So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

No point in asking the Welsh or Irish (both sides) as they will not make it
to the last 16.

--
Adam

ARW wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

No point in asking the Welsh or Irish (both sides) as they will not
make it to the last 16.

If we vote 'leave', we'll still be in EU in 2 years time and quite probably
longer than that.
There's a 2 year negotiation of the withdrawal agreement, the EU has the
final say on this, the UK doesn't get a vote.

Google Article 50

On 30/05/16 16:18, ARW wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?


Why wouldn't we be? We will still be in Europe, just not in the EU.

Another Dave

--
Change nospam to gmx

On 30/05/2016 16:26, Another Dave wrote:
On 30/05/16 16:18, ARW wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?


Why wouldn't we be? We will still be in Europe, just not in the EU.


Shirley it depends on who the ref is in the first round?

On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:18:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Suggest things like that, you might get me voting out...

On 30/05/16 16:26, Phil L wrote:
ARW wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

No point in asking the Welsh or Irish (both sides) as they will not
make it to the last 16.

If we vote 'leave', we'll still be in EU in 2 years time and quite probably
longer than that.

Unless we declare UDI...

There's a 2 year negotiation of the withdrawal agreement, the EU has the
final say on this, the UK doesn't get a vote.

With UDI the UK has the final say on this, the EU doesn't get a vote.

Google Article 50




--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:18:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Suggest things like that, you might get me voting out...

And if you include Eurovision, me too.

--
*I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

ARW wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

No point in asking the Welsh or Irish (both sides) as they will not
make it to the last 16.


Who cares?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/05/16 16:26, Phil L wrote:
ARW wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

No point in asking the Welsh or Irish (both sides) as they will not
make it to the last 16.

If we vote 'leave', we'll still be in EU in 2 years time and quite
probably
longer than that.

Unless we declare UDI...

There's a 2 year negotiation of the withdrawal agreement, the EU has the
final say on this, the UK doesn't get a vote.

With UDI the UK has the final say on this, the EU doesn't get a vote.

Google Article 50




Treaties are made to be broken!

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
ARW wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

No point in asking the Welsh or Irish (both sides) as they will not make
it to the last 16.


Who cares?


The football fans.


--
Adam

On 30/05/16 17:16, ARW wrote:
"Capitol" wrote in message
...
ARW wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

No point in asking the Welsh or Irish (both sides) as they will not
make it to the last 16.


Who cares?


The football fans.


Are there any? Last I saw they all were a bunch of crop haired cuts in
the EDL...


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 30-May-16 4:45 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:18:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Suggest things like that, you might get me voting out...

And if you include Eurovision, me too.


Australia is in Europe for the purposes of Eurovision - you can't escape
it that easily.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 30/05/2016 18:40, Nightjar wrote:


Australia is in Europe for the purposes of Eurovision - you can't escape
it that easily.

Indeed. It's not limited to EU countries. Pity - 'cos that *would*
provide an extra reason to leave.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

ARW wrote

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Nothing much, but Britain eventually gets to decide policy for itself.

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Yep. There's a 2 year moving out phase during which nothing much changes.

No point in asking the Welsh or Irish (both sides) as they will not make
it to the last 16.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:18:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Suggest things like that, you might get me voting out...

And if you include Eurovision, me too.

That can't fly, even Australia got to be in the Eurovision contest.

God knows why, that is all I know about it, that it did.

Presumably because it happens in europe, not
because it can only involve european countrys.

That turns out to be the case,

Eligibility to participate is not determined by geographic inclusion
within
the continent of Europe, despite the "Euro" in "Eurovision" – nor does
it
have any relation to the European Union. Several countries
geographically
outside the boundaries of Europe have competed: Israel and Cyprus in
Western Asia (Cyprus is a member of the Council of Europe and a member
state of the European Union), since 1973 and 1981 respectively;
Australia
in the Australian continent, since 2015[29] and Morocco, in North
Africa,
in the 1980 competition alone. In addition, several transcontinental
countries
with only part of their territory in Europe have competed: Turkey, since
1975;
Russia, since 1994; Armenia, since 2006; Georgia, since 2007; and
Azerbaijan,
which made its first appearance in the 2008 edition.[30]

Same with the Euro 2016 finals, nothing whatever to do with the EU.

