On Thursday, 30 June 2016 15:21:21 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
If the EU superstate project had been squashed at birth (as Thatcher was
advocating when it first came up - hint, suggest listening to her, it's
all of 30 seconds), we would almost certainly not be in the mess now.
We'd have the EEC and free trade minus most of the stuff that isn't
working.

Interesting hypothesis. You think there wouldn't have been a vast number
of regulations covering that free trade? You can only have a free trade
area if all follow common rules. Otherwise each country would try to gain
an advantage over the others.

Any idea how much free trade costs, it;s the sot of question I'd hoped someone would have raised during one of the TV debates.
As my friend says he has a free phone gets free txts free phone calls.

I asked if I could have the same for free he said yes, then showed me I had to pay about £30 a month for a free phone free txts etc....

I'd rather pay the £8 for my landline.


For example. The UK brings in tighter controls over vehicle emissions
because of severe problems in London, etc. So any imported vehicle must
meet them too. Those living in a country where pollution wasn't such a
problem would call foul. And so on.

So.


So who decides on those regulations to be adopted throughout that free
trade area? And fairly, so they don't give one country an advantage over
another? Some form of committee where they all are represented. All
unelected? That would never do.

So if yuo want to by or sell british beerr you must use pints as the unit of sale and if yuo buy wine yuo must use the litre.
What's the problem.

Anyway most british beer is now sold in 500ml bottle unlime teh polish which seem to have a range as do the german beers.


All countries retain their own currency with no exchange rate controls
between them. The poorer countries flood the market with cheaply produced
goods. Like say agricultural produce.

or steel.

Don;t forhert the butter mountains and the wine lakes mostly sold off cheap to non- EU countries.


I can quite understand mere politicians not actually having a clue about
how things work - but surely we have more sense on here?

Then how come the french are striking because they don;t want to work more than 35 hours per week with a cap at 48 hours.

Surely if in the EU everyone should be treated equally without any racism.

On 30/06/16 16:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Interesting hypothesis. You think there wouldn't have been a vast number
of regulations covering that free trade? You can only have a free trade
area if all follow common rules. Otherwise each country would try to gain
an advantage over the others.
For example. The UK brings in tighter controls over vehicle emissions
because of severe problems in London, etc. So any imported vehicle must
meet them too. Those living in a country where pollution wasn't such a
problem would call foul. And so on.

It's an interesting problem.

But surely, it would be perfectly reasonable for a vehicle manufacturer
to decide which part sof the market he wishes to target?

eg - if 60% of sales on a smaller town car go to France and Britain, and
they announce they are tightening emissions, the manufacturer can decide
to improve his small car engine(s).

However, if only 10% of his SUV class car exports to the same areas, he
might not bother with that and just not make it available.

Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to export.

You've made a flexible statement into a very binary one.

Why would you not want to pick and choose - and direct your best exports
to the EU, whilst not being burdened with regulations concerning exports
that are a minority.


So we'll get along just fine outside the EU.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

And how did you get out of my KF?

How should I know ?

Perhaps you never set it up properly in the first place.

After all it was only the other week that you were jumping out of
your pram, saying I'd misquoted you.

Which then put me to the trouble of having to explain to you how indents
- you know these things "" work on UseNet.

So haven't yoiu fixed it since then ?

That's the thing with you, you see Timmy . All of our exchanges seem to
end up with me having to explain all these things to you. And what's more
I'm pretty sure I've advised you to killfile me before, as you clearly find me so
annoying.

Not that you need to resort to a KF to avoid answering awkward questions
of course. You simply ignore entire posts no matter who they're from.
You just pretend you haven't seen them. The "silent flounce" as it were.

Oh and BTW Timmy, anyone announcing to a newsgroup that they've
killfiled someone, or their killfile policy in general, merely confirms to
the world that person's overwheening sense of their own self-importance.
And it goes without saying their gross stupidity. It's like someone having
"kick me" permanently tatooed on the back of their neck.

But there again If some self important, and gormless nonentity wants to
announce to a group of total strangers that he or she finds another poster
so annoying that they're putting them in their killfile, then so what ?

