In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
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.

That will be just fine, then. Approximately 1/2 of UK immigration comes
from outside the EU. And despite promises at pretty well every election of
the past few years continues to rise.

--
*Beware - animal lover - brakes for pussy*

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

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

Even Boris buses might have import duty; They're made in Northern Ireland.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

On 02/07/16 08:45, Tim Watts wrote:
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.


Sodium Chlorate


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 02/07/16 10:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,


The guiding rule of the EU legal system, if its not specifically
permitted, it is disallowed.

Or as the old adage has it
"Alles verboten ist"


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 02/07/16 10:36, Adrian wrote:
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 practice, it is.


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 12:18:10 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

Yes, they are a wholly owned subsidiary of Chinese automaker Geely.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

You'd be very hard pushed to find any 'British' manufacturer who isn't.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

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

On 02/07/2016 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/07/16 10:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,


The guiding rule of the EU legal system, if its not specifically
permitted, it is disallowed.

You can stop the lies now, you have won.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

You'd be very hard pushed to find any 'British' manufacturer who isn't.

Mountfield, the mower people, are Italian owned.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 16:08:48 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 02/07/2016 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/07/16 10:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,


The guiding rule of the EU legal system, if its not specifically
permitted, it is disallowed.

You can stop the lies now, you have won.

Albeit a very hollow, tenuous and as yet unconfirmed, (till article 50
is actually filed) 'win', as '10's of thousands' of people rallying
against the bogus Brexit 'direction' in London today confirm.

And on the EU being big brother 'forcing' anyone to do anything ...

As Bill Wright posted:

"GLYPHOSATE
THE CURRENT POSITION


No doubt you are aware there is considerable attention being paid to
the EU glyphosate renewal. It has been highlighted in the press on a
National and Global level.

Glyphosate as an active substance is due to expire on the 30th June
2016 and so for products to remain on the market into 2017 the AS
approval must be either renewed for up to 15 years or extended for a
shorter period until further studies are evaluated. As the world’s
largest pesticide, glyphosate is very high profile. There is a lot of
pressure coming from NGOs to prevent the renewal. The campaign by the
NGOs has gained a lot of traction politically, despite the fact that
the European Food Safety Authority has concluded that
glyphosate is unlikely to pose hazards to humans.

It is a battle of politics versus science. The EU Commission has tried
to stay out of it by relying on the member states to perform their
role and collectively make the renewal decision. The result is 20 of
the 28 MSs are in favour of renewal, while 7 are abstaining and Malta
is against. Abstaining is counted as a negative and as this group
includes Germany, France and Italy the overall result does not reach
qualified majority (need to represent 65% of EU population, as well
as at least 55% of the member states.

If the qualified majority vote cannot be reached by member states, the
decision will be pushed back on the EU Commission. As the Commission
are not appointed by an election process it is much more likely they
will make a decision based on science rather than politics and take
into consideration the importance of glyphosate to agriculture. This
would either be to renew glyphosate for up to 15 years, or more likely
to extend the current approval for ~18 months until further studies
can be evaluated and Europe has a definitive scientific position.


Regards
The Chemigro Team
"

Not that any of the fanatical Brexiteers will see the wood for the
trees though their red mist ... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...

And on the EU being big brother 'forcing' anyone to do anything ...

As Bill Wright posted:

"GLYPHOSATE
THE CURRENT POSITION

In fact the EU extended the glyphosate licence for another
18 months on Tuesday

quote

Technology | Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:47pm EDT

European Commission
to extend glyphosate
license for 18 months

/quote

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN0ZE25B

Not that you'd have ever realised that fact; to judge from the
deathly silence emanating from any of the "agonised honest
seekers after truth", on this NewsGroup at least.

Who given their previous concerns on this issue, you might imagine
would be shouting this good news from the rooftops.


michael adams

....

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 19:27:49 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Not that you'd have ever realised that fact; to judge from the deathly
silence emanating from any of the "agonised honest seekers after truth",
on this NewsGroup at least.

Who given their previous concerns on this issue, you might imagine would
be shouting this good news from the rooftops.

