On 20/06/2016 17:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 16:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 15:43, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:46:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We'd first have to set up that factory to make those super power hungry
vacuum cleaners for the UK market. Which couldn't be exported to the
EU.
It might be possible to export them elsewhere - but very doubtful the
UK could be competitive with such things. And given our resident expert
on all things vacuum cleaner, Dyson, so much loved on here, doesn't
manufacture in the UK and also find no reason to make cleaners above
the
EU limit, it is a non starter.

Numatic, of course, do still manufacture in the UK.

Our Henry is around 20 years old, and the label has it rated at 850w...


And they are commercial machines so don't have to comply with the same
rules as household vacs anyway.

Lie.

The regulations are saying some manufacturers can make good vacs so we
will mandate that everyone does.
Lie


You do know that the vac regs also include a minimum performance
requirement as well as a maximum power, well, obviously not!

On 20/06/2016 21:38, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:29:01 +0100, tim... wrote:

The EU did once consider that as part of the single market we would have
to convert all our sockets to European standard

they backtracked eventually

Nope. The EU didn't consider it, and they didn't backtrack.

CENELEC is the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation.

It's not an EU body, it's made up of 33 countries (including the UK), and
it's very much ongoing.

https://www.cenelec.eu/aboutcenelec/...for/index.html


Its got eu in the URL so they probably think they are voting to leave
it. They think they are voting to abandon human rights when its got
nothing to do with the EU vote.

On 20/06/16 22:51, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 21:38, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:29:01 +0100, tim... wrote:

The EU did once consider that as part of the single market we would have
to convert all our sockets to European standard

they backtracked eventually

Nope. The EU didn't consider it, and they didn't backtrack.

CENELEC is the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation.

It's not an EU body, it's made up of 33 countries (including the UK), and
it's very much ongoing.

https://www.cenelec.eu/aboutcenelec/...for/index.html


Its got eu in the URL so they probably think they are voting to leave
it. They think they are voting to abandon human rights when its got
nothing to do with the EU vote.

And that's obviously because they are ignorant wogs eh Dennis?


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 20/06/16 22:32, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 16:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 16:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 14:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 13:30, dennis@home wrote:

No they don't. The EU doesn't force you to make stuff to a standard
only
to sell stuff to a standard in the EU.


Yes, they do. Take one look at the 'regulations' surrounding food.

Are you saying that if we export food to india we have to obey EU
regulations for that food?


Oddly enough crazy as it sounds I suspect the answer is in fact 'yes',
at least insofar as e.g. animal slaughter goes.

UK rules are tighter than the EU IIRC.


And certainly insofar as the H & S type conditions imposed on any food
processing plant goes.

And you think that is bad?


Do you REALLY think the EU would let us get away with 'we well we didn't
throw all that fish we are not allowed to catch back, we are *exporting
it to India*, so EU rules don't apply' ..

Quotas on fishing have always been pretty stupid in the UK before the EU
and now. They shouldn't be allowed to throw perfectly good fish back it
should just be taken off the total quota for that fish, if they exceed
the total they all have to stop for a bit.


You want to change the argument to the actaul standards applied to the
finished product, but that is really the least of the problems. Its the
standards enforced on food producers across the EU.

Odd it you that is moving the goal posts.

Nope, Its you.

I said 'look at the regulations surrounding food' and you said they
don't apply when we are exporting outside the UK

I proved to you that they do.

So you lied,. As usual.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 20/06/16 22:34, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 22:24:42 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

apparently you can ship a cow to scotland for a couple of weeks or so
and then it becomes scottish beef which sells for more than english
beef.
That may be the reason they are shipping them about and has nothing to
do with the EU.

"Scotch beef" is a Protected Geographic Indicator - and the cattle have
to have been reared their entire lives in Scotland, as well as meeting a
bunch of other quality standards

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tachment_data/
file/271297/pfn-scotchbeef-pgi.pdf

(and, yes, that's an EU scheme...)

"Scottish beef" does still require it to have been reared in Scotland its
entire life.

Same for "Welsh lamb". Except, obviously, not cows in Scotland.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tachment_data/
file/523249/protected-food-welsh-lamb-pgi-spec.docx.pdf

The Scotch whisky and Cornish pasty trade bodies have both backed Remain,
on the basis that PGI could be under threat if the UK leaves the EU.

So quick to jump on Densies straw man when you lost the argument eh?


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 20/06/16 22:45, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 17:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 16:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 15:43, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:46:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We'd first have to set up that factory to make those super power
hungry
vacuum cleaners for the UK market. Which couldn't be exported to the
EU.
It might be possible to export them elsewhere - but very doubtful the
UK could be competitive with such things. And given our resident
expert
on all things vacuum cleaner, Dyson, so much loved on here, doesn't
manufacture in the UK and also find no reason to make cleaners above
the
EU limit, it is a non starter.

Numatic, of course, do still manufacture in the UK.

Our Henry is around 20 years old, and the label has it rated at 850w...


And they are commercial machines so don't have to comply with the same
rules as household vacs anyway.

You are a liar Dennis.

They (Henrys) are household vacs. That you can walk into Currys and buy.


The regulations are saying some manufacturers can make good vacs so we
will mandate that everyone does.


No they are not. "From the 1st of September 2014, manufacturers were
banned from making or importing vacuum cleaners above 1,600 watts within
the European Union. "

End of story.



