On Monday, 13 June 2016 13:58:16 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 12:05:40 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...

Which particular laws made by the EU do you think will not affect
the UK if we leave?

The stupid **** that bans the state from subsidising infrastructure,
mandates the closing of coal fired power stations,. requires Britain
to allow any EU citizen that wants to move to Britain to do that, etc
etc etc.

Those are the issues showing up now. Give someone unstoppable power for
decades and a long list of new issues will crop up. We have little idea
what they will be. In the very short term they'll involve airheaded
diktats re hoovers, kettles, toasters etc, so the future of such
legislation is looking idiotic.

You've got to the crux of the matter. Send our country into a lengthy
recession from which it may never recover so you can buy a faster toaster..

While independant we, meaning the government, can tailor financial policy in our interest. Welded to the rest of Europe we can't. If it makes just 1% difference to growth per year, after decades it'll be a big difference. It's one of the main reasons why the euro is such a dumb idea.

And criminalising people for selling 1kW hoovers is just idiotic. That's where europe is heading right now, making a farce of the law and basic justice at full speed.


NT

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Tim doesn't seem to know much about history. The whole car emissions thing
started in California.

That's strange, as Timmy is never done boasting about his time
working in Califonia. That and all the years he spent with his
snout buried deep in the CERN trough.


michael adams

....

On Monday, 13 June 2016 14:01:57 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
So for example car emissions laws won't have to be complied with?

Why would we have to comply with EU car emission laws for cars owned by
UK citizens. For cars sold into the EU, we obviously would have to,
just as we would for cars sold anywhere else in the world. Like the US,
f'rinstance.

Tim doesn't seem to know much about history. The whole car emissions thing
started in California. Due to the odd climatic conditions they have there.
And quite quickly spread to much of the rest of the world. Those countries
which ignored it are rather regretting it now.

So you agree that we can't just ignore EU laws and that they will affect
us even if we leave.


This is all very simple, Den, and I don't know why you're having such
trouble with it.


Its extremely simple, just leaving the EU doesn't make us free to do
what we like as the leavers keep claiming.

nonsense. It just means EU won't dictate much re what we do within our own country.

Exactly so. If we wish to continue trading with the EU, we will have to
negotiate the new conditions. Only an optimistic fool would hope they'll
be better than the existing ones. All the available evidence says
otherwise.

Most UK trade is internal. In that area the UK retains control. Foreign trade is inevitably always negotiated between countries.


NT

On 13/06/2016 14:37, wrote:


While independant we, meaning the government, can tailor financial
policy in our interest. Welded to the rest of Europe we can't. If it
makes just 1% difference to growth per year,

A real big difference if its a negative 1% which it could easily be.

after decades it'll be a big difference. It's one of the main reasons
why the euro is such a dumb idea.

We aren't in the Euro in case you hadn't noticed. However if we leave
and then decide we would be better off we would have to join the Euro.


And criminalising people for selling 1kW hoovers is just idiotic.
That's where europe is heading right now, making a farce of the law
and basic justice at full speed.

They don't make criminal law for the UK.

On 13/06/2016 14:39, wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 14:01:57 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
So for example car emissions laws won't have to be complied
with?

Why would we have to comply with EU car emission laws for cars
owned by UK citizens. For cars sold into the EU, we obviously
would have to, just as we would for cars sold anywhere else in
the world. Like the US, f'rinstance.

Tim doesn't seem to know much about history. The whole car
emissions thing started in California. Due to the odd climatic
conditions they have there. And quite quickly spread to much of the
rest of the world. Those countries which ignored it are rather
regretting it now.

So you agree that we can't just ignore EU laws and that they will
affect us even if we leave.


This is all very simple, Den, and I don't know why you're
having such trouble with it.


Its extremely simple, just leaving the EU doesn't make us free to
do what we like as the leavers keep claiming.

nonsense. It just means EU won't dictate much re what we do within
our own country.

Like they don't make Switzerland allow free movement for EU workers?


Exactly so. If we wish to continue trading with the EU, we will
have to negotiate the new conditions. Only an optimistic fool would
hope they'll be better than the existing ones. All the available
evidence says otherwise.

