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

More of your lies.

so you can buy a faster toaster.

On 13/06/16 19:06, Adrian wrote:
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.

Jesus H.

Do you think that the same law should apply in the middle of Dartmoor as
in the Middle of Berlin?

No wonder you think te EU is a Good Thing.

WE have to protect the nation from people like you, Plow**** and Denise.



--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

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

Exactly so. If we wish to continue trading with the
EU, we will have to negotiate the new conditions.

More lies. Britain is free to trade with the EU under the WTO rules
and doesn’t have to negotiate anything with the EU to trade with it.

Only an optimistic fool would hope
they'll be better than the existing ones.

Sure, but it is also free to import anything it likes from anywhere it likes
and doesn’t have to give a damn about what the EU used to require it
do with imports from non EU countrys tariff and quota wise.

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Why would we have to comply with EU car emission laws for cars owned by
UK citizens.

I thought the idea behind EU car emission laws was to protect children and
other
vulnerable people living in towns from having to breathe in too much ****
whenever
they walk outside their front door.

With Britain outside the EU it would be free to decide for itself
if the EU requirements were sensible or if different ones would
get a better result in Britain.

wrote in message
...
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.

Yes.

Foreign trade is inevitably always negotiated between countries.

Not anymore, most of the time its done under
the WTO rules without any negotiation at all.

dennis@home wrote
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.

But Britain would be free to do what it likes to ensure that it isn't for
long. And in fact with cheaper imports, it could be better off too.

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.

That assumes that the euro has survived.
That is looking increasingly unlikely.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
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?

Britain is much more economically important than Switzerland
will ever be so can just make an obscene gesture in the general
direction of the EU if it trys to make Britain do that. Britain is in
fact the 4th most important economy in the entire world.

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!

Or use the WTO rules and carry ignore their demands on the free movement
of people, which the EU didnt require of any but Switzerland of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote
michael adams wrote
Tim Streater wrote
tabbypurr wrote
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.

Not really. It isnt hard to see how that works in say
Singapore, Zimbabwe, the EU etc where there is no real
way for the voters to have any effect on policy at all.

They seem to spend a great deal of time doing
patch up laws which often don't work,

They mostly do work quite well with the stuff that matters.

rather than anticipating what needs to be done.

The EU doesn’t do that either. Couldn’t even work out
how to make the euro work, or even how to handle the
hordes of 'refugees' either or even how to avoid lots of
people from places like Romania showing up in Britain
and France etc and ****ing the locals off completely and
seeing something like half of them want to leave the EU.

Sure, those are very intractable problems, but at least when
the locals do get to give their politicians the bums rush at
the ballot box when they are ****ed off enough about what
they have done policy wise, that does work rather better than
when the only alternative is to leave the EU or to have a full
civil war as so many european countrys have had etc.

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?

Its never that black and white. Much of it is just mindless bigotry as we
can see with harry and the turnip and with you with the right wingers.

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.

And every country on earth has those.

To the extent where all EU legislation bad. All UK
legislation good. No logic - just the usual bigotry.

Yes, but you do plenty of that too, particularly with
UKIP and the turnip.

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.

Doesn’t take any time at all to decide that all those who
are currently in Britain are free to stay unless they choose
to flout the most important laws in the country and that
those who want to come in future will have Britain decide
which of them it allows to move to Britain, just like it already
does with everyone except EU citizens and the Irish.

Not something the majority of the outer racists will be willing
to stomach. They want them all gone the very next day.

That is just more of your bigotry. And it doesn’t matter
what those want anyway, they aren't going to get it.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message

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.

But how many people voted Labour in the expectation
that it would be a Labour Government who would invade
Iraq, carry on with deregulation and bail out banks to the
tune of billions while allowing the bonus culture to remain ?

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

There's widespread disconnection with the political process
in the UK as increasing numbers of people at the bottom of
the heap - everyone from the long term unemployed on sink
estates to recent graduates on zero hours contracts who are
up to their ears in debt - come to realise that no matter who
they vote for, nothing is ever going to change.

In fact the only people who are really happy with the way
things are going Govt.wise at present are my fellow wrinklies.
Those with private health insurance at least. The Grey Vote.
All former beneficiaries of free university education in their
time, and nowadays courted by both political parties
with triple locked state pensions.

At a guess it's the wrinklies who are mainly concerned about
immigration, and its the wrinklies who might well swing this vote.

Years ago there were semi- serious discussions about euthenising
anyone selfish enough to be still taking up room at the age of
65. While not going quite that far, for fairly obvious reasons,
I certainly think wrinklies should be disbarred from voting in
referendums whose outcomes could have serious repercussions
maybe over the next 50 years.