You had better tell Numatic then as they are selling 2000W ones here..

http://www.cleanstore.co.uk/products...ct.asp?ID=3771

You really don't have a clue about the EU and its regs that you despise
so much.


Again you introduce a straw man. You said numatic only make industrial
vaccuum cleaners. I said Henry's weren't industrial vacuum cleaners.

I never said that industrial machinery was subject to the 1600W rule.
That would be a bit silly when you might want something the size of a
transit sucking sludge up from a sewage tank.

So once again, you've been caught lying.



--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

On 20/06/16 22:47, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 17:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 16:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 15:43, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:46:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We'd first have to set up that factory to make those super power
hungry
vacuum cleaners for the UK market. Which couldn't be exported to the
EU.
It might be possible to export them elsewhere - but very doubtful the
UK could be competitive with such things. And given our resident
expert
on all things vacuum cleaner, Dyson, so much loved on here, doesn't
manufacture in the UK and also find no reason to make cleaners above
the
EU limit, it is a non starter.

Numatic, of course, do still manufacture in the UK.

Our Henry is around 20 years old, and the label has it rated at 850w...


And they are commercial machines so don't have to comply with the same
rules as household vacs anyway.

Lie.

The regulations are saying some manufacturers can make good vacs so we
will mandate that everyone does.
Lie


You do know that the vac regs also include a minimum performance
requirement as well as a maximum power, well, obviously not!

sigh, Get a life dennis.

You just dont like admitting you lied.


--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

In article ,
tim... wrote:
That doesn't need a trade agreement to do however. Nor does it involve
the UK in concveret8ing its domestic electricity supply to 100V to
'harmonize it with the USA.'

The EU did once consider that as part of the single market we would have
to convert all our sockets to European standard

Err, which European standard?

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

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

In article ,
jjjuu78 wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jjjuu78 wrote:
AIUI, the 2-year period can be extended by mutual agreement.

Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdr...nion#Procedure

But the country that chooses to leave doesn't have to negotiate at all
and certainly doesn't have to get the permission of anyone to leave.

Of course not. It can simply flounce out complete with ball. And never
darken their door again.

Or it can do what the more sensible do in a divorce, just accept the
fact that it isnt working, agree to disagree and have a ****up leaving
celebration just like many do when they change to a better job.

There is already a 'pre-nuptial agreement' in force. If the UK wants to
leave the EU, it takes approx 2 years to finalise things. A treaty the UK
willingly signed. But that hasn't stopped some of the BREXIT lot saying we
should welsh on that treaty. In other words, pull up the drawbridge.

Can't see the EU being too keen on coming
to a leaving ****up, but that is their problem.

The problem comes if we actually want to negotiate a trade agreement after
leaving. Which only total idiots think wouldn't be a good idea.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jjjuu78 wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jjjuu78 wrote:
AIUI, the 2-year period can be extended by mutual agreement.

Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdr...nion#Procedure

But the country that chooses to leave doesn't have to negotiate at all
and certainly doesn't have to get the permission of anyone to leave.

Of course not. It can simply flounce out complete with ball. And never
darken their door again.

Or it can do what the more sensible do in a divorce, just accept the
fact that it isnt working, agree to disagree and have a ****up leaving
celebration just like many do when they change to a better job.

There is already a 'pre-nuptial agreement' in force. If the UK wants to
leave the EU, it takes approx 2 years to finalise things.

That utterly mangles the real story. The 2 year thing just spells
out what happens if no agreement is reached in that time, not
that there has to be any negotiation at all, let alone any question
of being allowed to leave.

A treaty the UK willingly signed. But that hasn't stopped some of the
BREXIT
lot saying we should welsh on that treaty. In other words, pull up the
drawbridge.

Nothing to do with any drawbridge, in fact
no restriction at all on who Britain trades with.

Can't see the EU being too keen on coming
to a leaving ****up, but that is their problem.

The problem comes if we actually want to
negotiate a trade agreement after leaving.

No point really since the EU is going to make
it a condition of any agreement that Britain
continues to allow the free movement of
people from the EU and continues to pay
the EU what it currently pays. There is no
point in leaving the EU to end up with
exactly the same thing as Britain has now.

And they are certain to do that
to discourage others from leaving.

Same way they wouldn’t let Switzerland do anything
about restricting immigration to Switzerland.

Which only total idiots think wouldn't be a good idea.

Even sillier than you usually manage given that
it would be no different to what Britain has now.

The only viable approach is to make an obscene
gesture in the general direction of the EU if Britain
doesn’t like free movement of any EU citizen who
wants to move to Britain and be more selective
about what EU citizens are allowed to do that,
say have the same deal as there is with commonwealth
citizens, only those that Britain wants are allowed to move.

On 20/06/2016 23:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 22:32, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 16:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 16:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 14:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 13:30, dennis@home wrote:

No they don't. The EU doesn't force you to make stuff to a standard
only
to sell stuff to a standard in the EU.


Yes, they do. Take one look at the 'regulations' surrounding food.

Are you saying that if we export food to india we have to obey EU
regulations for that food?


Oddly enough crazy as it sounds I suspect the answer is in fact 'yes',
at least insofar as e.g. animal slaughter goes.

UK rules are tighter than the EU IIRC.