Most UK trade is internal. In that area the UK retains control.
Foreign trade is inevitably always negotiated between countries.

or between a country and the EU like Switzerland and others!

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 13 June 2016 13:35:22 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Oh boy. It means we can vote political parties out of office if we don't like
what they do.

Such as invading Iraq and using billions of taxpayers money to bail
out the banks, so as to keep paying bankers their million pound bonuses
you mean ?

- Do you have any clue how much worse it would be if we have no vote whatsoeevr
- over our lawmakers?


I work on the asumption that anyone who assumes power is still subject to economic
imperatives. And that this country no longer has any raw materials it can exploit.

So no. I don't have any clue.

Will they lower they minimum wage for instance ?

Or make zero-hours contracts compulsory ?

Or close down the BBC and sell it to Rupert Murdoch so that everyone has to
pay more and still watch adverts.

They're not going to re-open the coal mines and start up the British Empire again
are they ?

Do please explain.


It means we have some control over our lives.

Such as choosing which of two Old Etonians will be our next Prime Minister you mean ?

- As opposed to having someone in control thousands of miles away

Who never went to a public school, but like their parents held down an ordinary job
before being elected and know what it is to worry about not having enough money
you mean ?

- that has nothing but indifference & mild resentment against Britain

unlike Old Etonians* who have nothing but indifference & mild resentment against
British plebs who don't know their place.

- is making laws primarily for others' benefit,

And so unlike Old Etonians who are making laws for their own benefit and those
of their kind.

Never mind you can look forward to another twenty years of Old Etonians
since those clever Conservatives have discovered a way to subvert the Labour
Leadership Election process.

Now that's what I call democracy in action !


michael adams

*Spellchecker offers "Estonians" here

....

In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 13:35:22 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Oh boy. It means we can vote political parties out of office if we
don't like what they do.

Such as invading Iraq and using billions of taxpayers money to bail
out the banks, so as to keep paying bankers their million pound
bonuses you mean ?

Do you have any clue how much worse it would be if we have no vote
whatsoeevr over our lawmakers?

That can often be difficult to assess. They seem to spend a great deal of
time doing patch up laws which often don't work, rather than anticipating
what needs to be done.

It means we have some control over our lives.

Such as choosing which of two Old Etonians will be our next Prime
Minister you mean ?

As opposed to having someone in control thousands of miles away that has
nothing but indifference & mild resentment against Britain, is making
laws primarily for others' benefit, and frankly couldn't care less. And
who we can never remove. If you can't work out which is better you
should take your brain back for a refund.

If there were mild resentment against the UK in the EU, just who do you
think is to blame for that? There always has been a vocal minority in the
UK who've done everything in their power to try and make the EU fail and
bad mouth it at every turn. To the extent where all EU legislation bad.
All UK legislation good. No logic - just the usual bigotry.


Plus getting shot of all the Polish plumbers and builders while at the same time

I hope not. Out of the EU we actually have a choice on these things.

And deciding just who out of the current EU immigrants can stay would take
years. Not something the majority of the outer racists will be willing to
stomach. They want them all gone the very next day.

--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.

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

On Monday, 13 June 2016 14:54:56 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Monday, 13 June 2016 13:35:22 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Oh boy. It means we can vote political parties out of office if we don't like
what they do.

Such as invading Iraq and using billions of taxpayers money to bail
out the banks, so as to keep paying bankers their million pound bonuses
you mean ?

- Do you have any clue how much worse it would be if we have no vote whatsoeevr
- over our lawmakers?


I work on the asumption that anyone who assumes power is still subject to economic
imperatives. And that this country no longer has any raw materials it can exploit.

So no. I don't have any clue.

Will they lower they minimum wage for instance ?

Or make zero-hours contracts compulsory ?

Or close down the BBC and sell it to Rupert Murdoch so that everyone has to
pay more and still watch adverts.

They're not going to re-open the coal mines and start up the British Empire again
are they ?

Do please explain.


It means we have some control over our lives.

Such as choosing which of two Old Etonians will be our next Prime Minister you mean ?

