Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
dennis@home wrote

There may be an issue with migrants but then
there may not be depending on who you believe.

But, of course, the UK has 100% control on all non-EU migrants -
who, even after that, are the majority of migration to this country.

That last is far from clear now.

If this referendum goes to the outers, it will be because of immigration.

Yes.

Governments of all colours have said they will 'reduce
it to a trickle' for more years than I can remember.

I don’t believe that with your trickle claim.

But none actually have.

There have in fact been very substantial
changes to what is allowed since the war.

And it's an issue in just about
every other country in the world.

Not really with the major immigrant countrys like
the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc, tho it
is certainly true that some of them like the US has
chosen to accept rather fewer than they used to.

The only way real to stop it is for us to have a poorer standard
of living than the country those wanting to come here from has.

That's wrong. Japan has always been much more restrictive about
who they allow to migrate to their country and their system works
quite well without any need to reduce their standard of living.

What will be fun if we do vote for out is the utter frustration
of those who expect immigrants to be sent home the next day

**** all want anything like that. UKIP certainly doesn’t.

- and no more to come.

**** all want anything like that. UKIP certainly doesn’t.

Even UKIP just wants to be selective about who is allowed
to come, basically those that benefit Britain because not
enough of the locals can do that work or choose not to.

in 1494387 20160614 095140 Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/06/16 13:45, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/06/2016 13:36, Tim Streater wrote:

Everyone knows what is meant

Do you actually believe that to be true?

even if you don't.

What kippers say changes to suit the weather so its impossible for
anyone to be sure what they mean. They don't even know themselves.

More waffle and blather.

You are starting to sound like Cameron.


Please get the spelling right, Camoron!

Playground stuff.

On 15/06/2016 01:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
No, the cheat software detected a test situation and altered
the engine parameters to pass the test, but affected vehicle
driveability and performance. In the real world the
emissions fail the test.

What's needed is more and better EU directives on vehicle testing, then.


An alternative using the current laws is to pull all the affected cars
up for "random" spot checks and fine the drivers.

That would hit VW rather hard when new cars are being sold and would
result in a lot of law suits against them.

However the current method where they are being forced to fix them is
probably better for all.

On 15/06/16 08:57, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 01:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
No, the cheat software detected a test situation and altered
the engine parameters to pass the test, but affected vehicle
driveability and performance. In the real world the
emissions fail the test.

What's needed is more and better EU directives on vehicle testing, then.


An alternative using the current laws is to pull all the affected cars
up for "random" spot checks and fine the drivers.


You cant simulate actual long term emissions on a random spot check by
the roadside. That was the point of the dyno test rigs, but
sophisticated software made them invalid, too.

Oddly enough, its this kind of crap that I set up Gridwatch to try and
understand. The long term real emissions from energy generation, not
what computer models, or idealised tests, showed.

Its taken a LONG time. and assistance for gridwatch, to actually put a
number on how much CO2 savings adding wind to one grid - Eirgrid- has had.

The answer. Less than half of what renewable energy lobbies claimed.

In terms of cars, what you probably need, is a NOx sensor, that builds
up data in an onboard database, and collect all that data after a year
from every car at the MOT, and if on balance the manufacturer is not
meeting specs, fine the *******s. Or Fail the MOT. Amounts to the same
really. If you can't meet emissions standards as defined by real time
monitoring, the car is unsaleable anyway.

The point is that you can with clever computers always defeat the
purpose of any particular test that is clearly and rigidly defined.

Better to use the clever computers to log actual real-world performance.




That would hit VW rather hard when new cars are being sold and would
result in a lot of law suits against them.

However the current method where they are being forced to fix them is
probably better for all.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
wrote:
On 13/06/2016 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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

In 20 years time the UK will have overtaken them. In 20 years time
Merkels dumb decision to welcome anyone will result in Germany being as
lawless as parts of Belgium, France and Britain are now. Ask the young
women of Cologne and other towns what they think about 'law abiding'.