And certainly insofar as the H & S type conditions imposed on any food
processing plant goes.

And you think that is bad?


Do you REALLY think the EU would let us get away with 'we well we didn't
throw all that fish we are not allowed to catch back, we are *exporting
it to India*, so EU rules don't apply' ..

Quotas on fishing have always been pretty stupid in the UK before the EU
and now. They shouldn't be allowed to throw perfectly good fish back it
should just be taken off the total quota for that fish, if they exceed
the total they all have to stop for a bit.


You want to change the argument to the actaul standards applied to the
finished product, but that is really the least of the problems. Its the
standards enforced on food producers across the EU.

Odd it you that is moving the goal posts.

Nope, Its you.

I said 'look at the regulations surrounding food' and you said they
don't apply when we are exporting outside the UK

I proved to you that they do.

So you lied,. As usual.



You haven't proven any such thing, the UK rules were tighter than the EU
ones anyway, its more likely that the UK is driving the EU into tighter
rules than the EU is driving UK rules. You do see the difference?
probably not!

On 20/06/2016 23:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 22:45, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 17:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 16:50, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/06/2016 15:43, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:46:57 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We'd first have to set up that factory to make those super power
hungry
vacuum cleaners for the UK market. Which couldn't be exported to the
EU.
It might be possible to export them elsewhere - but very doubtful
the
UK could be competitive with such things. And given our resident
expert
on all things vacuum cleaner, Dyson, so much loved on here, doesn't
manufacture in the UK and also find no reason to make cleaners above
the
EU limit, it is a non starter.

Numatic, of course, do still manufacture in the UK.

Our Henry is around 20 years old, and the label has it rated at
850w...


And they are commercial machines so don't have to comply with the same
rules as household vacs anyway.

You are a liar Dennis.

They (Henrys) are household vacs. That you can walk into Currys and
buy.


The regulations are saying some manufacturers can make good vacs so we
will mandate that everyone does.


No they are not. "From the 1st of September 2014, manufacturers were
banned from making or importing vacuum cleaners above 1,600 watts within
the European Union. "

End of story.



You had better tell Numatic then as they are selling 2000W ones here..

http://www.cleanstore.co.uk/products...ct.asp?ID=3771

You really don't have a clue about the EU and its regs that you despise
so much.


Again you introduce a straw man. You said numatic only make industrial
vaccuum cleaners. I said Henry's weren't industrial vacuum cleaners.

I never said that industrial machinery was subject to the 1600W rule.
That would be a bit silly when you might want something the size of a
transit sucking sludge up from a sewage tank.

So once again, you've been caught lying.




You brought Henrys into this as part of your straw man and as I said
commercial machines don't have to comply.
You really need to stop lying as its obvious to all except fellow
brexiteers that you are.
You obviously don't want people to know that henrys have always complied
any way as they have always been low power machines and marketed towards
business users for many years before currys started selling them.

In message . com,
lid writes
On 20/06/2016 17:08, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 13:20:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Which is why the pig in the next door farm has to travel 120 miles
terrified out of its life to a slaughterhouse where its killed under
weird (but legal) conditions. Before being shipped back 120 miles to the
butcher or supermarket next door...

How odd. Round here, there's several slaughterhouses within about 20
miles.

The nearest big supermarket is about 20 miles away, too.


There are several marketing cons..

apparently you can ship a cow to scotland for a couple of weeks or so
and then it becomes scottish beef which sells for more than english
beef.
That may be the reason they are shipping them about and has nothing to
do with the EU.

Nearest livestock auction here? Pass! Thame? Chelmsford?

Nearest dead-weight outlet. Bedford. 30 miles!

Things change...

--
Tim Lamb

On 20-Jun-16 6:33 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 18:24, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jun-16 11:24 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 10:44, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jun-16 9:42 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 19-Jun-16 7:31 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 18-Jun-16 9:49 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/06/16 09:29, Nightjar wrote:

A country with a highly educated and skilled workforce, right
next
door
to the second biggest market in the world, that doesn't have to
comply
with all the EU bull****?

Except, of course, if we want to sell into that market, we will
still
have to comply with the EU regulations.

Yeah, we know this. That particular point has been made about a
billyun
times on this ng the last few weeks. Or have you only just noticed?

Perhaps you should be addressing your comments to TNP. It is he who
does not seem to have got the message.

No, it's the Remainers you're thinking of. They are the ones who keep
saying that to sell into the EU, the UK would have to comply with all
EU regulations, so gosh, there's no point in Leaving, as we'd be
having
to comply while having no say as to those regulations.

Which is mostly rubbish: those exporters selling into the EU would
have
to comply with EU regulations concerning those products sold into the
EU. That's all, and it would be the same whichever foreign market we
sold into.

The context of his post was that we would be attractive to
investment as
we were next door to the second biggest market in the world, but not
bound by its regulations. He can't have it both ways. Either it is
irrelevant that we would be next door to the EU, or, if it is relevant,
we would need to be bound by its regulations.

That depends entirely on WHICH regulations.

Products naturally have to meet EU regulations, but we certainly don't
have to comply with EU regulations of huge swathes of expensive 'social'
and 'workplace' legislation.

People don't build factories in France because of its insane labour
laws. Ours are more sane, but still pretty stupid.