- As opposed to having someone in control thousands of miles away

Who never went to a public school, but like their parents held down an ordinary job
before being elected and know what it is to worry about not having enough money
you mean ?

- that has nothing but indifference & mild resentment against Britain

unlike Old Etonians* who have nothing but indifference & mild resentment against
British plebs who don't know their place.

- is making laws primarily for others' benefit,

And so unlike Old Etonians who are making laws for their own benefit and those
of their kind.

Never mind you can look forward to another twenty years of Old Etonians
since those clever Conservatives have discovered a way to subvert the Labour
Leadership Election process.

Now that's what I call democracy in action !

You really don't get it do you.

On Monday, 13 June 2016 14:45:23 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/06/2016 14:37, tabbypurr wrote:


While independant we, meaning the government, can tailor financial
policy in our interest. Welded to the rest of Europe we can't. If it
makes just 1% difference to growth per year,

A real big difference if its a negative 1% which it could easily be.

What kind of fool thinks following policies suited to other countries will benefit us?

after decades it'll be a big difference. It's one of the main reasons
why the euro is such a dumb idea.

We aren't in the Euro in case you hadn't noticed.

Is there a point in such childish comments?

However if we leave
and then decide we would be better off we would have to join the Euro.

On which planet do we have to join the euro?


And criminalising people for selling 1kW hoovers is just idiotic.
That's where europe is heading right now, making a farce of the law
and basic justice at full speed.

They don't make criminal law for the UK.

People and businesses will be prosecuted for selling toasters, kettles & hoovers that there's nothing whatever wrong with. That's what the law means. That's one of the first things the Eu will do for us. Comprendi?


NT

In article ,
wrote:
Despite UK MEPs
voting in favour of about 80% of EU stuff.

So by your figures in the EU we'd have to swallow 20% of stuff we don't
like. I'm not seeing how that would be an advantage.

'We' don't like? I dunno if the legislation the UK MEPs voted against was
against *my* interests or not. Or against the interests of the UK as a
whole. But perhaps you think MPs infallible?

And the even weirder notion that each and every EU country has more in
common with the others than the UK. Which you'd know is total ********
if you'd ever set foot outside the Daily Telegraph.

I've travelled enough to know the law is a different animal in many
European countries.

Of course it is. It has major differences between England and Scotland too.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin
Franklin.

That well known Englishman. Who presumably believed in the rights of
all to carry assault rifles into gay clubs.

You do talk nonsense.

Really? You can't see that 'liberty' can mean different things to
different people?

--
*If I throw a stick, will you leave?

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

On Monday, 13 June 2016 15:12:28 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:

Do you have any clue how much worse it would be if we have no vote
whatsoeevr over our lawmakers?

That can often be difficult to assess.

Sorry I don't understand how someone can be so clue-free about the very basics of politics & liberties.

Rest not worth discussing. I've got useful things to do. Enjoy.

In article ,
wrote:
You've got to the crux of the matter. Send our country into a lengthy
recession from which it may never recover so you can buy a faster
toaster.

While independant we, meaning the government, can tailor financial
policy in our interest. Welded to the rest of Europe we can't. If it
makes just 1% difference to growth per year, after decades it'll be a
big difference.

You can certainly tailor financial policy internally to suit your own
country best. But when it comes to trading with others, you need to agree
on the terms of that trade. Including financial policies, where they
effect that trade. The days of turning up in a foreign country with a ship
full of beads and swapping them for gold are long since gone.

It's one of the main reasons why the euro is such a dumb
idea.

We're not in the Euro.

And criminalising people for selling 1kW hoovers is just idiotic.

Yup. It's the death penalty for selling a 1001w Hoover from a market stall.

That's
where europe is heading right now, making a farce of the law and basic
justice at full speed.

Basic justice. Being able to buy a 1001w Hoover. You need to get a life.

--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Oh boy. It means we can vote political parties out of office if we don't
like what they do. It means we have some control over our lives.

You don't vote for a political party in the UK. All you can do is vote for
the MP of your choice. A very different matter. It's not uncommon to have
an excellent MP who gets voted in again against the national trend.

Compare this with the typical European country model where no-one even
takes laws seriously. For a long list of reasons. And that's their own
country's laws.