Rod Speed wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:18:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Suggest things like that, you might get me voting out...

And if you include Eurovision, me too.

That can't fly, even Australia got to be in the Eurovision contest.

God knows why, that is all I know about it, that it did.

Presumably because it happens in europe, not
because it can only involve european countrys.

That turns out to be the case,

Eligibility to participate is not determined by geographic
inclusion within
the continent of Europe, despite the "Euro" in "Eurovision" – nor
does it
have any relation to the European Union. Several countries
geographically
outside the boundaries of Europe have competed: Israel and Cyprus
in Western Asia (Cyprus is a member of the Council of Europe and a
member state of the European Union), since 1973 and 1981
respectively; Australia
in the Australian continent, since 2015[29] and Morocco, in North
Africa,
in the 1980 competition alone. In addition, several
transcontinental countries
with only part of their territory in Europe have competed: Turkey,
since 1975;
Russia, since 1994; Armenia, since 2006; Georgia, since 2007; and
Azerbaijan,
which made its first appearance in the 2008 edition.[30]

Same with the Euro 2016 finals, nothing whatever to do with the EU.

Prick.

"Mr Pounder Esquire" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:18:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Suggest things like that, you might get me voting out...

And if you include Eurovision, me too.

That can't fly, even Australia got to be in the Eurovision contest.

God knows why, that is all I know about it, that it did.

Presumably because it happens in europe, not
because it can only involve european countrys.

That turns out to be the case,

Eligibility to participate is not determined by geographic
inclusion within
the continent of Europe, despite the "Euro" in "Eurovision" – nor
does it
have any relation to the European Union. Several countries
geographically
outside the boundaries of Europe have competed: Israel and Cyprus
in Western Asia (Cyprus is a member of the Council of Europe and a
member state of the European Union), since 1973 and 1981
respectively; Australia
in the Australian continent, since 2015[29] and Morocco, in North
Africa,
in the 1980 competition alone. In addition, several
transcontinental countries
with only part of their territory in Europe have competed: Turkey,
since 1975;
Russia, since 1994; Armenia, since 2006; Georgia, since 2007; and
Azerbaijan,
which made its first appearance in the 2008 edition.[30]

Same with the Euro 2016 finals, nothing whatever to do with the EU.

Prick.

Your sig is sposed to have a line with just -- on it in front of it, Prick.

On 30/05/2016 16:18, ARW wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Australia were in "the Eurovision Song Contest" last year and Russia
were in it this year.

People from ever country under the sun have been in "Britain's Got
Talent" over the years...

I'm sure it won't make a smidgen of a difference (Whatever Euro 2016 is)

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Nothing much, but Britain eventually gets to decide policy for itself.

Right. That would mean a referendum for every single law, then?

--
*IF A PARSLEY FARMER IS SUED, CAN THEY GARNISH HIS WAGES?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Nothing much, but Britain eventually gets to decide policy for itself.

Right. That would mean a referendum for every single law, then?

Nope, just the MPs deciding that stuff instead
of some unelected bureaucrat in Brussels etc
who the voters can't even give the bums rush
at the ballot box if they are ****ed off enough.

Got nothing to do with any kind of sport. I'm sure you knew that though.

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega sized
trucks and drivers who watch dvds when driving them.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"ARW" wrote in message
...
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

No point in asking the Welsh or Irish (both sides) as they will not make
it to the last 16.

--
Adam

On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:44:12 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

and drivers who watch dvds when driving them.

ITYM find that's already illegal...

On 31/05/16 08:16, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:44:12 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

and drivers who watch dvds when driving them.

ITYM find that's already illegal...