The typical EU against poor little England response. Despite UK MEPs
voting in favour of about 80% of EU stuff. 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

You only need to see the way the new countries vote in Eurovision to see
where their sympathies lie - not with us. Remember, Eurovision is the
closest thing we get to an annual referendum on European 'cooperation'.

There's a lot more to Eurovision than the Song Contest. Think New Year's
Day Concert fron Vienna for a start.

I don't think bring up the argument that Eurovision does not equal Song
Contest is sensible when the point being made was obviously orthogonal to
that

tim

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 14/06/2016 21:02, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:52:51 +0100, Andrew wrote:

Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?

It's a term invariably used by those who don't know what it means.

It means the government that we elect, creates our laws and enforces
them, and we decide who comes here and who can take up residence and or
employment. We decide who is a 'refugee'.

Just like now, y'mean?


Well yes, if someone arrives in the UK and claims refugee status then yes
the UK government decides if they are a refugee.

If they arrive in another country they decide.

If its an EU country they become refugees and that does not entitle them
to free movement within the EU.

They are also illegal if they don't claim refugee status in the first safe
country and the UK can ship them back if it so desires.

There is no issue with refugees despite what harry and TNP claim.


The issue is, that (it is claimed) some countries fast track refugees to
citizen status, and then they do have free movement

I have no idea which counties do this and how fast the "fast track" is

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
HTF would it have got voted through?

I don't know the system, but the fact is that most of the proposals made
by commissioners are voted through the EP "on the nod"

Really? With all those UKIP MEPs?

As I have pointed out before, even if all of (UK) MEPs ganged up to vote
against they still won't have enough votes to even be noticed let along
stand a chance of defeating a proposal

And so many on here want to see UKIP in
power in the UK?

what has that got to do with the way the 663 non-UK members vote?

tim

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 21:42, michael adams wrote:

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.

Idiot. Only the top 5% went to University, with full grant, in the
60's and 70's.

Full grant? you must be joking. My grant - because I wasa Scot ands went
to English university was £50 PA.


in the 60-70s that was pretty much a full grant

tim

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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



Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important sporting
event finishes.

You need less powerful bottle openers, then.



My US jar opener is excellent for those with limited hand strength.
I guess that's next on the EU reduce power comsumption list.

Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:26:47 +0100, Andrew wrote:


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


Err, we *know* that VW diesel cars deliberately don't comply with

North American


emissions laws already.

The other proven faking relates to Japanese emission testing.

We do not know that ANYBODY has faked EU emissions testing results.

Now, that might be a case of "yet" - I cannot believe that VW's engineers
are uniquely duplicitous AND uniquely incompetent - but that's another
question entirely.

As, of course, is whether the UK would do anything but continue to
conform to EU type approval regulations, when they're rapidly becoming
the global standard, with Japanese and US regs being about the only
exceptions.


And the US being a big export market for the UK?

Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:10:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Anyway, wtf does "sovereignty" actually _MEAN_?


It's a term invariably used by those who don't know what it means.


It means the government that we elect, creates our laws and enforces
them, and we decide who comes here and who can take up residence and
or employment. We decide who is a 'refugee'.


Just like now, y'mean?


well no, not like now, since that doesn't happen

Yes, it does.

Here in the UK, we get to vote for both MPs and MEPs.
All law in the UK is enforced by UK judiciary.
The UK has 100% control over who can migrate to the UK.
The UK has 100% control over asylum claims here.

But, apart from that...

I always suspected you suffered from delusions. Keep taking the
remain medicine, it will keep you happy!.

On 15/06/2016 10:37, tim... wrote:


The issue is, that (it is claimed) some countries fast track refugees to
citizen status, and then they do have free movement

I have no idea which counties do this and how fast the "fast track" is

The UK does on selected refugees.

On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 19:22:06 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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


Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important sporting
event finishes. Low power kettles means the total power requirement
is spread over a longer period. But we have Dinorwig and one in Scotland
to do that, so it is a pointless directive. They don't drink tea in
Europe so it is equally pointless to them. Only the Germans have coffee
makers on the go all the time, but they have 8 new brown-coal fired
power stations to power those.