Ever been to Germany? That is the largest EU country. Where they are far
more law abiding in general than the UK.

they're the exception

try looking at the club-med countries

tim

In article ,
wrote:
Its extremely simple, just leaving the EU doesn't make us free to do
what we like as the leavers keep claiming.

nonsense. It just means EU won't dictate much re what we do within our
own country.

I know you know this. That the EU doesn't dictate anything. It has to be
passed by the EU parliament. So do try and keep the hyperbole to within
sensible limits.

Exactly so. If we wish to continue trading with the EU, we will have
to negotiate the new conditions. Only an optimistic fool would hope
they'll be better than the existing ones. All the available evidence
says otherwise.

Most UK trade is internal.

Really? That 1001 watt Hoover you are so desperate to buy is made in the
UK? They will set up a special production line just to supply the UK if we
leave?


In that area the UK retains control. Foreign trade is inevitably always
negotiated between countries.

Which is the problem. The UK isn't a self sufficient country - or one with
lots of natural resources it can sell to anyone. It is a small country
with a large population that earns its living through trading with the
world. Goods and services. And the EU is the largest trading block in the
world.

--
*I was once a millionaire but my mom gave away my baseball cards

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

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:37:55 +0100, michael adams wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Tim doesn't seem to know much about history. The whole car emissions
thing started in California.

That's strange, as Timmy is never done boasting about his time working in
Califonia. That and all the years he spent with his snout buried deep in
the CERN trough.

Then he's probably talking ********, as usual.
He'd have to understand various operating systems at CERN, & from what
I've seen of him in other groups, he knows buggerall about Linux &
CERN uses a LOT of Linux computers.

In article ,
wrote:
People and businesses will be prosecuted for selling toasters, kettles &
hoovers that there's nothing whatever wrong with.

Could you please give a link to the regs etc which support this claim?

There is legislation in force about the manufacture of domestic vacuum
cleaners above a certain power input. The idea being to force the makers
to improve their efficiency. But it doesn't apply to industrial machines.

The kettle thing is simply lies, since you can't increase the efficiency
of that to any major extent.


That's what the law means. That's one of the first things the Eu will
do for us. Comprendi?

I'd guess you love reading about such things in the press of your choice.
So have a read of this Telegraph article:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-cleaners.html

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

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

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 13 June 2016 14:54:56 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Monday, 13 June 2016 13:35:22 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Oh boy. It means we can vote political parties out of office if we don't like
what they do.

Such as invading Iraq and using billions of taxpayers money to bail
out the banks, so as to keep paying bankers their million pound bonuses
you mean ?

- Do you have any clue how much worse it would be if we have no vote whatsoeevr
- over our lawmakers?


I work on the asumption that anyone who assumes power is still subject to economic
imperatives. And that this country no longer has any raw materials it can exploit.

So no. I don't have any clue.

Will they lower they minimum wage for instance ?

Or make zero-hours contracts compulsory ?

Or close down the BBC and sell it to Rupert Murdoch so that everyone has to
pay more and still watch adverts.

They're not going to re-open the coal mines and start up the British Empire again
are they ?

Do please explain.


It means we have some control over our lives.

Such as choosing which of two Old Etonians will be our next Prime Minister you mean
?

- As opposed to having someone in control thousands of miles away

Who never went to a public school, but like their parents held down an ordinary job
before being elected and know what it is to worry about not having enough money
you mean ?

- that has nothing but indifference & mild resentment against Britain

unlike Old Etonians* who have nothing but indifference & mild resentment against
British plebs who don't know their place.

- is making laws primarily for others' benefit,

And so unlike Old Etonians who are making laws for their own benefit and those
of their kind.

Never mind you can look forward to another twenty years of Old Etonians
since those clever Conservatives have discovered a way to subvert the Labour
Leadership Election process.

Now that's what I call democracy in action !

You really don't get it do you.

All I get from your response, is your evident unwillingness to answer reasonable
questions.


michael adams

....

In article ,
tim... wrote:
Compare this with the typical European country model where no-one even
takes laws seriously. For a long list of reasons. And that's their own
country's laws.