I'd certainly like to see anything over 7.5 tons banned (and ideally
anything over 3.5 tons discouraged) from town centres - it's ridiculous
having some absolute monster of a lorry squeezing its way through small
streets with cyclists and pedestrians everywhere.

Most of the big supermarkets these days have positioned themselves near
a road junction with excellent access to the A road.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Rod wrote:

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?


Nothing much, but Britain eventually gets to decide policy for itself.

Right. That would mean a referendum for every single law, then?



A simple return to the old stndard of government by statute would
be nice.

On Tue, 31 May 2016 09:21:54 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 31/05/16 08:16, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:44:12 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

and drivers who watch dvds when driving them.

ITYM find that's already illegal...


I'd certainly like to see anything over 7.5 tons banned (and ideally
anything over 3.5 tons discouraged) from town centres - it's ridiculous
having some absolute monster of a lorry squeezing its way through small
streets with cyclists and pedestrians everywhere.

Agreed, but ... it was (probably) a foreign artic that was blindly
following his out_of_date GPS and ignoring the less than specific road
signs (that are only in English, stating there was no access to their
desired destination), that wrote off our car before driving off. ;-(

Ironically it was an artic transporter of about the same size that
came to collect the mangled remains and who asked me if there was a
more artic friendly way out and I said there wasn't.

Most of the big supermarkets these days have positioned themselves near
a road junction with excellent access to the A road.

Ironically, the desired destination for these foreign artics is on a
dual carriageway but that doesn't seem to help them blindly follow
their GPS's down a narrow (very in some places) urban dead-end.

I spoke to the Council suggesting that their signage was obviously
ineffective (as I've been out there in the rain in the middle of the
night, seeing these lorries turned round safely on many an occasion)
but they just stated that it conformed to the regulations. shrug

Funny, I was given a parking fine for not getting a free 20 min ticket
at a place where I had parked free and ticketless for about 30 years
(latterly up to 1 hour only). I mentioned to the Council that because
the existing signs had only changed slightly, anyone using the
facility regularly may not re-read the signs to see if they had been
changed, or notice the ticket machine (hidden beside a post box). I
also mentioned that someone had tied an A4 laminated sign on a nearby
post, warning people of the changes (because so many people were being
caught out) and the person at the Council said it was them (admitting
in my mind that the changes weren't made sufficiently clear).

Long short, my local councilor helped me get the charge overturned and
I later heard that the Council had refunded everyone they had charged
because, of the poor signage (which has subsequently been changed).

So I wonder if I could claim the cost of my written off car off the
Council because of their (obviously) ineffective signage? ;-) [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] That I'm still paying for though raised insurance premiums because
the insurance company didn't have anyone to claim against so it went
down as a 'no blame *claim*'? ;-(

On Tue, 31 May 2016 10:55:25 +0100, T i m wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

I'd certainly like to see anything over 7.5 tons banned (and ideally
anything over 3.5 tons discouraged) from town centres - it's ridiculous
having some absolute monster of a lorry squeezing its way through small
streets with cyclists and pedestrians everywhere.

Agreed, but ...

That's going to make deliveries to urban retailers and building sites
rather difficult. It's also going to MASSIVELY increase the number of
trucks on the roads.

BTW, 44t is the current maximum for any HGV (with restrictions on routes)
without being considered oversize. That's an increase from the first
European harmonised regulations - which, in 1999, set 40t maximum. It's
since crept back up to 44t from 2009.

That 1999 limit of 40t was, for the UK, a reduction from the previous
national limit... of 44t.

Apart from that, the normal maximum of 38t was increased - BY THE UK
GOVERNMENT - in 1982 from 32.5t.

On 30-May-16 8:24 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2016 16:18:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Suggest things like that, you might get me voting out...

And if you include Eurovision, me too.

That can't fly, even Australia got to be in the Eurovision contest.

God knows why, that is all I know about it, that it did...

It sells well in Australia, so letting them in promises even better
revenues.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 31/05/16 11:04, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 10:55:25 +0100, T i m wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

I'd certainly like to see anything over 7.5 tons banned (and ideally
anything over 3.5 tons discouraged) from town centres - it's ridiculous
having some absolute monster of a lorry squeezing its way through small
streets with cyclists and pedestrians everywhere.