There is room to simply get rid of huge swathes of restrictive practices
and start again with a different sort of 'social contract'

Given the massive amount of work that would be required to repeal all
the legislation that results from EU Directives and Regulations and
replace them with home grown legislation, all while negotiating our exit
from the EU, the simplest option would be an all-inclusive Act that
simply passed all the EU derived legislation into UK law as it stands.


That already exists where Directives are concerned.

The enabling legislation refers to the Directives, so would need to be
modified.

Regulations would case to be enforceable.

As many of the EU Regulations replaced existing UK Regulations, it would
be necessary either to issue new regulations or, as I said, to pass all
EU Regulations into UK law as if they had been generated at Westminster.
The latter would be much quicker and more practical.

And my guess is that unless specific problems arose, no one would
enforce them or pass new law.

It would be like suddenly having speed limits vanish. The signs would be
there, but the legislation would not.

My guess is that most people would not exceed them by much.

And the few that did could be done for dangerous driving.

One effect would be that all food hygiene rules would disappear.
Considering that many people are done each year for breaches of the
existing rules, my guess is that it would become open season.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 21/06/16 08:45, dennis@home wrote:
You brought Henrys into this as part of your straw man and as I said
commercial machines don't have to comply.

I brought Henry's into this as an example of a British made vaccuum
cleaner that we export as well as sell locally. As a counter top your
argument that we import all our vacuum cleaners.

Lie number one from you.

Henrys are not commercial machines ergo saying they are, is a lie.

Lie number two.



You really need to stop lying as its obvious to all except fellow
brexiteers that you are.

Dennis, you really should stop lying.

You obviously don't want people to know that henrys have always complied
any way as they have always been low power machines and marketed towards
business users for many years before currys started selling them.

That is utter rubbish. Henrys have always been lowish power yes, because
they are well designed, but they have always been domestic machines.
They simply aren't big enough for industrial or commercial use.


Weasel


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

Thomas Sowell

On 21/06/16 09:22, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
jjjuu78 wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jjjuu78 wrote:
AIUI, the 2-year period can be extended by mutual agreement.

Yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdr...nion#Procedure


But the country that chooses to leave doesn't have to negotiate at
all
and certainly doesn't have to get the permission of anyone to leave.

Of course not. It can simply flounce out complete with ball. And never
darken their door again.

Or it can do what the more sensible do in a divorce, just accept the
fact that it isnt working, agree to disagree and have a ****up leaving
celebration just like many do when they change to a better job.

There is already a 'pre-nuptial agreement' in force. If the UK wants to
leave the EU, it takes approx 2 years to finalise things. A treaty the UK
willingly signed.

What has "willingly signed" go to do with anything.

But that hasn't stopped some of the BREXIT lot saying we
should welsh on that treaty. In other words, pull up the drawbridge.

1) Welch, not welsh


Optionally and more commonly, but not solely. Welch is the archaic
spelling of welsh.

2) And in what way does invoking a clause in a treaty we "willingly
signed" constitute welching ?

What he means is what I was saying. WE don't have to invoke an article
in a treaty we signed if the signing was 'ultra vires' of UK law.

And there is pretty clear-cut evidence that it was, and that in fact no
government has had the power to sign away our sovereignty, under our
constitution.

Ultra vires is a very important term in UK law. If something is ultra
vires, you don't accept the new status quo and get damages, you act as
though the initial act had never happened.

If you breach a contract, you get sued for damages.

If signing the contract was ultra vires, the judge will look at the case
*as if it never had been signed* and attempt to put things back to where
they were before.

If the original 1972 act was ultra vires, then we never were members of
the EEC/EU. And we have full sovereign authority to repeal it, and any
other legislation we please.

The EU can sue Harold Wilson and Ted Heath if they like.


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

Jonathan Swift.

On 21/06/16 09:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , jjjuu78
wrote:

Same way they wouldn't let Switzerland do anything
about restricting immigration to Switzerland.

Which puts the Swiss govt in a bit of a bind as the people have ordered
it to effect those changes. So the Swiss may have to tear up their
agreement with the EU in its entirety if the EU won't renegotiate it.

Indeed. And the Swiss all have rifles in their homes don't they?

And that's not the only country getting peeved by the EUs utter
incompetence.


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

Thomas Sowell

On 21/06/16 09:37, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jun-16 6:33 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 18:24, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jun-16 11:24 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/06/16 10:44, Nightjar wrote:
On 20-Jun-16 9:42 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 19-Jun-16 7:31 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar
wrote:

On 18-Jun-16 9:49 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/06/16 09:29, Nightjar wrote:

A country with a highly educated and skilled workforce, right
next
door
to the second biggest market in the world, that doesn't have to
comply
with all the EU bull****?

Except, of course, if we want to sell into that market, we will
still
have to comply with the EU regulations.

Yeah, we know this. That particular point has been made about a
billyun
times on this ng the last few weeks. Or have you only just noticed?

Perhaps you should be addressing your comments to TNP. It is he who
does not seem to have got the message.

No, it's the Remainers you're thinking of. They are the ones who keep
saying that to sell into the EU, the UK would have to comply with all
EU regulations, so gosh, there's no point in Leaving, as we'd be
having
to comply while having no say as to those regulations.