Ever been to Germany? That is the largest EU country. Where they are
far more law abiding in general than the UK.

they're the exception

Thought we were?

The EU gangs up on the UK by insisting only the UK follows its diktats.
Other EU countries can do as they wish.

Doesn't that seem odd to you?

try looking at the club-med countries

I have. Last time I was there, Spain (or the part of it I was in) seemed
to ignore the smoking indoors in a public place stuff. Like in bars.
I'm sure they ignore other such laws too.

It's so good to get back to the UK and find everyone obeying the speed
limit on the motorway...

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
People and businesses will be prosecuted for selling toasters, kettles &
hoovers that there's nothing whatever wrong with.

Could you please give a link to the regs etc which support this claim?

There is legislation in force about the manufacture of domestic vacuum
cleaners above a certain power input. The idea being to force the makers
to improve their efficiency. But it doesn't apply to industrial machines.

The kettle thing is simply lies, since you can't increase the efficiency
of that to any major extent.

It may be physically impossible

But that didn't stop the numpties in the Commission considering it - there
is public record of that (somewhere)

tim

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:12:30 +0100, tim... wrote:

The kettle thing is simply lies, since you can't increase the
efficiency of that to any major extent.

It may be physically impossible

But that didn't stop the numpties in the Commission considering it -
there is public record of that (somewhere)

Must be true. The Mail, the Express and the Telegraph all printed it...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:11:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

try looking at the club-med countries

I have. Last time I was there, Spain (or the part of it I was in) seemed
to ignore the smoking indoors in a public place stuff. Like in bars. I'm
sure they ignore other such laws too.

When we went to Rome in 2005, the smoking ban there seemed to be very
enthusiastically obeyed - seriously. We were gobsmacked at how much so.

thinks
Oh, wait a sec. That was two years before the UK smoking ban came in. And
11 EU countries still don't have a smoking ban in place, and only seven
have bans as widespread as the UK (including Spain).

Mmm. I wonder how such an EU-wide law could be so variably implemented.
Unless... No, surely not. But we keep getting told everything is down to
the EU telling us what to do...?

"Martin Barclay" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:37:55 +0100, michael adams wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Tim doesn't seem to know much about history. The whole car emissions
thing started in California.

That's strange, as Timmy is never done boasting about his time working in
Califonia. That and all the years he spent with his snout buried deep in
the CERN trough.

Then he's probably talking ********, as usual.
He'd have to understand various operating systems at CERN, & from what
I've seen of him in other groups, he knows buggerall about Linux &
CERN uses a LOT of Linux computers.

The Timmy I was referring to is Mr Streater; who AFAIAA is a Mac using Windows
skeptic.

Possibly the Timmy you're referring to is somebody else ?


michael adams

....

On 13/06/2016 16:12, tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
People and businesses will be prosecuted for selling toasters, kettles &
hoovers that there's nothing whatever wrong with.

Could you please give a link to the regs etc which support this claim?

There is legislation in force about the manufacture of domestic vacuum
cleaners above a certain power input. The idea being to force the makers
to improve their efficiency. But it doesn't apply to industrial machines.

The kettle thing is simply lies, since you can't increase the efficiency
of that to any major extent.

It may be physically impossible

But that didn't stop the numpties in the Commission considering it -
there is public record of that (somewhere)

tim




Considering things is not a bad thing!
Not considering things is a bad thing!

In article ,
tim... wrote:
There is legislation in force about the manufacture of domestic vacuum
cleaners above a certain power input. The idea being to force the
makers to improve their efficiency. But it doesn't apply to industrial
machines.

The kettle thing is simply lies, since you can't increase the
efficiency of that to any major extent.

It may be physically impossible

But that didn't stop the numpties in the Commission considering it -
there is public record of that (somewhere)

If your task as some form of non specialist civil servant was to look at
improving the efficiency of all domestic appliances, you'd first pick and
chose the ones you *think* it might apply to? Isn't that the job of the
experts you take advice from?

Very odd way of doing things. Except with hindsight.

For those who think this sort of legislation just happens, Dyson lobbied
hard to have the limit on vacuum cleaners set lower than it ended up.