It almost makes you think that they were only ever using this issue as a
stick towards a predetermined conclusion...

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 19:27:49 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .

And on the EU being big brother 'forcing' anyone to do anything ...

As Bill Wright posted:

"GLYPHOSATE
THE CURRENT POSITION

In fact the EU extended the glyphosate licence for another
18 months on Tuesday

quote

Technology | Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:47pm EDT

European Commission
to extend glyphosate
license for 18 months

/quote

Thanks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN0ZE25B

Not that you'd have ever realised that fact; to judge from the
deathly silence emanating from any of the "agonised honest
seekers after truth", on this NewsGroup at least.

weg Not that we would have expected any different of course. ;-(

Who given their previous concerns on this issue, you might imagine
would be shouting this good news from the rooftops.

Quite ... I wonder where they will all go to hide as the last of their
'lies\\\\facts' turns to dust in their hands?

Cheers, T i m

On 02/07/16 20:02, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:46:29 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 16:08:48 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 02/07/2016 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/07/16 10:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,


The guiding rule of the EU legal system, if its not specifically
permitted, it is disallowed.

You can stop the lies now, you have won.

Albeit a very hollow, tenuous and as yet unconfirmed, (till article 50
is actually filed) 'win', as '10's of thousands' of people rallying
against the bogus Brexit 'direction' in London today confirm.

So '10's of thousands' of people want to overturn a democratically
arrived-at result, and want to continue with what is also an
undemocratic system. Totalitarianism rules, OK.

You want to look at them and shudder

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...on-eu-protest/

Poor things,. Why aren't they taking powerful hallucinogens and having
hot sex?

What a waste of being young

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

"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

There is a lot more involved than just the railway track gauge.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 20:02:02 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:46:29 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 16:08:48 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 02/07/2016 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/07/16 10:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,


The guiding rule of the EU legal system, if its not specifically
permitted, it is disallowed.

You can stop the lies now, you have won.

Albeit a very hollow, tenuous and as yet unconfirmed, (till article 50
is actually filed) 'win', as '10's of thousands' of people rallying
against the bogus Brexit 'direction' in London today confirm.

So '10's of thousands' of people want to overturn a democratically
arrived-at result,

Yes, when 'trickery' was used to gain that result. If what the Leave
campaign were doing was an advert they would be done by Trading
Standards (*because* it could trick the gullible).

"We send the EU £350M/week" (that in itself is highly questionable,
other than in regard to 'Fees paid to the EU' and 'send' being
'currently pay in').

"Let's fund our NHS *instead*. Vote Leave"

"Let's take back control"

Control of what? Funding the NHS? Immigration?

Any TS officer would see that for what it was, a blatant trick.

http://leftfootforward.org/images/20...7axaaiklxc.jpg

Now, how many of the 4% of the votes that represented the 'majority'
may not have been cast on Leave if that advert wasn't allowed?

and want to continue with what is also an
undemocratic system.

Different discussion.

Totalitarianism rules, OK.

I dunno, does it?

OK, why do you think all those people were protesting? I would be
interested to hear what you think.

Just for the S&G's, try putting yourself on the other side for just a
moment and see if you can see what they might be seeing (seriously).

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 18:46:26 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 19:27:49 +0100, michael adams wrote:

Not that you'd have ever realised that fact; to judge from the deathly
silence emanating from any of the "agonised honest seekers after truth",
on this NewsGroup at least.

Who given their previous concerns on this issue, you might imagine would
be shouting this good news from the rooftops.

It almost makes you think that they were only ever using this issue as a
stick towards a predetermined conclusion...

You would eh.

I was talking to a mate earlier (about computers) and towards the end
he asked how I voted. I told him (I spoiled my paper) and to today I
still don't know what is 'right' for us. I am however drifting to what
I think might be wrong and that and the chances are that would be
whatever the likes of TNP is trying to push down peoples throats.

He said he voted out and has been a EuroSkeptic for many years.
However, every point he seemed to think was key, didn't really seem to
fit my real-world observations. Like 'corruption' within the EU ...
like there wasn't corruption within all sorts of systems but even if
there was, we (as a country) still seem to be doing pretty well?