Basically once we're out that's it. There's no getting back in.
Whereas while we're still in we can still bugger off any time we
like, and there's not really all that much anyone can do about it.
The consequences then, can hardly be much worse than is currently
being threatened for Brexit.

Please don't answer this with more of your silly points,
I'm bored to death with all this already.


michael adams

....

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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.

Regulations don’t.

"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,

Nope.

since you can't increase the efficiency of that to any major extent.

That one isn't to increase the efficiency, it's to reduce the peak
of demand on the electricity grid when all those people put
the kettle on during an ad break in a major national event etc.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:42:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

But there could be.

Bring.
It.
On.

Jesus H.

Do you think that the same law should apply in the middle of Dartmoor as
in the Middle of Berlin?

Yes, I do think people should take their ****ing revolting dog**** home
wherever they are.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
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)

Considering things is not a bad thing!

It can be, most obviously when considering
using concentration camps and gulags etc.

Not considering things is a bad thing!

Not necessarily.

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

The big difference is that policy is initiated by those elected by the
voters.

It doesn’t happen that way in the EU.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.

Bull****. The EP can sack the entire commission if it chooses to do that.

On 13/06/2016 08:01, Bob Eager wrote:
I didn't see that written in large letters on the Leave battle bus. It
was all about money.

Strange not to use that for the 'main issue'.

"THE" battle bus actually says:

labourinforbritain.org.uk
Vote remain 23 June
Labour IN

OR

In Europe for Britain
Stronger Safer Better Off

The other one even had to copy Labour's colour. :-)

You can get both Michael Gove and Boris Johnson out of:

Just Checking: Scenes From the Life of an Obsessive-Compulsive

:-)

--
Rod

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

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.

In which case it's automatically illegal.

More lies.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
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?

I prefer to choose what has been tested to do what I want
and to not have some unelected bureaucrat decide what
I can and can not buy when there is no safety involved.

If a higher power motor is the cheapest way to get the
result I want in a vacuum cleaner, that is my choice.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:07:35 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Martin
Barclay wrote:

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.

Not in 1970 they didn't.

Sorry, I thought it was another "Tim" he was referring to.

michael adams wrote
Rod Speed wrote
michael adams wrote

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.

But how many people voted Labour in the expectation
that it would be a Labour Government who would invade
Iraq, carry on with deregulation and bail out banks to the
tune of billions while allowing the bonus culture to remain ?

Irrelevant. The point is that when they **** up badly enough,
they are free to pull the plug on them the next time they vote.
And they did just that.

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

There's widespread disconnection with the political process
in the UK as increasing numbers of people at the bottom of
the heap - everyone from the long term unemployed on sink
estates to recent graduates on zero hours contracts who are
up to their ears in debt - come to realise that no matter who
they vote for, nothing is ever going to change.

That is because no govt has much control over the economy
and they get to wear what the population chooses to do on
the number of brats they produce, how much effort they put
into getting qualified for a decent job, what they choose to
spend their money on, etc etc etc.

And things clearly do change significantly over time too.

In fact the only people who are really happy with the way
things are going Govt.wise at present are my fellow wrinklies.

I don’t believe that either, particularly with the hordes
of immigrants that keep showing up in Britain because
their prospects are much better there than where they are
coming from, even if they are immigrants themselves.

Those with private health insurance at least. The Grey Vote. All former
beneficiaries of free university education in their time,

**** all of them did in fact get a university education.

and nowadays courted by both political parties with triple locked state
pensions.

**** all of them have those either.

At a guess it's the wrinklies who are mainly concerned about immigration,

I'm not convinced. Its also the recent immigrants
tho those don’t necessarily get to vote.

and its the wrinklies who might well swing this vote.

I don’t believe that. IMO they are much more likely to not
bother to vote because they don’t care that much about politics.

There's a reason that the number who bother to vote keeps dropping.

Years ago there were semi- serious discussions about euthenising
anyone selfish enough to be still taking up room at the age of 65.

Nope, that was always just another mindless troll.

While not going quite that far, for fairly obvious reasons,
I certainly think wrinklies should be disbarred from voting in referendums
whose outcomes could have serious repercussions maybe over the next 50
years.

Trouble is that that is true of almost all referendums.

Yes, it would be better if the senile were not allowed
to vote but its just not practical to go that route.

Basically once we're out that's it. There's no getting back in.

That is just plain wrong. Britain would be free to join again
but would have to do that using the new rules which require
being part of the eurozone and schengen and stuff like that
that Britain had previously been free to not choose to be part of.