However if you ask around, I'm sure you should be able to get the sort of help
you need in setting up your kill-file, so it works properly.

So good luck with that one.


michael adams

....











--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

On 30/06/16 19:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

On 30/06/16 15:05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Tim Watts
escribió:

Reality: the EU is like family. We don't have to like them, but we do
need to get along with them.

Exactly. We were getting along just fine as neighbours, then some fool
said we should all move in together. Big mistake.

Worse than that. They wanted us to marry them too.


Having listened to Theresa May on youtube ("Brexit means Brexit"),
despite my misgivings, she's growing on me.

I do not like her for the surveillance nonsense. Not cutting Police
funding and not beefing up the borders.

OTOH, I do deeply respect anyone who told the USA to do one over the
extradition of Gary McKinnon, plus the fact she shoved a broom up the
arse of the Police WRT corruption.

The rest is hard to judge - she presents quite well - fairly solid
sounding, but not acting like a celeb.

Time will tell, but my money's on her and PaddyPower agrees (though we
know how that went last time!)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Watts wrote

If the EU superstate project had been squashed at birth (as Thatcher was
advocating when it first came up - hint, suggest listening to her, it's
all of
30 seconds), we would almost certainly not be in the mess now. We'd
have the EEC and free trade minus most of the stuff that isn't working.

Interesting hypothesis. You think there wouldn't have been
a vast number of regulations covering that free trade?

We know that there weren't with the EEC.

You can only have a free trade area if all follow common rules.

How odd that NAFTA doesn’t do it that way.

Otherwise each country would try to gain an advantage over the others.

And NAFTA works fine anyway. And so did the EEC.

For example. The UK brings in tighter controls over vehicle emissions
because of severe problems in London, etc. So any imported vehicle
must meet them too. Those living in a country where pollution
wasn't such a problem would call foul. And so on.

How odd that California has just that with vehicle emissions
and Mexico just ignores those with cars in Mexico.

So who decides on those regulations to be
adopted throughout that free trade area?

No one does with NAFTA, because it isnt
actually stupid enough to do it like that.

And fairly, so they don't give one country an advantage over another?

No one does with NAFTA, because it isnt
actually stupid enough to do it like that.

Some form of committee where they all are represented.

Nope, no committee, no nothing.

All unelected? That would never do.

All countries retain their own currency with
no exchange rate controls between them.

Yep, that's how NAFTA does it.

The poorer countries flood the market with cheaply
produced goods. Like say agricultural produce.

Yep, that's what happens in NAFTA.

I can quite understand mere politicians not actually having a clue
about how things work - but surely we have more sense on here?

You clearly don’t have a ****ing clue how
plenty of free trade areas actually work.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/16 19:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

On 30/06/16 15:05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Tim Watts
escribió:

Reality: the EU is like family. We don't have to like them, but we do
need to get along with them.

Exactly. We were getting along just fine as neighbours, then some fool
said we should all move in together. Big mistake.

Worse than that. They wanted us to marry them too.


Having listened to Theresa May on youtube ("Brexit means Brexit"), despite
my misgivings, she's growing on me.

Me too, except that I dont have any real misgivings.

I do not like her for the surveillance nonsense. Not cutting Police
funding and not beefing up the borders.

OTOH, I do deeply respect anyone who told the USA to do one over the
extradition of Gary McKinnon, plus the fact she shoved a broom up the arse
of the Police WRT corruption.

The rest is hard to judge - she presents quite well - fairly solid
sounding, but not acting like a celeb.

Main problem IMO is that she doesnt have the
balls to say what she thinks should happen with
the negotiations with the EU and what she thinks
Britain should do if the EU insists that all the 4
principles of the EU are non negotiable to get
a free trade agreement with the EU now.

Time will tell, but my money's on her and PaddyPower agrees (though we
know how that went last time!)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:42:45 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

The UK urgently needs friends. It needs to be mending relations,
applying soothing diplomatic balm to wounded allies. Instead, Nigel
Farage turns up in swaggering pomp, crassly insulting members of the
European parliament, reinforcing for a continental audience the
impression that English politics,
once an exemplar of democratic moderation, has degenerated into the
pursuit of football hooliganism by other means.