Agreed, but ...

That's going to make deliveries to urban retailers and building sites
rather difficult. It's also going to MASSIVELY increase the number of
trucks on the roads.

That's rather my point - why do urban retailers (apart from out of town
hypermarkets) need to have anything bigger than 7.5 or 3.5 tons
delivering most of the time? Better to have more distribution centres on
main trunks with smaller lorries fanning out. Take for example a small
Tesco Express or Onestop type shop with two 7.5 tonners parked outside
blocking much of the road whilst each unloads about 2-3 cages of
product? (You often get bread delivered direct from the bakery, dairy
from somewhere else and a third generic distributor (often branded with
the store for a chain like Onestop) for non perishables.

Really the whole lot should be merged and sent out from a local small
distribution centre in one 7.5 tonner at most and 3.5 tonners for shops
in awkward locations like little villages.

Trouble is we seem to be going in the reverse direction with Royal Mail
closing sorting offices and pulling back to larger centres further away.

Even building site deliveries are generally not *that* big (all the ones
I've had have been in the 7.5 ton sort of range, even if the vehicle
might be technically heavier.).

Obviously there will be exceptions - in the same way that sometimes you
just have to move a 200 ton transformer to a substation site. But it's
the *routine* use of oversized vehicles that needs to be curtailed.

Plus the fact that the narrower and often twisty roads in most towns
make long and wide vehicles have even more problems fitting in.

BTW, 44t is the current maximum for any HGV (with restrictions on routes)
without being considered oversize. That's an increase from the first
European harmonised regulations - which, in 1999, set 40t maximum. It's
since crept back up to 44t from 2009.

That 1999 limit of 40t was, for the UK, a reduction from the previous
national limit... of 44t.

Apart from that, the normal maximum of 38t was increased - BY THE UK
GOVERNMENT - in 1982 from 32.5t.

Nightjar wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
ARW wrote

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Is England still allowed to carry on in the Euro 2016 finals?

Suggest things like that, you might get me voting out...

And if you include Eurovision, me too.

That can't fly, even Australia got to be in the Eurovision contest.

God knows why, that is all I know about it, that it did...

It sells well in Australia,

Like hell it does.

so letting them in promises even better revenues.

There are in fact no revenues involved.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Nothing much, but Britain eventually gets to decide policy for itself.

Right. That would mean a referendum for every single law, then?

Nope, just the MPs deciding that stuff instead
of some unelected bureaucrat in Brussels etc

Those laws still have to be passed by MEPs. In the same way as legislation
drafted by UK civil services has to be passed by the UK parliament.

who the voters can't even give the bums rush
at the ballot box if they are ****ed off enough.

Of course they can. All MEPs are elected. Even the UKIP MEPs who usually
can't be bothered voting.

--
*Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 31/05/16 08:16, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:44:12 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

and drivers who watch dvds when driving them.

ITYM find that's already illegal...


I'd certainly like to see anything over 7.5 tons banned (and ideally
anything over 3.5 tons discouraged) from town centres - it's ridiculous
having some absolute monster of a lorry squeezing its way through small
streets with cyclists and pedestrians everywhere.

Are you saying only the EU could ban such trucks from our city centres?

Most of the big supermarkets these days have positioned themselves near
a road junction with excellent access to the A road.

That might be the case in a small town. But not in the likes of London.

--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/16 11:04, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 10:55:25 +0100, T i m wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

I'd certainly like to see anything over 7.5 tons banned (and ideally
anything over 3.5 tons discouraged) from town centres - it's ridiculous
having some absolute monster of a lorry squeezing its way through small
streets with cyclists and pedestrians everywhere.

Agreed, but ...

That's going to make deliveries to urban retailers and building sites
rather difficult. It's also going to MASSIVELY increase the number of
trucks on the roads.