The way such legislation is arrived at in practice isn't so very different
from the UK.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

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

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:07:33 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

For those who think this sort of legislation just happens, Dyson lobbied
hard to have the limit on vacuum cleaners set lower than it ended up.

What, James "Out! The EU is so terrible to businessmen like me!" Dyson?

Surely not!

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:07:33 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

For those who think this sort of legislation just happens, Dyson
lobbied hard to have the limit on vacuum cleaners set lower than it
ended up.

What, James "Out! The EU is so terrible to businessmen like me!" Dyson?

Surely not!

I can't remember the whole story, but he threw a hissy fit when not
allowed to expand his UK factory exactly as he wanted to. So took his ball
away. Might just be the same with the EU.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

"Adrian" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:07:33 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

For those who think this sort of legislation just happens, Dyson lobbied
hard to have the limit on vacuum cleaners set lower than it ended up.

What, James "Out! The EU is so terrible to businessmen like me!" Dyson?

Surely not!

quote

05 Sep 2014

A new law banning vacuum cleaners rated above 1,600 watts came into effect on September
1,

as part of the European Commission's plans to meet targets on energy efficiency.

Dyson was not affected by the changes, as none of its vacuum cleaners are rated above
1,400 watts.

However, the company's founder claims the legislation is too crude and does not go far
enough.

"When the ErP (Energy related Products) legislation was first mooted, we were campaigning
for

lower limits - in fact we wanted a 700 watt limit," said Mr Dyson.



/quote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...-cleaners.html

To repeat:

" in fact we wanted a 700 watt limit," said Mr Dyson



michael adams



....

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael
adams wrote:

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

On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Oh boy. It means we can vote political parties out of office if we don't like
what they do.

Such as invading Iraq and using billions of taxpayers money to bail
out the banks, so as to keep paying bankers their million pound bonuses
you mean ?

So which particular, electable, political party was against either of those
things ?

It means we have some control over our lives.

Such as choosing which of two Old Etonians will be our next Prime Minister you
mean ?

Plus getting shot of all the Polish plumbers and builders while at the same
time renouncing the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees,
The European Convention on Human Rights and going back on the Gold Standard.

Do try not to be a complete arse, such as by attributing stuff to
people (me, in this instance)


My replies, if you look, were inserted inline, to the doubly indented text which was
posted by in

And so correctly attributed

Had I being responsing to the immediate previous poster, you in this case, then I would
have been
responding to singly indented text . posted by "Tim Streater"


Whereas it would seem that in this case I didn't find anything of yours worth responsing
to, so I snipped it.

Perhaps, so as to avoid any similar upsets in the future you could find somebody to
explain
all this indenting business to you.

HTH


michael adams

....

On 13/06/16 16:32, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:11:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

try looking at the club-med countries

I have. Last time I was there, Spain (or the part of it I was in) seemed
to ignore the smoking indoors in a public place stuff. Like in bars. I'm
sure they ignore other such laws too.

When we went to Rome in 2005, the smoking ban there seemed to be very
enthusiastically obeyed - seriously. We were gobsmacked at how much so.

thinks
Oh, wait a sec. That was two years before the UK smoking ban came in. And
11 EU countries still don't have a smoking ban in place, and only seven
have bans as widespread as the UK (including Spain).

Mmm. I wonder how such an EU-wide law could be so variably implemented.
Unless... No, surely not. But we keep getting told everything is down to
the EU telling us what to do...?

There isn't an EU law on dog fouling either.

But there could be. You could be walking your dog on the Lapland Tundra,
and a helicopter lands next to you and arrests you for not sticking its
crap in a plastic bag 'because we have harmonised dog crap laws, so what
applies in Hyde park, applies in Lapland, that's called harmonisation'
which is the same as diversity, of course, in doublethink terms.

And the point would be, that that would be slipped in as a regulation.
After all who at Brussels cares about dog crap in Lapp[land: They want
Brussels streets cleaned up - its just 'streamlining and harmonising
regulations' and there would be nothing you, or any MEP or indeed anyone
anywhere in the EU could do about it.

All you need is for things in the EU to get a bit worse, and a sort of
latter day Hitler to get control of it, and there would be no way short
of armed insurrection, to stop a total takeover.