It was funny and cringing at the same time.

Let him have fun, he deserved it.

Anybody like to take a bet on his blood-alcohol level at the time?

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to
export.

You've made a flexible statement into a very binary one.

Why would you not want to pick and choose - and direct your best exports
to the EU, whilst not being burdened with regulations concerning exports
that are a minority.

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Can you?

Especially with things like cars. A very large emerging market might well
make a product that couldn't be exported. Like a tuk-tuk, etc. But not the
UK.

Rather the same as all consumer goods. We already make those to EU regs -
like it or not. So why do a re-design for the UK only to a lower standard?

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

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

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 30/06/16 19:02, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

On 30/06/16 15:05, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Tim Watts
escribió:

Reality: the EU is like family. We don't have to like them, but we do
need to get along with them.

Exactly. We were getting along just fine as neighbours, then some fool
said we should all move in together. Big mistake.

Worse than that. They wanted us to marry them too.


Having listened to Theresa May on youtube ("Brexit means Brexit"),
despite my misgivings, she's growing on me.

I do not like her for the surveillance nonsense. Not cutting Police
funding and not beefing up the borders.

OTOH, I do deeply respect anyone who told the USA to do one over the
extradition of Gary McKinnon, plus the fact she shoved a broom up the
arse of the Police WRT corruption.

The rest is hard to judge - she presents quite well - fairly solid
sounding, but not acting like a celeb.

Time will tell, but my money's on her and PaddyPower agrees (though we
know how that went last time!)

Given she has been Home Secretary for so long and already in charge of non
EU immigration, do you really thing she is the one to limit immigration to
the numbers wanted and voted for by the leavers?
If they can't do a genuine deal on that one of the four freedoms, the
whole exercise will have been a very bad joke.

--
*I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce

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

On 01/07/16 12:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to
export.

You've made a flexible statement into a very binary one.

Why would you not want to pick and choose - and direct your best exports
to the EU, whilst not being burdened with regulations concerning exports
that are a minority.

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Something made by the UK for the internal market? Trains for example,
that don't fit anyone else's gauge.

Something a bit specialist and one off.

The product of a very small company who doesn't need the hassle of EU
regulations and only needs a home market - this is likely to include
most small farms.

Can you?

Especially with things like cars. A very large emerging market might well
make a product that couldn't be exported. Like a tuk-tuk, etc. But not the
UK.

Rather the same as all consumer goods. We already make those to EU regs -
like it or not. So why do a re-design for the UK only to a lower standard?

On 01/07/16 13:04, Tim Watts wrote:
On 01/07/16 12:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to
export.

You've made a flexible statement into a very binary one.

Why would you not want to pick and choose - and direct your best exports
to the EU, whilst not being burdened with regulations concerning exports
that are a minority.

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Something made by the UK for the internal market? Trains for example,
that don't fit anyone else's gauge.

Tons of 'manufactured' food. Dairy products, bread, meat pies, Cornish
pasties and the like.

Its not just a question of the end product meeting regulations either,
its the regulations applying to how the food is grown etc. Cf glyphosate
on our crops.



Something a bit specialist and one off.

The product of a very small company who doesn't need the hassle of EU
regulations and only needs a home market - this is likely to include
most small farms.


Exactly and many many small businesses as well, where again its less
that the product has to meet spec, than that the whole business has to
comply with a raft of legislation that verges from the irrelevant to the
downright obstructive.



Can you?

Especially with things like cars. A very large emerging market might well
make a product that couldn't be exported. Like a tuk-tuk, etc. But not
the
UK.

Rather the same as all consumer goods. We already make those to EU regs -
like it or not. So why do a re-design for the UK only to a lower
standard?



In terms of the above statement, no, one would not design cars for
anything other than an international market. Even something like a Morgan.

But just looking at my desk here, there are many products that are
clearly not for export like the POTS telephone. My spectacles and cases.