Whilst in an ideal world, everything would be above board, it isn't an
ideal world and so who knows if some of this alleged 'corruption'
isn't oiling wheels that are making things better all round?

And bad stuff is generally winkled out sooner or later, 'cash for
questions', bogus expenses, FIFA etc etc.

So, even with my little knowledge on the subject and taking into
account his personal 'issues' with the EU, I still wasn't convinced he
had any better real-world insight into any of it than me, in fact many
of the things he held key I believed were just hype. ;-(

Funny though, I did seem to have access to more 'facts'' than him,
like the actual sums of money we pay into the EU and how it compares
with the general costs of running the country. shrug.

Cheers, T i m

On 02/07/16 19:27, michael adams wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...

And on the EU being big brother 'forcing' anyone to do anything ...

As Bill Wright posted:

"GLYPHOSATE
THE CURRENT POSITION

In fact the EU extended the glyphosate licence for another
18 months on Tuesday

quote

Technology | Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:47pm EDT

European Commission
to extend glyphosate
license for 18 months

/quote

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN0ZE25B

Not that you'd have ever realised that fact; to judge from the
deathly silence emanating from any of the "agonised honest
seekers after truth", on this NewsGroup at least.

Who given their previous concerns on this issue, you might imagine
would be shouting this good news from the rooftops.


michael adams


Yay - still time to stock up on a lifetime supply.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 20:05:06 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/07/16 20:02, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:46:29 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 16:08:48 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 02/07/2016 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/07/16 10:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,


The guiding rule of the EU legal system, if its not specifically
permitted, it is disallowed.

You can stop the lies now, you have won.

Albeit a very hollow, tenuous and as yet unconfirmed, (till article 50
is actually filed) 'win', as '10's of thousands' of people rallying
against the bogus Brexit 'direction' in London today confirm.

So '10's of thousands' of people want to overturn a democratically
arrived-at result, and want to continue with what is also an
undemocratic system. Totalitarianism rules, OK.

You want to look at them and shudder

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016...on-eu-protest/

Or for a less biased view:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36692990

Cheers, T i m

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

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 08:45:04 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

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.

two more words: soft soap

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.

That's a lie. Have fun listing the EU law that allows you to
pick your nose, fart, each chocolate etc etc etc. They do it
all the time without getting charged for doing so anyway.

No law that says you can **** either.

Guilty until proven innocent, y'see.

Doesnt work like that either.

On 02/07/16 22:27, Jacky Chance wrote:


That's a lie. Have fun listing the EU law that allows you to
pick your nose, fart, each chocolate etc etc etc. They do it
all the time without getting charged for doing so anyway.

"ius non scriptum".

I.e. common practice., The point is that what is common practice is one
thing, what is uncommon practice is another....



No law that says you can **** either.


I think you will find that somewhere in the Euroepan Court of Human rights.

Guilty until proven innocent, y'see.

Doesnt work like that either.


Actually its does. Cf the Glyphosate. Its is assumed bye the infamous
and philosophically unsound 'precautionary principle' to be 'dangerous
unless proven safe'


--
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)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Adrian wrote
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.

**** all of them are.

Although not going to save the economy.

Not even going to save the operation that makes them either.

And of course are under a great deal
of competition from foreign makers

None of whom are actually stupid enough
to have something that isnt a normal car
except in a few places like the Philippines etc.

- despite being designed for London specifically.

Nothing special about London in that regard.

Borisbuses?

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

So you are flat on your face in the mud, as always.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

That will be just fine, then.

Yep, she gets to tell the dregs of the EU that they aren't
allowed to move to Britain once Britain leaves the EU.
Just like she currently does with the rest of the world.

Approximately 1/2 of UK immigration comes from
outside the EU. And despite promises at pretty well
every election of the past few years continues to rise.

Because so many of them are in Britain already and many
of them get to have their new wives and relos come too
and because Britain continues to do much better than
where they are coming from with most of them.