That's rather my point - why do urban retailers (apart from out of town
hypermarkets) need to have anything bigger than 7.5 or 3.5 tons delivering
most of the time?

Because of the volume of what gets delivered. All our supermarkets
have full semis delivering what they get multiple times a day.

Better to have more distribution centres on main trunks with smaller
lorries fanning out.

Mad.

Take for example a small Tesco Express or Onestop type shop with two 7.5
tonners parked outside blocking much of the road whilst each unloads about
2-3 cages of product?

They move a lot more than 2-3 cages of product with real supermarkets.

(You often get bread delivered direct from the bakery, dairy from
somewhere else and a third generic distributor (often branded with the
store for a chain like Onestop) for non perishables.

Really the whole lot should be merged and sent out from a local small
distribution centre in one 7.5 tonner at most and 3.5 tonners for shops in
awkward locations like little villages.

Trouble is we seem to be going in the reverse direction with Royal Mail
closing sorting offices and pulling back to larger centres further away.

Even building site deliveries are generally not *that* big (all the ones
I've had have been in the 7.5 ton sort of range, even if the vehicle might
be technically heavier.).

Almost all of mine needed a full semi, mainly due to the length of
what was delivered, everything from the roof decking to the galvanised
I beams to the RHS and the Oregon facia boards and the blocks alone needed
a full semi. And the concrete needed much more than one readymix truck.

Obviously there will be exceptions - in the same way that sometimes you
just have to move a 200 ton transformer to a substation site. But it's the
*routine* use of oversized vehicles that needs to be curtailed.

Plus the fact that the narrower and often twisty roads in most towns make
long and wide vehicles have even more problems fitting in.

BTW, 44t is the current maximum for any HGV (with restrictions on routes)
without being considered oversize. That's an increase from the first
European harmonised regulations - which, in 1999, set 40t maximum. It's
since crept back up to 44t from 2009.

That 1999 limit of 40t was, for the UK, a reduction from the previous
national limit... of 44t.

Apart from that, the normal maximum of 38t was increased - BY THE UK
GOVERNMENT - in 1982 from 32.5t.

On 31/05/16 09:51, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Nothing much, but Britain eventually gets to decide policy for itself.

Right. That would mean a referendum for every single law, then?

There's Dave and his black-vs-white debating tacts again. Nul points.

What he fails to understand is that in Uk law no government is bound by
the laws made by a previous government. In EU law all laws once made are
binding in perpetuity.

Its a one way street to 'more government'



--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?

Nothing much, but Britain eventually gets to decide policy for itself.

Right. That would mean a referendum for every single law, then?

Nope, just the MPs deciding that stuff instead
of some unelected bureaucrat in Brussels etc

Those laws still have to be passed by MEPs.

But the MEPs don’t get to initiate any legislation what so ever.

In the same way as legislation drafted by UK civil
services has to be passed by the UK parliament.

Nothing even remotely like the same way. It’s the MPs
that decide what the British civil service is require to
draft legislation wise and the parliament is free to
amend that legislation before it gets passed too.

Nothing even remotely like what happens in the EP.

who the voters can't even give the bums rush
at the ballot box if they are ****ed off enough.

Of course they can. All MEPs are elected.

But they don’t get to sack the unelected bureaucrats
that are SOLELY responsible for writing the legislation
that the MEPs can only vote for or against.

On 31/05/16 09:53, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Rod wrote:
So what happens if we vote out on the 23rd?
Nothing much, but Britain eventually gets to decide policy for itself.
Right. That would mean a referendum for every single law, then?


A simple return to the old standard of government by statute would
be nice.

Well it would be a start. No one pretends that they have a complete
answer to what political system is the right way to govern in the 21st
century - well except the EU of course - and that in essence is why we
must leave, so we can *have that debate*.

If we remain we are nailing our colours to the Brussels mast forever,
putting on the shackles and setting down to row under the slavemasters
of Strasbourg and Brussels. What they say, we are bound to do. And we
can neither remove them, nor change them nor affect their policies. Nor
any more leave.