I'd like to know whether it was administrators or just who came up with the idea to reduce kettle ratings. The EU is not an answer.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 19:22:06 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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


Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important sporting
event finishes. Low power kettles means the total power requirement
is spread over a longer period. But we have Dinorwig and one in Scotland
to do that, so it is a pointless directive. They don't drink tea in
Europe so it is equally pointless to them. Only the Germans have coffee
makers on the go all the time, but they have 8 new brown-coal fired
power stations to power those.

I'd like to know whether it was administrators or just
who came up with the idea to reduce kettle ratings.

It was me.

The EU is not an answer.

Wrong, as always.

On 15/06/2016 12:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 19:22:06 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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


Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important
sporting event finishes. Low power kettles means the total power
requirement is spread over a longer period. But we have Dinorwig
and one in Scotland to do that, so it is a pointless directive.
They don't drink tea in Europe so it is equally pointless to them.
Only the Germans have coffee makers on the go all the time, but
they have 8 new brown-coal fired power stations to power those.

I'd like to know whether it was administrators or just who came up
with the idea to reduce kettle ratings. The EU is not an answer.



What makes you think anyone in the EU came up with the idea?
The EU has tasked some people with investigating making all appliances
more energy efficient they have not said those appliances have to use
less power just less energy if possible.
The whole reduce kettle power is leavers crying wolf.

dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 12:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 19:22:06 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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


Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important
sporting event finishes. Low power kettles means the total power
requirement is spread over a longer period. But we have Dinorwig
and one in Scotland to do that, so it is a pointless directive.
They don't drink tea in Europe so it is equally pointless to them.
Only the Germans have coffee makers on the go all the time, but
they have 8 new brown-coal fired power stations to power those.

I'd like to know whether it was administrators or just who came up
with the idea to reduce kettle ratings. The EU is not an answer.



What makes you think anyone in the EU came up with the idea?
The EU has tasked some people with investigating making all appliances
more energy efficient they have not said those appliances have to use
less power just less energy if possible.
The whole reduce kettle power is leavers crying wolf.

No, it is unnecessary legislation which wastes taxpayers money and
is a reflection of the EU's failed energy provision policies.

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 12:40:23 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 12:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 19:22:06 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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


Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important
sporting event finishes. Low power kettles means the total power
requirement is spread over a longer period. But we have Dinorwig
and one in Scotland to do that, so it is a pointless directive.
They don't drink tea in Europe so it is equally pointless to them.
Only the Germans have coffee makers on the go all the time, but
they have 8 new brown-coal fired power stations to power those.

I'd like to know whether it was administrators or just who came up
with the idea to reduce kettle ratings. The EU is not an answer.



What makes you think anyone in the EU came up with the idea?

So where did it come from that's why I asked.
Which is why I said the EU is NOT the answer.




The EU has tasked some people with investigating making all appliances
more energy efficient they have not said those appliances have to use
less power just less energy if possible.

What does that actually mean then.


The whole reduce kettle power is leavers crying wolf.

crying wolf over what, were' not leaving the USA are we ?

On 15/06/2016 12:45, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 12:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 19:22:06 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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


Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important
sporting event finishes. Low power kettles means the total power
requirement is spread over a longer period. But we have Dinorwig
and one in Scotland to do that, so it is a pointless directive.
They don't drink tea in Europe so it is equally pointless to them.
Only the Germans have coffee makers on the go all the time, but
they have 8 new brown-coal fired power stations to power those.

I'd like to know whether it was administrators or just who came up
with the idea to reduce kettle ratings. The EU is not an answer.



What makes you think anyone in the EU came up with the idea?
The EU has tasked some people with investigating making all appliances
more energy efficient they have not said those appliances have to use
less power just less energy if possible.
The whole reduce kettle power is leavers crying wolf.

No, it is unnecessary legislation which wastes taxpayers money and
is a reflection of the EU's failed energy provision policies.

Failed in the sense that they don't manage the energy provision?
Maybe they should have bought in a regulation?

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
What's needed is more and better EU directives on vehicle testing, then.