Various 'supermarket' products also, like Mr Sheen, Pledge, washing up
liquid, washing powder. These do not come with instructions in 27
languages nor is there any reason that they should.

Likewise all the medicines I am supposed to take. All of which come in
ridiculous bubble packaging with enormous leaflets neither of which I need.

Regulatory compliance is an industry all by itself.

My sister was for years employed by the Eurofighter consortium to
translate contracts into German French, Italian and English. What a
waste of time.

It will take years to remove all the more pointless legislation off the
statute books.

MORPEL

Ministry of repealing pointless EU legislation.

Theres a growth opportunity...



--
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)

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Something made by the UK for the internal market? Trains for example,
that don't fit anyone else's gauge.

Thought that had been standardised for a pretty long time?

Something a bit specialist and one off.

Hardly something to base the future of the country on?

The product of a very small company who doesn't need the hassle of EU
regulations and only needs a home market - this is likely to include
most small farms.

Ah - right. We'll go back to spraying everything with DDT, then? And we
already exceed EU specs for much of our agricultural production.

But we could certainly change the labelling on foodstuffs. From Kg to lb.
That will save a fortune.

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

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

On Friday, 1 July 2016 12:34:08 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to
export.

You've made a flexible statement into a very binary one.

Why would you not want to pick and choose - and direct your best exports
to the EU, whilst not being burdened with regulations concerning exports
that are a minority.

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Can you?

Union jack flags, union jack umbrellas etc..


Especially with things like cars.

Well the steering will has to go on the correct side although I have seen peole drive with teh steering wheel on the other side.

A very large emerging market might well
make a product that couldn't be exported. Like a tuk-tuk, etc. But not the
UK.

why can't it be exported ?


Rather the same as all consumer goods. We already make those to EU regs -
like it or not.

Apart from those made for the US market I assume.

So why do a re-design for the UK only to a lower standard?

A good question so why exclude the UK when it comes to compensation from VW ?
and why are which? taking it up as a bad thing to be happening to the UK, surely it's part of free trade.

In article , Adrian
writes
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:42:45 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

The UK urgently needs friends. It needs to be mending relations,
applying soothing diplomatic balm to wounded allies. Instead, Nigel
Farage turns up in swaggering pomp, crassly insulting members of the
European parliament, reinforcing for a continental audience the
impression that English politics,
once an exemplar of democratic moderation, has degenerated into the
pursuit of football hooliganism by other means.

It was funny and cringing at the same time.

Let him have fun, he deserved it.

Anybody like to take a bet on his blood-alcohol level at the time?
Or that of Junkers? Apparently he's also a bit of a ****-head.
--
bert

On Friday, 1 July 2016 14:22:19 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Something made by the UK for the internal market? Trains for example,
that don't fit anyone else's gauge.

Thought that had been standardised for a pretty long time?

even the underground trains aren't standardised are they.
You have specific ones for specific lines.





Ah - right. We'll go back to spraying everything with DDT, then?

Yep, can we practice on wodney tell him its sun tan lotion. :-)

And we
already exceed EU specs for much of our agricultural production.

But we could certainly change the labelling on foodstuffs. From Kg to lb.
That will save a fortune.

Not sure how, but it could be fun.


--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

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

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 1 July 2016 14:22:19 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only,
with no eye on possibly exporting it.

Something made by the UK for the internal market? Trains for example,
that don't fit anyone else's gauge.

Thought that had been standardised for a pretty long time?

even the underground trains aren't standardised are they.
You have specific ones for specific lines.

I think the track gauge is the same - it's the tunnel height that differs.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Something made by the UK for the internal market? Trains for
example, that don't fit anyone else's gauge.

Thought that had been standardised for a pretty long time?

even the underground trains aren't standardised are they.

I bow to your superior knowledge. As always.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

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

charles wrote:

whisky-dave wrote:

even the underground trains aren't standardised are they.
You have specific ones for specific lines.

I think the track gauge is the same - it's the tunnel height that differs.