Which is mostly rubbish: those exporters selling into the EU would
have
to comply with EU regulations concerning those products sold into the
EU. That's all, and it would be the same whichever foreign market we
sold into.

The context of his post was that we would be attractive to
investment as
we were next door to the second biggest market in the world, but not
bound by its regulations. He can't have it both ways. Either it is
irrelevant that we would be next door to the EU, or, if it is
relevant,
we would need to be bound by its regulations.

That depends entirely on WHICH regulations.

Products naturally have to meet EU regulations, but we certainly don't
have to comply with EU regulations of huge swathes of expensive
'social'
and 'workplace' legislation.

People don't build factories in France because of its insane labour
laws. Ours are more sane, but still pretty stupid.

There is room to simply get rid of huge swathes of restrictive
practices
and start again with a different sort of 'social contract'

Given the massive amount of work that would be required to repeal all
the legislation that results from EU Directives and Regulations and
replace them with home grown legislation, all while negotiating our exit
from the EU, the simplest option would be an all-inclusive Act that
simply passed all the EU derived legislation into UK law as it stands.


That already exists where Directives are concerned.

The enabling legislation refers to the Directives, so would need to be
modified.

Regulations would case to be enforceable.

As many of the EU Regulations replaced existing UK Regulations, it would
be necessary either to issue new regulations or, as I said, to pass all
EU Regulations into UK law as if they had been generated at Westminster.
The latter would be much quicker and more practical.

And my guess is that unless specific problems arose, no one would
enforce them or pass new law.

It would be like suddenly having speed limits vanish. The signs would be
there, but the legislation would not.

My guess is that most people would not exceed them by much.

And the few that did could be done for dangerous driving.

One effect would be that all food hygiene rules would disappear.
Considering that many people are done each year for breaches of the
existing rules, my guess is that it would become open season.


"unless specific problems arose, no one would enforce them or pass new law."

That is a clear case where 'OK, we need some standards' is a specific
problem.

One nation - I think it was sweden, - rebooted their government. Faced
with huge debts and an out of control public sector they conceptually
fired the lot and then said 'what can we absolutely not do without'

It's a bit like when Windows gets slower and slower. You reinstall it
with only what you need, (and it starts gathering cruft all over again).

Of course the problem is that our incumbent government cant admit that
there is a deep financial crisis, because they (a) were largely to blame
(Labour) and (b) Have utterly failed to address it (coalition/Tories)
because they are scared of the political backlash if they DO go for the
cuts that are really needed. and (c) membership of the EU imposes
restrictions on what can be done over and above that.

That's one of the reason why I personally want to see a brexit, its a
good opportunity to reboot government an only put back the 'have to
haves' and get rid of the 'nice to haves' not because we are nasty, but
because we are in a massive and endemic financial crisis, made even
worse by an immigration crisis and no one currently wants to admit it.

Europe is going to crash. With or without the EU, and the biggest thing
standing in the way of fixing it is the EU.

Its jolly good at making sure poodles get stroked, but its totally
incompetent at financial management and technical infrastructure
deployment and has no idea of how to take tough decisions with respect
to border controls and mass migration.



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

Thomas Sowell

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , jjjuu78
wrote:

Same way they wouldn't let Switzerland do anything
about restricting immigration to Switzerland.

Which puts the Swiss govt in a bit of a bind as the people have ordered it
to effect those changes.

It's more complicated than that with Swiss referendums.

So the Swiss may have to tear up their agreement with the EU in its
entirety if the EU won't renegotiate it.

Yes, that is obviously one option. But it is far
from clear that a referendum that asks if that
is what should happen would succeed or not.

The Swiss can be quite sensible at times, like
when they decided at a referendum with an
overwhelming majority that they think it makes
no sense to pay everyone a great slab of money
regardless of whether they need it or not.

On 21/06/2016 09:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/16 08:45, dennis@home wrote:
You brought Henrys into this as part of your straw man and as I
said commercial machines don't have to comply.

I brought Henry's into this as an example of a British made vaccuum
cleaner that we export as well as sell locally. As a counter top
your argument that we import all our vacuum cleaners.

Lie number one from you.

Henrys are not commercial machines ergo saying they are, is a lie.

Lie number two.



You really need to stop lying as its obvious to all except fellow
brexiteers that you are.

Dennis, you really should stop lying.

You obviously don't want people to know that henrys have always
complied any way as they have always been low power machines and
marketed towards business users for many years before currys
started selling them.

That is utter rubbish. Henrys have always been lowish power yes,
because they are well designed, but they have always been domestic
machines. They simply aren't big enough for industrial or commercial
use.


That must be why so many businesses use them, not being good enough for
commercial use.

Anyway did you like the link to the 2000 watt machines you can still buy
even though you claim they are banned by the EU or are you going to
continue to try and divert attention from your false claims?


-- Weasel

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
That is utter rubbish. Henrys have always been lowish power yes,
because they are well designed, but they have always been domestic
machines. They simply aren't big enough for industrial or commercial
use.


That must be why so many businesses use them, not being good enough for
commercial use.

Unlike Turnip I'm not an expert on commercial vacuum cleaners. Nor on
cleaning out urinals or any other job he's been forced to do while down on
his luck.

But have had plenty early starts or late finishes at various work places
where the cleaners have been at work. And the Henry - oh so difficult to
mistake for anything else - was by far the most common in use.