--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael
adams wrote:

unlike Old Etonians* who have nothing but indifference & mild resentment
against British plebs who don't know their place.

Oooh, look, another snob. Perhaps you and Dave should get married.


Don't fool yourself, Dave and his mates look with equal disdain at Middle Class
wannabees such as you chum. While Gideons firm will happily to sell you nice
wallpaper at £160 a pop, that's as far it goes.

You're still just scum, voting fodder, same as the rest of us.


michael adams

....

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:31:07 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

There isn't an EU law on dog fouling either.

But there could be.

Bring.
It.
On.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:11:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

try looking at the club-med countries

I have. Last time I was there, Spain (or the part of it I was in) seemed
to ignore the smoking indoors in a public place stuff. Like in bars. I'm
sure they ignore other such laws too.

When we went to Rome in 2005, the smoking ban there seemed to be very
enthusiastically obeyed - seriously. We were gobsmacked at how much so.

thinks
Oh, wait a sec. That was two years before the UK smoking ban came in. And
11 EU countries still don't have a smoking ban in place, and only seven
have bans as widespread as the UK (including Spain).

Scotland has more restrictive laws against smoking than England, and they
started earlier. It's not a "UK" thing.

Mmm. I wonder how such an EU-wide law could be so variably implemented.
Unless... No, surely not. But we keep getting told everything is down to
the EU telling us what to do...?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , michael
adams wrote:

unlike Old Etonians* who have nothing but indifference & mild resentment
against British plebs who don't know their place.

Oooh, look, another snob. Perhaps you and Dave should get married.


Don't fool yourself, Dave and his mates look with equal disdain at Middle Class
wannabees such as you chum. While Gideons firm will happily to sell you nice
wallpaper at £160 a pop, that's as far it goes.

Ah how witty. I was referring to Dave Plowman.

Fair enough. Although I still fail to see how my original remark qualifies me as a snob
;
whether in common with anyone, else or not.

Gideon only went to Westminster of course ; but he qualifies as an honorary
Old Etonian.


michael adams

....

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , michael
adams wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

Whereas it would seem that in this case I didn't find anything of yours worth
responsing to, so I snipped it.

In which case, oh clueless troll, you snip their name as well.

Having just checked, you simply appended a semi-incomprehensible AOL type comment
to the bottom of NT's post

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


Compare this with the typical European country model where no-one even takes
laws seriously. For a long list of reasons. And that's their own country's
laws.

When people outside of UK rule what happens here, generally they have little
care or concern what the results are, or what we think of it. AND we will be
wholly unable to remove them from office or repeal the laws. Only someone that
doesn't understand the fundamentals of basic liberties would vote for such a
stupid loss of freedoms.

Or indeed ask the question in the first place.

Now to be perfectly honest with you, it was hardly worth the effort to scroll all the way
down to the bottom of the post, in order to read those nine words.

Never mind scroll all the way back to the top again for the solitary benefit of anyone
incapable of counting a few indents.


michael adams

....

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 13/06/2016 11:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 13/06/2016 09:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 09:09:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The main issue is about sovereignty.

That may be the issue for you but not for everyone.
Anyway you don't mean sovereignty, you mean race.

No Denise, You mean race.

Only remainers talk about race.

Brexiteers talk about immigration numbers, about economics and about
sovereignty.

So you see no inherent difference whatsoever between, say, a German or
a Norwegian or an American moving to the UK compared to a Turk or a
Pakistani or a Lithuanian?

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

It means we get to set the numbers. It means that laws affect this
country are made in this country. Simples.

Really?
And to think that laws in other countries don't affect the UK is just
silly.
How about the USA immigration laws? do they affect the UK?

Which particular laws made by the EU do you think will not affect the
UK if we leave?

Very funny Den. As anyone with two brain cells to rub together (not
you, evidently) could tell, I was referring to laws made in this
country to do with matters affecting those *in* this country. US
immigration laws don't affect this country, they affect people who
might be trying to visit the US *from* this country. And the US will
make those laws without regard to us, as will the EU (well in fact they
already do).

And to your question, the answer is all of them.