Not simply the height, the loading gauge defines the profile (e.g.
curved, curved with corner notches, or flat) as well as the dimensions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loading_gauge#Great_Britain

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 12:25:14 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Can you?

Especially with things like cars.

Black cabs? Borisbuses?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
If the EU superstate project had been squashed at birth (as Thatcher was
advocating when it first came up - hint, suggest listening to her, it's
all of 30 seconds), we would almost certainly not be in the mess now.
We'd have the EEC and free trade minus most of the stuff that isn't
working.

Interesting hypothesis. You think there wouldn't have been a vast number
of regulations covering that free trade? You can only have a free trade
area if all follow common rules. Otherwise each country would try to gain
an advantage over the others.
For example. The UK brings in tighter controls over vehicle emissions
because of severe problems in London, etc. So any imported vehicle must
meet them too. Those living in a country where pollution wasn't such a
problem would call foul. And so on.

So who decides on those regulations to be adopted throughout that free
trade area? And fairly, so they don't give one country an advantage over
another? Some form of committee where they all are represented. All
unelected? That would never do.

All countries retain their own currency with no exchange rate controls
between them. The poorer countries flood the market with cheaply produced
goods. Like say agricultural produce.

I can quite understand mere politicians not actually having a clue about
how things work - but surely we have more sense on here?

Well the EEC worked quite well until it morphed into the EU.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Interesting hypothesis. You think there wouldn't have been a vast number
of regulations covering that free trade? You can only have a free trade
area if all follow common rules. Otherwise each country would try to gain
an advantage over the others.
For example. The UK brings in tighter controls over vehicle emissions
because of severe problems in London, etc. So any imported vehicle must
meet them too. Those living in a country where pollution wasn't such a
problem would call foul. And so on.

It's an interesting problem.

But surely, it would be perfectly reasonable for a vehicle manufacturer
to decide which part sof the market he wishes to target?

eg - if 60% of sales on a smaller town car go to France and Britain, and
they announce they are tightening emissions, the manufacturer can decide
to improve his small car engine(s).

However, if only 10% of his SUV class car exports to the same areas, he
might not bother with that and just not make it available.

Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to export.

So we'll get along just fine outside the EU.

Another sinner repents.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to
export.

You've made a flexible statement into a very binary one.

Why would you not want to pick and choose - and direct your best exports
to the EU, whilst not being burdened with regulations concerning exports
that are a minority.

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Can you?

Especially with things like cars. A very large emerging market might well
make a product that couldn't be exported. Like a tuk-tuk, etc. But not the
UK.

Rather the same as all consumer goods. We already make those to EU regs -
like it or not. So why do a re-design for the UK only to a lower standard?

But we have top make *everything* to EU regs even if we have no
intention of exporting to the EU.
--
bert

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 18:17:24 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 12:25:14 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Can you?

Especially with things like cars.

Black cabs? Borisbuses?

Borisbuses were just an ego trip for Boris at public expense. They
were specific to fulfilling the contract with TfL and are unlikely to
be bought for use elsewhere in the UK.

Most trains are UK specific (at significant cost) due to the loading
gauge but increasingly are part of a family of designs which share
common design features.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 30/06/16 13:54, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
********. You must have a lovely view of the sand where your head is
buried.

********. You must have a lovely view of the sand where your head is
buried.
A lovely view of his bowels more likely.
--
bert

On 01/07/16 19:31, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

But we have top make *everything* to EU regs even if we have no
intention of exporting to the EU.

That's what I've been telling him...

On Friday, 1 July 2016 16:04:38 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , Adrian
writes
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:42:45 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

The UK urgently needs friends. It needs to be mending relations,
applying soothing diplomatic balm to wounded allies. Instead, Nigel
Farage turns up in swaggering pomp, crassly insulting members of the
European parliament, reinforcing for a continental audience the
impression that English politics,
once an exemplar of democratic moderation, has degenerated into the
pursuit of football hooliganism by other means.

It was funny and cringing at the same time.

Let him have fun, he deserved it.

Anybody like to take a bet on his blood-alcohol level at the time?
Or that of Junkers? Apparently he's also a bit of a ****-head.