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

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

On Tuesday, 21 June 2016 15:44:16 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2016 09:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/16 08:45, dennis@home wrote:
You brought Henrys into this as part of your straw man and as I
said commercial machines don't have to comply.

I brought Henry's into this as an example of a British made vaccuum
cleaner that we export as well as sell locally. As a counter top
your argument that we import all our vacuum cleaners.

Lie number one from you.

Henrys are not commercial machines ergo saying they are, is a lie.

Lie number two.



You really need to stop lying as its obvious to all except fellow
brexiteers that you are.

Dennis, you really should stop lying.

You obviously don't want people to know that henrys have always
complied any way as they have always been low power machines and
marketed towards business users for many years before currys
started selling them.

That is utter rubbish. Henrys have always been lowish power yes,
because they are well designed, but they have always been domestic
machines. They simply aren't big enough for industrial or commercial
use.


That must be why so many businesses use them, not being good enough for
commercial use.

There's businessess and businesses most hire the cleaning staff who use the equipment their company provides.
Henry was a very popular vacuum cleaner like Black & Decker drills were but times change.
Our cleaners have manual brooms and sweepers.
We in the lab have adyson V6 and an old Henry that was brought in because the department wouldn't pay (at the time) for a hoover, so a member if staff brought their old one in.


Just need to convince someone we need a dyson hair dryer now.

On 21/06/16 15:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2016 09:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/16 08:45, dennis@home wrote:
You brought Henrys into this as part of your straw man and as I
said commercial machines don't have to comply.

I brought Henry's into this as an example of a British made vaccuum
cleaner that we export as well as sell locally. As a counter top
your argument that we import all our vacuum cleaners.

Lie number one from you.

Henrys are not commercial machines ergo saying they are, is a lie.

Lie number two.



You really need to stop lying as its obvious to all except fellow
brexiteers that you are.

Dennis, you really should stop lying.

You obviously don't want people to know that henrys have always
complied any way as they have always been low power machines and
marketed towards business users for many years before currys
started selling them.

That is utter rubbish. Henrys have always been lowish power yes,
because they are well designed, but they have always been domestic
machines. They simply aren't big enough for industrial or commercial
use.


That must be why so many businesses use them, not being good enough for
commercial use.

Anyway did you like the link to the 2000 watt machines you can still buy
even though you claim they are banned by the EU or are you going to
continue to try and divert attention from your false claims?

I never claimed that commercial and industrial machines were limited
Dennis, so dont lie.

I just said that Henry's were domestic and were limited and were made in
Britain..



-- Weasel





--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
That is utter rubbish. Henrys have always been lowish power yes,
because they are well designed, but they have always been domestic
machines. They simply aren't big enough for industrial or commercial
use.


That must be why so many businesses use them, not being good enough for
commercial use.

There's businessess and businesses most hire the cleaning staff who use
the equipment their company provides.

I'd say the majority of medium sized businesses use contract cleaners.

Henry was a very popular vacuum cleaner like Black & Decker drills were
but times change.

Well I've been retired for a while, so what is the most popular now?


Our cleaners have manual brooms and sweepers.

Good grief.


We in the lab have adyson V6 and an old Henry that was brought in
because the department wouldn't pay (at the time) for a hoover, so a
member if staff brought their old one in.


Just need to convince someone we need a dyson hair dryer now.

If there was ever an overpriced bit of gear, it's that,

--
*Procrastinate now

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
That is utter rubbish. Henrys have always been lowish power yes,
because they are well designed, but they have always been domestic
machines. They simply aren't big enough for industrial or commercial
use.


That must be why so many businesses use them, not being good enough for
commercial use.

There's businessess and businesses most hire the cleaning staff who use
the equipment their company provides.

I'd say the majority of medium sized businesses use contract cleaners.

Henry was a very popular vacuum cleaner like Black & Decker drills were
but times change.

Well I've been retired for a while, so what is the most popular now?


Our cleaners have manual brooms and sweepers.

Good grief.


We in the lab have adyson V6 and an old Henry that was brought in
because the department wouldn't pay (at the time) for a hoover, so a
member if staff brought their old one in.


Just need to convince someone we need a dyson hair dryer now.

If there was ever an overpriced bit of gear, it's that,

Oh am I glad that I didn't get the job to work on it :-)

(I had no idea what the product was when I applied, they were very secretive
and didn't tell me)

tim

On 21/06/2016 17:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/16 15:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2016 09:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/16 08:45, dennis@home wrote:
You brought Henrys into this as part of your straw man and as I
said commercial machines don't have to comply.

I brought Henry's into this as an example of a British made vaccuum
cleaner that we export as well as sell locally. As a counter top
your argument that we import all our vacuum cleaners.

Lie number one from you.

Henrys are not commercial machines ergo saying they are, is a lie.

Lie number two.



You really need to stop lying as its obvious to all except fellow
brexiteers that you are.

Dennis, you really should stop lying.

You obviously don't want people to know that henrys have always
complied any way as they have always been low power machines and
marketed towards business users for many years before currys
started selling them.

That is utter rubbish. Henrys have always been lowish power yes,
because they are well designed, but they have always been domestic
machines. They simply aren't big enough for industrial or commercial
use.


That must be why so many businesses use them, not being good enough for
commercial use.