On 02/07/2016 22:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/07/16 22:27, Jacky Chance wrote:


That's a lie. Have fun listing the EU law that allows you to
pick your nose, fart, each chocolate etc etc etc. They do it
all the time without getting charged for doing so anyway.

"ius non scriptum".

I.e. common practice., The point is that what is common practice is one
thing, what is uncommon practice is another....



No law that says you can **** either.


I think you will find that somewhere in the Euroepan Court of Human rights.

Guilty until proven innocent, y'see.

Doesnt work like that either.


Actually its does. Cf the Glyphosate. Its is assumed bye the infamous
and philosophically unsound 'precautionary principle' to be 'dangerous
unless proven safe'



The Glyphosate that has been approved by the EU?
Are you against approving stuff now?

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

Yep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_London_Taxi_Company

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/07/16 10:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,


The guiding rule of the EU legal system, if its not specifically
permitted, it is disallowed.

That has always been a myth. Picking your nose, farting, ****ing
aren't specifically permitted and are allowed anyway.

Or as the old adage has it
"Alles verboten ist"

It's more complicated than that.

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

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.

Aren't Manganese Bronze now Chinese owned?

You'd be very hard pushed to find any 'British' manufacturer who isn't.

BULL****. Try Rolls Royce Holdings for starters. And BAE too.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 02/07/2016 12:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 02/07/16 10:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
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,


The guiding rule of the EU legal system, if its not specifically
permitted, it is disallowed.

You can stop the lies now, you have won.

No he hasnt. Britain hasnt left the EU yet and it
isnt even clear that some ****wit politician won't
actually be stupid enough to agree to what the
EU demands to get free trade with the EU either.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/07/16 22:27, Jacky Chance wrote:


That's a lie. Have fun listing the EU law that allows you to
pick your nose, fart, each chocolate etc etc etc. They do it
all the time without getting charged for doing so anyway.

"ius non scriptum".

I.e. common practice., The point is that what is common practice is one
thing, what is uncommon practice is another....



No law that says you can **** either.


I think you will find that somewhere in the Euroepan Court of Human
rights.

And yet there was quite a bit of unprosecuted
****ing going on before it was even invented.

Guilty until proven innocent, y'see.

Doesnt work like that either.


Actually its does. Cf the Glyphosate. Its is assumed bye the infamous and
philosophically unsound 'precautionary principle' to be 'dangerous unless
proven safe'

And yet no one has been charged with using it.

"Jacky Chance" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/07/16 22:27, Jacky Chance wrote:


That's a lie. Have fun listing the EU law that allows you to
pick your nose, fart, each chocolate etc etc etc. They do it
all the time without getting charged for doing so anyway.

"ius non scriptum".

I.e. common practice., The point is that what is common practice is one
thing, what is uncommon practice is another....

When people started flying, it wasnt common practice and they
didnt get prosecuted until that was made legal. Same with cars.



No law that says you can **** either.


I think you will find that somewhere in the Euroepan Court of Human
rights.

Guilty until proven innocent, y'see.

Doesnt work like that either.


Actually its does. Cf the Glyphosate. Its is assumed bye the infamous and
philosophically unsound 'precautionary principle' to be 'dangerous unless
proven safe'


--
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 Sat, 02 Jul 2016 21:35:02 +0100, T i m wrote:

He said he voted out and has been a EuroSkeptic for many years. However,
every point he seemed to think was key, didn't really seem to fit my
real-world observations. Like 'corruption' within the EU ...

Oh, that old chestnut.

Did he come up with "And the accounts haven't even been audited for
years", too?

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-audi...ign-eu-budget/

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 07:45:05 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 21:35:02 +0100, T i m wrote:

He said he voted out and has been a EuroSkeptic for many years. However,
every point he seemed to think was key, didn't really seem to fit my
real-world observations. Like 'corruption' within the EU ...

Oh, that old chestnut.

Yup.

Did he come up with "And the accounts haven't even been audited for
years", too?