Goodbye UK, welcome 12 irrelevant 'regions' in the new commissariat of
Europe.



--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 31/05/16 11:39, Tim Watts wrote:
Trouble is we seem to be going in the reverse direction with Royal Mail
closing sorting offices and pulling back to larger centres further away.

IN a nutshell, that is te EU. More an greater centralisation of everything.

So local powers or local distributi9on.

And god help us if someone inimical to us spots the single point of
failure...


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 31/05/16 12:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 31/05/16 08:16, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:44:12 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

and drivers who watch dvds when driving them.

ITYM find that's already illegal...


I'd certainly like to see anything over 7.5 tons banned (and ideally
anything over 3.5 tons discouraged) from town centres - it's ridiculous
having some absolute monster of a lorry squeezing its way through small
streets with cyclists and pedestrians everywhere.

Are you saying only the EU could ban such trucks from our city centres?

Nothing to do with the EU Dave - just an independent opinion on trucks


Most of the big supermarkets these days have positioned themselves near
a road junction with excellent access to the A road.

That might be the case in a small town. But not in the likes of London.


Aye - it's never that simple. But when I see artics going through the
villages and towns here, to drop maybe 1/20th of it load at one place, I
do question what can be done to reduce this.

On 31/05/16 12:21, 9pl wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 31/05/16 11:04, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 10:55:25 +0100, T i m wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European
mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

I'd certainly like to see anything over 7.5 tons banned (and ideally
anything over 3.5 tons discouraged) from town centres - it's
ridiculous
having some absolute monster of a lorry squeezing its way through
small
streets with cyclists and pedestrians everywhere.

Agreed, but ...

That's going to make deliveries to urban retailers and building sites
rather difficult. It's also going to MASSIVELY increase the number of
trucks on the roads.

That's rather my point - why do urban retailers (apart from out of
town hypermarkets) need to have anything bigger than 7.5 or 3.5 tons
delivering most of the time?

Because of the volume of what gets delivered. All our supermarkets
have full semis delivering what they get multiple times a day.

Try reading it again, or lay off the Fosters...


Better to have more distribution centres on main trunks with smaller
lorries fanning out.

Mad.

******** it is Rod.


Take for example a small Tesco Express or Onestop type shop with two
7.5 tonners parked outside blocking much of the road whilst each
unloads about 2-3 cages of product?

They move a lot more than 2-3 cages of product with real supermarkets.

Well duh...

On 31/05/16 12:39, Tim Watts wrote:
On 31/05/16 12:02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 31/05/16 08:16, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2016 07:44:12 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

I'm more interested in whether we can finally ban these European mega
sized trucks

So what size would you set the maximum to for the UK?

and drivers who watch dvds when driving them.

ITYM find that's already illegal...


I'd certainly like to see anything over 7.5 tons banned (and ideally
anything over 3.5 tons discouraged) from town centres - it's ridiculous
having some absolute monster of a lorry squeezing its way through small
streets with cyclists and pedestrians everywhere.

Are you saying only the EU could ban such trucks from our city centres?

Nothing to do with the EU Dave - just an independent opinion on trucks


Most of the big supermarkets these days have positioned themselves near
a road junction with excellent access to the A road.

That might be the case in a small town. But not in the likes of London.


Aye - it's never that simple. But when I see artics going through the
villages and towns here, to drop maybe 1/20th of it load at one place, I
do question what can be done to reduce this.

Well removing the tax on commercial diesel and on commercial transport
and removing the minimum wage on drivers might actually lead to it being
cost effective to have 10 3 tonners instead of one 30 tonner..

Or it might lead to even worse congestion. We will never have the chance
to find out though as long as we are in the EU will we?



--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 31/05/2016 12:39, Tim Watts wrote:


Aye - it's never that simple. But when I see artics going through the
villages and towns here, to drop maybe 1/20th of it load at one place, I
do question what can be done to reduce this.

You can insist on smaller trucks and pay the increased costs.
If you want cheap produce you have to make savings somewhere.