Anyway did you like the link to the 2000 watt machines you can still buy
even though you claim they are banned by the EU or are you going to
continue to try and divert attention from your false claims?

I never claimed that commercial and industrial machines were limited
Dennis, so dont lie.

I just said that Henry's were domestic and were limited and were made in
Britain..

Yes dear, do keep repeating it until someone believes you.

On 21/06/16 20:39, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2016 17:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/16 15:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 21/06/2016 09:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I never claimed that commercial and industrial machines were limited
Dennis, so dont lie.

I just said that Henry's were domestic and were limited and were made in
Britain..

Yes dear, do keep repeating it until someone believes you.

Well dennis, if you choose to believe something that is totally
demonstrably and provably wrong, that's your prerogative. Never let it
be said that I ever stopped a total ****wit from displaying clear
evidence of his ****wittery.



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

Thomas Sowell

Nightjar posted
On 17-Jun-16 9:34 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 09:20, Nightjar wrote:
Those who are still investing are almost all insisting upon a get-out
clause that will allow them to walk away if the vote is to leave.

Now where on earth did you dream that little gem up from?


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUSKCN0YR0EH



Let me give you just *one* example of why that article is a pack of
lying propaganda:

"Transactions in commercial property fell by 40 percent in the first
quarter, according to the Bank of England, with many buyers and sellers
waiting to see the outcome of the June 23 referendum in case an exit
vote hurts property prices."

Clearly this is intended to imply that the sharp fall in commercial
property transactions was caused by the impending referendum. So is
that true? Could something else have caused it? Were there, for example,
any taxation changes in that first quarter (I assume Q1 of the 2016/17
FY although they don't say)?

"16 Mar 2016 - Major changes are being introduced to stamp duty land tax
(SDLT) on commercial property from midnight tonight, the UK chancellor
announced in today's Budget speech. ... The rates of SDLT are also being
amended, with the top rate increasing from 4% to 5% on the portion of
the price that exceeds £250,000. The increase in rates on purchase price
and lease premiums to 5% will catch virtually all investment
acquisitions and reduce returns in investment appraisals."

Now, is it *just* possible that the sharp drop in commercial property
deals was caused by the government's own taxation policy, and not by the
referendum?

--
Les

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message ...
Nightjar posted
On 17-Jun-16 9:34 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 09:20, Nightjar wrote:
Those who are still investing are almost all insisting upon a get-out
clause that will allow them to walk away if the vote is to leave.

Now where on earth did you dream that little gem up from?


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUSKCN0YR0EH



Let me give you just *one* example of why that article is a pack of lying propaganda:

"Transactions in commercial property fell by 40 percent in the first quarter, according
to the Bank of England, with many buyers and sellers waiting to see the outcome of the
June 23 referendum in case an exit vote hurts property prices."

Clearly this is intended to imply that the sharp fall in commercial property
transactions was caused by the impending referendum. So is that true? Could something
else have caused it? Were there, for example, any taxation changes in that first
quarter (I assume Q1 of the 2016/17 FY although they don't say)?

"16 Mar 2016 - Major changes are being introduced to stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on
commercial property from midnight tonight, the UK chancellor announced in today's
Budget speech. ... The rates of SDLT are also being amended, with the top rate
increasing from 4% to 5% on the portion of the price that exceeds £250,000. The
increase in rates on purchase price and lease premiums to 5% will catch virtually all
investment acquisitions and reduce returns in investment appraisals."

Now, is it *just* possible that the sharp drop in commercial property deals was caused
by the government's own taxation policy, and not by the referendum?

Surely if charges are being *increased* in March, and taxation policy
is a factor governing the number of transactions, then there should be
an *increase* in the number of first quarter transactions
which would include those up to March 16 so as to avoid the
increase. Not a fall.


michael adams

....

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

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message ...
Nightjar posted
On 17-Jun-16 9:34 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 09:20, Nightjar wrote:
Those who are still investing are almost all insisting upon a get-out
clause that will allow them to walk away if the vote is to leave.

Now where on earth did you dream that little gem up from?


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUSKCN0YR0EH



Let me give you just *one* example of why that article is a pack of lying propaganda:

"Transactions in commercial property fell by 40 percent in the first quarter,
according to the Bank of England, with many buyers and sellers waiting to see the
outcome of the June 23 referendum in case an exit vote hurts property prices."

Clearly this is intended to imply that the sharp fall in commercial property
transactions was caused by the impending referendum. So is that true? Could something
else have caused it? Were there, for example, any taxation changes in that first
quarter (I assume Q1 of the 2016/17 FY although they don't say)?

"16 Mar 2016 - Major changes are being introduced to stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on
commercial property from midnight tonight, the UK chancellor announced in today's
Budget speech. ... The rates of SDLT are also being amended, with the top rate
increasing from 4% to 5% on the portion of the price that exceeds £250,000. The
increase in rates on purchase price and lease premiums to 5% will catch virtually all
investment acquisitions and reduce returns in investment appraisals."

Now, is it *just* possible that the sharp drop in commercial property deals was caused
by the government's own taxation policy, and not by the referendum?

Surely if charges are being *increased* in March, and taxation policy
is a factor governing the number of transactions, then there should be
an *increase* in the number of first quarter transactions
which would include those up to March 16 so as to avoid the
increase. Not a fall.