Juncker:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-C...#Controversies

On Friday, 1 July 2016 13:04:47 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 01/07/16 12:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to
export.

You've made a flexible statement into a very binary one.

Why would you not want to pick and choose - and direct your best exports
to the EU, whilst not being burdened with regulations concerning exports
that are a minority.

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Something made by the UK for the internal market? Trains for example,
that don't fit anyone else's gauge.

Bollix
The UK standard gauge is the most widely used world wide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gauge

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Watts wrote

Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to
export.

You've made a flexible statement into a very binary one.

Why would you not want to pick and choose - and direct
your best exports to the EU, whilst not being burdened
with regulations concerning exports that are a minority.

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made
for the UK only, with no eye on possibly exporting it.

Can you?

Yep, haggis, pies with peas, battered fried mars bars etc etc etc.

Especially with things like cars.

With those many have more than one config for particular markets.

A very large emerging market might well
make a product that couldn't be exported.
Like a tuk-tuk, etc. But not the UK.

Wrong, most obviously with those
stupid taxis and double decker buses.

Rather the same as all consumer goods. We
already make those to EU regs - like it or not.

Britain exports plenty of stuff to the rest of
the world that doesn’t comply with EU regs.

So why do a re-design for the
UK only to a lower standard?

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?

On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:31:37 +0100, bert wrote:

Rather the same as all consumer goods. We already make those to EU regs
- like it or not. So why do a re-design for the UK only to a lower
standard?

But we have top make *everything* to EU regs even if we have no
intention of exporting to the EU.

Well, yes. Anything sold in the EU has to conform to EU regs.

And the UK is the EU.

So which of those various EU regs are you suggesting are so terribly
wrong?

What are the impossibly high standards that UK consumers couldn't
possibly be realistically expected to demand from their purchases?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Watts wrote

Having listened to Theresa May on youtube ("Brexit means Brexit"),
despite my misgivings, she's growing on me.

Time will tell, but my money's on her and PaddyPower
agrees (though we know how that went last time!)

Given she has been Home Secretary for so long and already in charge
of non EU immigration, do you really thing she is the one to limit
immigration to the numbers wanted and voted for by the leavers?

No reason why she can't apply the same deal to EU citizens as
currently apply to non EU citizens with Britain outside the EU.

Yes, that may well not be enough for some of the leavers, but
would be a dramatic change from the current situation with the
Poles and Romanians etc that many of the leavers object to.

If they can't do a genuine deal on that one of the four freedoms,
the whole exercise will have been a very bad joke.

Bull****. Britain will do fine outside the EU trading under
the WTO rules just like all of the USA, China, India, Japan,
Canada, Australia does and can tell the EU to take its
4 freedoms and shove them where the sun don't shine.

Its already done that with schengen and the
eurozone and can now do that with the free
movement of EU citizens into Britain as well
and gets to decide what to do policy wise
within Britain for itself too. And have a decent
democratic system for giving the pollys the
bums rush at the ballot box when they ****
up badly enough too. Unlike the EU which
has no way of doing that and gets to wear
whatever ****wits like Junker do regardless.

Dave [censure] [howl] [take issue] [look green]
Tim Watts wrote

Having listened to Theresa May on youtube ("Brexit means Brexit"),
despite my misgivings, she's growing on me.

Time will tell, but my money's on her and PaddyPower
agrees (though we know how that went last time!)

Given she has been Home Secretary for so long and already in charge
of non EU immigration, do you really thing she is the one to limit
immigration to the numbers wanted and voted for by the leavers?

[pop off] reason why [diverge] [deplore] [needeep needeep ribbit
ribbit braarp] the same [yakkety-yak] [fume] EU [neigh] [baa moo neigh
hee-haw] [disagree] [criticise] [grouch] [effuse] EU [gobble] [cut up]
[bark and yelp] [tell secrets] [hee-haw] EU.

Yes, that [descant] well [yak] [spread] enough for some [pandemonium]
the leavers, [clatter] [stage-whisper] [ululate] [inform] dramatic
change from [go on about] [fume] [purr] with [hogwash] Poles and
[clamour] etc that many [betray] [hang crepe] leavers [needeep needeep
ribbit ribbit braarp] to.