And if the eurozone does implode spectacularly and ends up
ceasing to exist, Britain would be better outside the EU while
that happens so it doesn’t have to get involved in desperately
attempting to stop that complete implosion financially and
could decide to rejoin the EU after that spectacular implosion
puts one hell of a bomb under the EU system and sees the
most undemocratic processes in the EU binned and a change
to a much more democratic system which doesn’t involve
any attempt to have most policy driven by the EU and it
just returns to being a decent free trade group instead.

Whereas while we're still in we can still bugger off any time we
like, and there's not really all that much anyone can do about it.

Nothing in fact except cut of their nose to spite their face.

The consequences then, can hardly be much worse than is currently being
threatened for Brexit.

It would be if Britain remains in the EU as the eurozone
implodes spectacularly and desperate attempts are made
to bail it out to futilely stop that implosion. The cost of
that would be immense and the economic damage too.

Britain would be much better out of the EU while that happens.

Harder to say how likely that is to happen tho.

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...
snip
Please don't answer this with more of your silly points,
I'm bored to death with all this already.

Aren't we all. He needs to get out more and quit typing ******** in here.

in 1494066 20160613 091631 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.

We?????

in 1494099 20160613 105708 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Another John
wrote:

Further "The main issue" depends on which particular Brexiteer you're
talking to. The Leave camp is made up of disparate, and potentially
antagonistic, troops of self-interested bigots.

**** off.

Translated : "I concede"

On Monday, 13 June 2016 09:10:58 UTC+1, 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_?

Sovereignty is the ability to run or own country as we wish.
If we don't like the government, we can get rid of it.

On Monday, 13 June 2016 10:01:34 UTC+1, Another John wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:

On Sunday, 12 June 2016 19:26:07 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/06/2016 10:34, tim... wrote:

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...

Spot the contribution to the EU : https://is.gd/CfCBeM

Gross: it's 1% of GDP

Nett: about half that

what's your point?

tim




Its somewhat less than that, about 0.4% before refunds, etc.
Compare that to the interest on the national debt.

The main issue is about sovereignty.

Your main issue changes, depending on which particular main issue is
having holes picked in it by the Remain camp.


Further "The main issue" depends on which particular Brexiteer you're
talking to. The Leave camp is made up of disparate, and potentially
antagonistic, troops of self-interested bigots. Should the Leave Camp
"win" (and you might), this will become instantly apparent, and we will
have chaos, if not anarchy. Then we'll get back to the Good Old Days of
18th century Britain, just like you all want.

J.

Anarchy lies with the EUSSR.
About to collapse.
Unemployment, dud banks, riots and rape and pillage in the streets.
Already.
We don't want to be anywhere near the final financial armageddon.
They will suck us dry trying to prop up the rotting corpse.

On Monday, 13 June 2016 11:04:43 UTC+1, 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?

None of them unless we CHOOSE to let them.
We need to set our own immigration laws in exactly the same way as the USA or anywhere else does.

On Monday, 13 June 2016 12:24:17 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
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?

We can make our own laws about that if we want.
Or adopt theirs if deemed appropiate.
Yoiu are incredibly thick Den!

On Monday, 13 June 2016 13:07:15 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/06/2016 12:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

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

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

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?

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.

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.

Yes it does.

On Monday, 13 June 2016 13:35:22 UTC+1, 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 ?


UKIP was against it.
The only party with a leader that tells the truth.
Vote UKIP

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

you seem to be referring to different things

the previous point you made was about the population and now you are
confusing that with the original point about "the government"


The EU gangs up on the UK by insisting only the UK follows its diktats.

no-one claims the EU gangs up on us to do it. We just seem to do it
willingly.

Other EU countries can do as they wish.

Other countries pontificate and try to weasel their way out of rules they
don't like

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.

Yep that was what we were trying to tell you - you seem to have got it

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

I didn't say our population was perfect (that's our government)

tim

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:22:24 -0700, harry wrote:

UKIP was against it.
The only party with a leader that tells the truth.

"I'm going to resign now the election is over"

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 14/06/2016 08:20, harry wrote:

Yes it does.


Well you are bankrupt now anyway as Boris has committed the leavers to
keep paying all the EU funded stuff until 2020.

This is from a bunch of people who have no control over what the
government spends so it must be a personal commitment by the leavers.

On 14/06/2016 08:16, harry wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 11:04:43 UTC+1, 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?

None of them unless we CHOOSE to let them.
We need to set our own immigration laws in exactly the same way as the USA or anywhere else does.


So you are admitting that in practice it makes no difference other than
we get no say in the EU laws we still have to follow.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:04:45 -0700, harry wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Sovereignty is the ability to run or own country as we wish.
If we don't like the government, we can get rid of it.