Or now, having actually read the post

They could only have reacted after March 16th, with only 15 days
left of the first quarter.

The first quarter is 91 days. 15 days is 16% of this.
So that even if absolutely no transactions were filed
in the 15 days following the announcement, then all
other things being equal this would only amount to a
16% decrease in transactions as compared with the Ist
quarter of 2015. Which stil leaves the other 24% to
be accounted for,

michael adams

....

michael adams posted

"michael adams" wrote in message
news:_fKdnXtihOf8Y_bKnZ2dnUU78bfNnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
Nightjar posted
On 17-Jun-16 9:34 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 09:20, Nightjar wrote:
Those who are still investing are almost all insisting upon a get-out
clause that will allow them to walk away if the vote is to leave.

Now where on earth did you dream that little gem up from?


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUSKCN0YR0EH



Let me give you just *one* example of why that article is a pack of
lying propaganda:

"Transactions in commercial property fell by 40 percent in the first
quarter,
according to the Bank of England, with many buyers and sellers
waiting to see the
outcome of the June 23 referendum in case an exit vote hurts
property prices."

Clearly this is intended to imply that the sharp fall in commercial
property
transactions was caused by the impending referendum. So is that
true? Could something
else have caused it? Were there, for example, any taxation changes
in that first
quarter (I assume Q1 of the 2016/17 FY although they don't say)?

"16 Mar 2016 - Major changes are being introduced to stamp duty land
tax (SDLT) on
commercial property from midnight tonight, the UK chancellor
announced in today's
Budget speech. ... The rates of SDLT are also being amended, with
the top rate
increasing from 4% to 5% on the portion of the price that exceeds
£250,000. The
increase in rates on purchase price and lease premiums to 5% will
catch virtually all
investment acquisitions and reduce returns in investment appraisals."

Now, is it *just* possible that the sharp drop in commercial
property deals was caused
by the government's own taxation policy, and not by the referendum?

Surely if charges are being *increased* in March, and taxation policy
is a factor governing the number of transactions, then there should be
an *increase* in the number of first quarter transactions
which would include those up to March 16 so as to avoid the
increase. Not a fall.

Or now, having actually read the post

They could only have reacted after March 16th, with only 15 days
left of the first quarter.

The first quarter is 91 days.

You're assuming that by first quarter they mean Q1 of the calendar year,
i.e. Jan-Mar. Does it really seem likely that a referendum that won't
happen for another three to six months would cause the rate of
commercial transactions to fall? Especially as the referendum date
wasn't even announced until late in February.

ISTM more likely that they're referring to Q1 of the UK financial year,
i.e. Apr-Jun.

Either way, the article's linking of the fall in transaction volume to
the referendum is pure speculation.

--
Les

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message ...
michael adams posted

"michael adams" wrote in message
news:_fKdnXtihOf8Y_bKnZ2dnUU78bfNnZ2d@brightview .co.uk...

"Big Les Wade" wrote in message
...
Nightjar posted
On 17-Jun-16 9:34 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/06/16 09:20, Nightjar wrote:
Those who are still investing are almost all insisting upon a get-out
clause that will allow them to walk away if the vote is to leave.

Now where on earth did you dream that little gem up from?


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...-idUSKCN0YR0EH



Let me give you just *one* example of why that article is a pack of lying
propaganda:

"Transactions in commercial property fell by 40 percent in the first quarter,
according to the Bank of England, with many buyers and sellers waiting to see the
outcome of the June 23 referendum in case an exit vote hurts property prices."

Clearly this is intended to imply that the sharp fall in commercial property
transactions was caused by the impending referendum. So is that true? Could
something
else have caused it? Were there, for example, any taxation changes in that first
quarter (I assume Q1 of the 2016/17 FY although they don't say)?

"16 Mar 2016 - Major changes are being introduced to stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on
commercial property from midnight tonight, the UK chancellor announced in today's
Budget speech. ... The rates of SDLT are also being amended, with the top rate
increasing from 4% to 5% on the portion of the price that exceeds £250,000. The
increase in rates on purchase price and lease premiums to 5% will catch virtually
all
investment acquisitions and reduce returns in investment appraisals."

Now, is it *just* possible that the sharp drop in commercial property deals was
caused
by the government's own taxation policy, and not by the referendum?

Surely if charges are being *increased* in March, and taxation policy
is a factor governing the number of transactions, then there should be
an *increase* in the number of first quarter transactions
which would include those up to March 16 so as to avoid the
increase. Not a fall.

Or now, having actually read the post

They could only have reacted after March 16th, with only 15 days
left of the first quarter.

The first quarter is 91 days.

You're assuming that by first quarter they mean Q1 of the calendar year, i.e. Jan-Mar.
Does it really seem likely that a referendum that won't happen for another three to six
months would cause the rate of commercial transactions to fall? Especially as the
referendum date wasn't even announced until late in February.

ISTM more likely that they're referring to Q1 of the UK financial year, i.e. Apr-Jun.

Not according to the second chart, 1B on here. However after "seasonal
adjustment" there's no fall at all.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...2016__cir_.pdf

Actual sales fell through the floor in Jan and Feb and recovered to
peak around March 16th only to fall back again.


Either way, the article's linking of the fall in transaction volume to the referendum
is pure speculation.


40% is a big number no matter how you look at it.


michael adams

....