If they can't do a genuine deal on that one of the four freedoms,
the whole exercise will have been a very bad joke.

Bull****. Britain [baa moo neigh hee-haw] do [hum] [disquiet] [cuckoo]
EU trading [rashness] [twiddle] [idle talk] rules [confess] [jaw] all
of [oink] USA, China, India, Japan, Canada, Australia [henpeck] and
can [thud] [jangle] EU [stage-whisper] [bark bay howl whine yap] [be
against] [censure] [row] [rattle] shove [exclamation] [chortle chuckle
gasp] [disturb the balance] [bellow] [baa moo neigh hee-haw] shine.

Its [bark and yelp] [grunt and squeal] [diverge] [squeak squeal whinny
woof] [titter] [clangor] [rail] [sorrow over] [expletive] [rubbish]
[rattle] do [oink] [wail] [baa moo neigh hee-haw] free [be against] of
EU [flow] into [converse] [spout off] [shriek sigh snicker bow-wow
woof] [hee-haw hee-haw] [disquiet] [quarrel] decide what to do
[discourse] wise within [shriek sigh snicker bow-wow woof] [expatiate]
[quack baa oink neigh bark meow] too. And have [balderdash] decent
[bewail] system [stir things up] [stomp] [jive] [caw] the [wander]
[spout off] [deplore] [argue] ballot [spill] [rant] [bear] **** up
badly [deny] too. Unlike the [blah] which [pant] no way of [cry]
[wail] [bark bay howl whine yap] [fun] [shrill] [hee-haw hee-haw]
[quack baa oink neigh bark meow] [bok-bok-bokaark] [spout off] [grunt
and squeal] [muttering] regardless.

Plowman (News) dave@dave@dave Plowman (News) dave Plowman (News)
dave Plowman (News) dave Plowman.
Tim Watts wrote

Having listened to Theresa May on youtube ("Brexit means Brexit"),
despite my misgivings, she's growing on me.

Time will tell, but my money's on her and PaddyPower
agrees (though we know how that went last time!)

Given she has been Home Secretary for so long and already in charge
of non EU immigration, do you really thing she is the one to limit
immigration to the numbers wanted and voted for by the leavers?

No reason EU citizens with Britain outside the EU citizens as
currently to EU citizens as currently to EU citizens with Britain
outside the can't apply the can't apply the can't apply the can't
apply the. The can't apply to EU.

Yes, but would be a dramation with the Poles and Romanians. Yes, but
would be enough for some of that manians etc the current situation
with the current situatic change from the leavers object to. Leavers,
the Poles and Romanians etc the Poles and Romanians etc that may well
not be enough for some of that may well not be enough for some of that
manians etc the leavers object to.

If they can't do a genuine deal on that one of the four freedoms,
the whole exercise will have been a very bad joke.

Britain will the EU trading under the USA, China, Japan. Britain will
of the EU tralia don't shove them where them where the EU to take all
the sun don't shove the EU tralia don't shove the EU tralia don't
****. The USA, Chine. Britain will the WTO rules just like all does
just like all of them where the EU to take all of the WTO rules and
shove them where the EU trading under the USA, China, Japan, Canada,
Japan, Canada, India, Japan, Chine. Bull****. Bull****.

That with schen and gets too. Unlike thatever **** up badly enough to
decent of EU which has no way of EU citizens into do the policy wise
what wise which has well and can now do pollys the bums rush at the.
Unlike that with schengen and gets to democratic system for giving the
pollys to way of do the pollys too. And gets already done the eurozone
the policy with schengen and has well and can now done the free
movement of EU citizens into well and have and gets to Britain and has
well and has wear what wise which have a decide with schengen as wear
whatever ****wits already doing the policy within and gets too. And
can now do the bums rush at to decide which have and gets the policy
witself too. And they ****within and can now done a decent decide what
to decent of EU what with thatever done that too. And the eurozone
they **** up ballot box what too.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Watts wrote

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made
for the UK only, with no eye on possibly exporting it.

