns to the UK two-thirds of its payments.

This rebate is paid for by the other 26 countries as a fixed amount of
their gross national income."

.... so, if you are accusing me of cherry-picking, what does that make
you?
--
================================================== =======
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 31/10/2013 11:57, bert wrote:
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.

There are many things in Europe that I dislike strongly and I would
vastly prefer to be out of the EU, however standardisation of
requirements for products *is* sensible. If the EU wants to save water
by requiring limited volumes of water to be used, it is only sensible
that manufacturers here and throughout the world conform to that
standard, so that they can sell into all the countries of the EU without
restriction and without having to have differing products for each country.

Where the EU should stay out is on how countries run things internally.
For instance, how rubbish is disposed of, how many hours people can
work, protection of rare species, etc. should be entirely up to the
individual country.

If it crosses borders then standardisation is often sensible, if it
doesn't then there is no need.

SteveW

On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:31:17 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

If it crosses borders then standardisation is often sensible, if it
doesn't then there is no need.

On a very subtley different point, where does "standardisation" stop and
"regulation" begin. Once you start to "regulate" you are in the realms
of having to join the table to negotiate it, or be lumbered with the
results of other peoples deliberations.

....or finding that your internal regulation makes you uncompetitive
internationally against people with lower standards.