Oh, OK. In that case, we've got it more-or-less as much as we'd have it
post-brexit, unless you're also planning on going into total global
isolation from things like the UN and all the various international
treaties and summits...

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:35:58 +0100, tim... wrote:

The EU gangs up on the UK by insisting only the UK follows its diktats.

no-one claims the EU gangs up on us to do it. We just seem to do it
willingly.

Other EU countries can do as they wish.

Other countries pontificate and try to weasel their way out of rules
they don't like

So your beef appears to be with the UK government.

On 14/06/2016 08:04, harry wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

Sovereignty is the ability to run or own country as we wish.

Like North Korea?

If we don't like the government, we can get rid of it.


You opposed the war in Iraq and that was the only government you had a
hope of getting rid of.

On 14/06/2016 08:14, harry wrote:


Anarchy lies with the EUSSR.
About to collapse.
Unemployment, dud banks, riots and rape and pillage in the streets.
Already.
We don't want to be anywhere near the final financial armageddon.
They will suck us dry trying to prop up the rotting corpse.



You do understand what will result if that does happen?

The channel is easier to cross than the med for the refugees.
I suppose you think we will need machine guns along the coast.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:22:24 -0700, harry wrote:

UKIP was against it.
The only party with a leader that tells the truth.

"I'm going to resign now the election is over"

but he did

(It's hardly his fault that the party doesn't have two ha'penny to rub
together to create a new credible leader)

tim

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:07:37 +0100, tim... wrote:

UKIP was against it.
The only party with a leader that tells the truth.

"I'm going to resign now the election is over"

but he did

Well...
"I'm going to resign. I will. It's not an empty threat. Plead for me to
stay. Please? Umm, PLEASE? Oh, well, if you're going to be like that, I
won't resign."

(It's hardly his fault that the party doesn't have two ha'penny to rub
together to create a new credible leader)

And then he sacked the nearest there was to an alternative, just to feel
a bit safer.

Mind you, the average kipper wouldn't be particularly amenable to a
female party leader.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote

But how many people voted Labour in the expectation
that it would be a Labour Government who would invade
Iraq, carry on with deregulation and bail out banks to the
tune of billions while allowing the bonus culture to remain ?

Irrelevant. The point is that when they **** up badly enough,
they are free to pull the plug on them the next time they vote.
And they did just that.

Except they didn't **** up. Labour pursued the exact same
policies a Conservative government would have implemented
if in office. Post Election, nothing changed at all. All that
happened was that his Old Etonian education had equipped David
Cameron with the importance of switching off Sky News throat
mikes before calling erstwhile supporters bigoted women. And
the importance of not looking like an unelectable nerd
incapable of defending his own goverment's record.

In the 80's and 90's a startling suggestion emerged that
the way to win elections was to appeal to the middle
ground. Both in manifestos and subsequent policies.
The core voters will still vote for you whatever you
do, its the swing voters who dictate elections.
And so that's what happened. While oldsters might
still like to think they're replaying battles from
the 70's and 80's, to young people New Labour and the
Conservatives - all they've ever really had experience
of - are indistinguishable. As far as they're concerned
voting changes nothing.

As indeed it can't as most policy questions are decided
by global economic factors totally outside any UK
Govt's control in any case.

The old adage of "at least you're able to vote them out
of office" simply no longer applies. You're still going
to get the same policies just different presentation.



and its the wrinklies who might well swing this vote.

I don’t believe that. IMO they are much more likely to not
bother to vote because they don’t care that much about politics.

Just a few words of advice. When posting total ********
its prefereable to post total ******** when can't be
refuted by one single link.

Nevertheless, as with having a child in the class
who's unabashed about asking questions, truly stupid people
such as yourself do serve a purpose. In giving people such
as myself an opportunity to expand on points already
made for the benefit of any others like yourself
there at the back of the class, but afraid to
speak up.

quote

How Britain voted in 2015

Patterns of turnout remain relatively unchanged,
with concerning implications for the future of
democratic engagement. There appears to be no
significant increase in turnout among young people,
with 18-24s almost half as likely to vote as those
aged 65% (43% vs 78%; in 2010 estimated turnout for
18-24s was 44%).

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...d-in-2015.aspx

/quote


There's a reason that the number who bother to vote keeps dropping.

That was explained to you already. Disengagement from politics
by younger people for the reasons given. However most polls show
that same age group to be much more in favour of continued EU
membership. A fact that may not be reflected in the referendum
result, if this is unduly swayed by xenophobic propaganda.

However if referendum poll sampling is weighted for age group
turnout from taken from GE's, but the young turn out in
larger numbers than in GE's then the poll predictions may be
wrong to that extent. If the campaigners have any sense that's
the age group they should be targeting IMO.

michael adams

....