An alternative using the current laws is to pull all the affected cars
up for "random" spot checks and fine the drivers.

I'm pretty certain you'd need a change in the law for that. The standards
for a vehicle already on the road being different to those for selling a
new one.

And I'm surprised you'd find it fair to penalise a driver for what isn't
his fault.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

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

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
HTF would it have got voted through?

I don't know the system, but the fact is that most of the proposals made
by commissioners are voted through the EP "on the nod"

Really? With all those UKIP MEPs?

As I have pointed out before, even if all of (UK) MEPs ganged up to vote
against they still won't have enough votes to even be noticed let along
stand a chance of defeating a proposal

Yes. You and others keep on pointing this out. As if it was always the EU
united against the UK.

And so many on here want to see UKIP in
power in the UK?

what has that got to do with the way the 663 non-UK members vote?

Do you know what 'on the nod' means?



--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 19:22:06 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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


Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important
sporting event finishes. Low power kettles means the total power
requirement is spread over a longer period. But we have Dinorwig and
one in Scotland to do that, so it is a pointless directive. They don't
drink tea in Europe so it is equally pointless to them. Only the
Germans have coffee makers on the go all the time, but they have 8 new
brown-coal fired power stations to power those.

I'd like to know whether it was administrators or just who came up
with the idea to reduce kettle ratings.

The anti-EU meja, etc. Same that came up with bent bananas and all the
other folklore. Take 1% truth and add 99% speculation.

The EU is not an answer.

That is just what you're being manipulated to think. By actually believing
those sorts of lies.

--
*No hand signals. Driver on Viagra*

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

dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 12:45, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 12:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 19:22:06 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


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


Nope. They are trying to reduce power surges when an important
sporting event finishes. Low power kettles means the total power
requirement is spread over a longer period. But we have Dinorwig
and one in Scotland to do that, so it is a pointless directive.
They don't drink tea in Europe so it is equally pointless to them.
Only the Germans have coffee makers on the go all the time, but
they have 8 new brown-coal fired power stations to power those.

I'd like to know whether it was administrators or just who came up
with the idea to reduce kettle ratings. The EU is not an answer.



What makes you think anyone in the EU came up with the idea?
The EU has tasked some people with investigating making all appliances
more energy efficient they have not said those appliances have to use
less power just less energy if possible.
The whole reduce kettle power is leavers crying wolf.

No, it is unnecessary legislation which wastes taxpayers money and
is a reflection of the EU's failed energy provision policies.

Failed in the sense that they don't manage the energy provision?
Maybe they should have bought in a regulation?


In case you haven't noticed, Germany runs the EU and they have set
the stupid energy policies of windmills and no nukes. Until Germany can
finish building enough brown coal power stations to supply energy
demand, any feeble reason for reducing current flow is being pushed
through the EU.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
No, it is unnecessary legislation which wastes taxpayers money and
is a reflection of the EU's failed energy provision policies.

Failed in the sense that they don't manage the energy provision?
Maybe they should have bought in a regulation?

The rancid right don't want energy savings. They prefer to increase the
provision and then waste it.

Not quite sure why, but it's the logical conclusion.

--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses. *

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

En el artículo , Bob Eager
escribió:

http://goo.gl/O9IEaO

"Just don't make the mistake of believing anything that the politicians
say between now and 23 June"

Amen to that.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
dennis@home wrote

No, it is unnecessary legislation which wastes taxpayers money
and is a reflection of the EU's failed energy provision policies.

Failed in the sense that they don't manage the energy provision?
Maybe they should have bought in a regulation?

The rancid right don't want energy savings.

More of your lies.

They prefer to increase the provision and then waste it.

More of your lies.

Not quite sure why, but it's the logical conclusion.

More of your lies.

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 19:40:30 UTC+1, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Bob Eager
escribió:

http://goo.gl/O9IEaO

"Just don't make the mistake of believing anything that the politicians
say between now and 23 June"

Amen to that.

and after unless you're predicting the world or the EU will come to an end on 24th.