So for example car emissions laws won't have to be complied with?

Only if the car will be exported.

On 13/06/2016 15:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Its extremely simple, just leaving the EU doesn't make us free to do
what we like as the leavers keep claiming.

nonsense. It just means EU won't dictate much re what we do within our
own country.

I know you know this. That the EU doesn't dictate anything. It has to be
passed by the EU parliament. So do try and keep the hyperbole to within
sensible limits.

Exactly so. If we wish to continue trading with the EU, we will have
to negotiate the new conditions. Only an optimistic fool would hope
they'll be better than the existing ones. All the available evidence
says otherwise.

Most UK trade is internal.

Really? That 1001 watt Hoover you are so desperate to buy is made in the
UK? They will set up a special production line just to supply the UK if we
leave?

This vacuum cleaner rule is pretty stupid when you actually know what
the rules say..

The EU didn't just reduce the power input they also change the
regulations so that said vacs had to suck up more dirt. That is they
said they had to be better vacs and use less power. So what do people
want a 2000w one or a 600 watt one that cleans better?

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:07:16 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

This vacuum cleaner rule is pretty stupid when you actually know what
the rules say..

More a case of the whinging is pretty stupid.

The EU didn't just reduce the power input they also change the
regulations so that said vacs had to suck up more dirt. That is they
said they had to be better vacs and use less power. So what do people
want a 2000w one or a 600 watt one that cleans better?

Simple. Some people want a 2kw **** one, on principle, simply because
somebody's said they can't have one.

I'll bet the people who are complaining loudest don't even do the damn
hoovering.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Slomo wrote:
Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Deciding for yourself what happens policy wise instead of
having that imposed by some failed politician in Brussels etc.

No one decides on policy for themselves.
It is decided by the government of the day.

Which always has an eye to how the voters will vote in the next
election when they do that. Unlike with the EU where the commission
doesn’t have to give a damn about how the voters will vote in the
next EP election, because it can't even decide to pull the plug on
some EU policy that has already been imposed by 'regulation' etc.

Often in direct contradiction to the manifesto they were elected on.

And when they do that, they risk being given the bums rush
at the ballot box in the next election, like Labour was quite
recently when Blair and Brown ****ed up badly enough.

And most UK governments ain't elected by a simple majority anyway.

But the voters can give them the bums rush
at the ballot box if they **** up badly enough.

And make and obscene gesture in the general direction
of Labour when they have actually been stupid enough
to have some fool like Corbyn want to drag Britain back
to the time just after the war when they nationalised just
about everything that mattered.

Not even possible for the voters to have any effect
on the most basic EU policy that way with the EP.

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

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

On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Oh boy. It means we can vote political parties out of office if we don't
like
what they do.

Such as invading Iraq and using billions of taxpayers money to bail
out the banks, so as to keep paying bankers their million pound bonuses
you mean ?

Nope, like giving Blair and Brown the bums rush at the
ballot box when they ****ed things up badly enough.

So which particular, electable, political party was against either of
those things ?

Yes, that power is limited because there obviously
needs to be a party that wants to do what you want,
but that's still much better than with the EU where
it doesn’t matter what any party wants when they
don’t get to initiate policy in the EP or even pull the
plug on regulations that the commission has imposed.

It means we have some control over our lives.

Such as choosing which of two Old Etonians will be our next Prime Minister
you mean ?

Neither Blair nor Brown nor Corbyn are.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

It means we get to set the numbers. It means that laws affect this
country are made in this country. Simples.


Really? And to think that laws in other countries don't affect the UK is
just silly. How about the USA immigration laws? do they affect the UK?

Which particular laws made by the EU do you think will not affect the UK
if we leave?

Just suppose we leave the EU and the EU makes a law
banning the import of all UK goods and services.

Not only won't they actually be stupid enough to do that
given that that would kill the only really viable manufacturing
operation the EU has outside the car industry, Airbus, the WTO
would pull the plug on that so fast Junker wouldn’t know what
hit him and the Germans would pull the plug on Junker so fast
that he wouldn’t know what hit him because of the effect on
Germany car exports too.

That won't be a UK law,

It won't be an EU law either for the reasons above.