Something made by the UK for the internal market?
Trains for example, that don't fit anyone else's gauge.

Thought that had been standardised for a pretty long time?

Nope, most have their own ideas about what they want.

Something a bit specialist and one off.

Hardly something to base the future of the country on?

Irrelevant to your silly claim that Britain will have
to comply with EU regulations on what it produces.

The product of a very small company who doesn't
need the hassle of EU regulations and only needs a
home market - this is likely to include most small farms.

Ah - right. We'll go back to spraying everything with DDT, then?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And we already exceed EU specs for much of our agricultural production.

Irrelevant to whether Britain can just ignore EU specs if it leaves the EU.

But we could certainly change the labelling on
foodstuffs. From Kg to lb. That will save a fortune.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

I had right of way but the other guy had a Mack!

On 02/07/16 00:46, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:31:37 +0100, bert wrote:

Rather the same as all consumer goods. We already make those to EU regs
- like it or not. So why do a re-design for the UK only to a lower
standard?

But we have top make *everything* to EU regs even if we have no
intention of exporting to the EU.

Well, yes. Anything sold in the EU has to conform to EU regs.

And the UK is the EU.

So which of those various EU regs are you suggesting are so terribly
wrong?

What are the impossibly high standards that UK consumers couldn't
possibly be realistically expected to demand from their purchases?


One word: glyphosate.

Another two words: ammonium sulphamate.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
-bummer...
snip

That's quite a sensible post for you, Wodney.
Now **** off.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 19:31:37 +0100, bert wrote:

Rather the same as all consumer goods. We already make those to EU regs
- like it or not. So why do a re-design for the UK only to a lower
standard?

But we have top make *everything* to EU regs even if we have no
intention of exporting to the EU.

Well, yes. Anything sold in the EU has to conform to EU regs.

And the UK is the EU.

So which of those various EU regs are you suggesting are so terribly
wrong?

What are the impossibly high standards that UK consumers couldn't
possibly be realistically expected to demand from their purchases?


The ban on sales of (new) mercury based measuring equipment (barometers,
thermometers etc) including refurbished antique ones

tim

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 1 July 2016 13:04:47 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:
On 01/07/16 12:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Not much point in being in a free trade area if you don't want to
export.

You've made a flexible statement into a very binary one.

Why would you not want to pick and choose - and direct your best
exports
to the EU, whilst not being burdened with regulations concerning
exports
that are a minority.

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only,
with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Something made by the UK for the internal market? Trains for example,
that don't fit anyone else's gauge.

Bollix
The UK standard gauge is the most widely used world wide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gauge

the problem is loading gauge, not track gauge

tim

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 10:20:12 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Neither ammonium sulphamate nor soft soap have been explicitly banned by
the EU, but they've both fallen foul of a blanket ban due to
manufacturers not submitting data required by EU regulations to
demonstrate that they were safe to use in their particular applications,
simply because it didn't make commercial sense for the manufacturers to
pay for such testing, and not because either product was intrinsically
harmful. Both ammonium sulphamate and soft soap can still be purchased,
but not for use as a herbicide or insecticide, respectively.

There must be lots of products that fall foul of that sort of umbrella
legislation. Traditional creosote comes to mind, and a long list of
proprietary products is given here http://tinyurl.com/zdglcdm , but I
imagine it happens in other areas such as electrical goods, cosmetics
etc.

AISB, this stems directly from the differences between us and most of
the rest of Europe sin how laws work: here, all is legal unless
explicitly made illegal by legislation. There, all is banned until
permitted.

No, that's not the way it works at all.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 12:25:14 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'm trying to think of anything that would be made for the UK only, with
no eye on possibly exporting it.

Can you?

Especially with things like cars.

Black cabs?

Black cabs are exported. Although not going to save the economy. And of
course are under a great deal of competition from foreign makers - despite
being designed for London specifically.


Borisbuses?

Even with a swinging import duty, foreign made ones are still going to be
cheaper. And better.

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

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