No, he didn't as it happens, however he did mention the 'big expensive
buildings that are all over the place' and I suggested they 1) had to
work somewhere, 2) Modern building were often cheaper to run than old
ones, 3) There was probably a god reason that the different roles were
in different buildings (historic or otherwise) and 4) I'm not sure
everyone 'enjoys' traipsing between buildings, no matter what they put
on their expenses? shrug

Oh, and the other one was that 'after a few years these MEP's on
£155,000 p.a. they were often millionaires'?

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-audi...ign-eu-budget/

Interesting, thanks. So, I think I conclude from that that like any
organisation (outside 'a few' people) there will be issues, errors,
mistakes and some people 'trying it on'. And as I said elsewhere these
will generally get resolved given time.

Where they don't the chances are they will be insignificant amounts,
given the bigger picture (or the authorities will generally get
involved).

It's like the 'professional' charities who support a single cause.
Yes, 'the management' may be on a nice screw and they 'could' do it
for nothing but most people can't live on nothing and if they are
'good' at what they do then they probably deserve some (at least) of
what they get and it is probably safe to say the recipient of the
funds wouldn't get anything or as much, if it were not for people
being paid to do it?

Same with 'free' (of cost) software. Unless some big co is paying
people to write code on the side, most people who have to pay their
way in life can't live on no income, so generally have to still work
for 'da man' to be able to survive.

Free is often only free if someone else is paying for it. (AKA, 'There
is no such thing as a free lunch'). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 09:07:03 +0100, T i m wrote:

Did he come up with "And the accounts haven't even been audited for
years", too?

No, he didn't as it happens, however he did mention the 'big expensive
buildings that are all over the place' and I suggested they 1) had to
work somewhere, 2) Modern building were often cheaper to run than old
ones, 3) There was probably a god reason that the different roles were
in different buildings (historic or otherwise) and 4) I'm not sure
everyone 'enjoys' traipsing between buildings, no matter what they put
on their expenses? shrug

The Brussels/Strasbourg split is a historical oddity - originally, the
parliament was due to move between all the member countries, and started
with Belgium, the first alphabetically. France was next on the list, back
in those early days of half a dozen countries. The French got Strasbourg
written into the paperwork, and refuse to remove that...

Oh, and the other one was that 'after a few years these MEP's on
£155,000 p.a. they were often millionaires'?

Bad maths apart, sounds like simple jealousy.

Oh, and an MEP's salary is ‚¬8k/mo before tax, ‚¬6250 after. So that's ‚¬75k/
yr after tax, £63k. Damn near 16yrs to become a "millionaire", always
assuming you don't actually spend any of your salary...

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-audi...ign-eu-budget/

Interesting, thanks. So, I think I conclude from that that like any
organisation (outside 'a few' people) there will be issues, errors,
mistakes and some people 'trying it on'. And as I said elsewhere these
will generally get resolved given time.

Yep. And most of the errors actually come from the member countries
anyway, rather than the EU itself.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 08:16:16 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

snip

OK, why do you think all those people were protesting? I would be
interested to hear what you think.

Just for the S&G's, try putting yourself on the other side for just a
moment and see if you can see what they might be seeing (seriously).


They were protesting because they didn't like the result, which was
that they lost the vote.

And that's it is it? That's what / all you actually think it was
about, that they 'didn't like the result'? No wonder the whole protest
thing confuses you. ;-(

'10's of thousands' protesting is still a
small number compared with the 1.3 million majority in favour of
leaving.

Irrelevant. Only a small proportion of those who may be affected /
concerned are ever likely to get up and protest about it (anything).

If the numbers were reversed and the 'Leave' campaign had won
by a similar majority, I'd have sighed, but I would have accepted it.

Funny that Farage wasn't going to though?

If Remain had one, fewer people would have been likely to complain
because the *risk* of continuing with the status quo and especially
as it goes along with all the advice given by those who know better
would have been seen as less. I'm guessing you are suggesting were are
(were) 'only' 5th on the highest GDP list because the EU were holding
us back?

For better or for worse, it's the way we do things in the UK, whether
referendums, local elections or general elections. People accept the
result, like it or not, and don't go marching in the street claiming
it was unfair or whatever and seeking to reverse the result.

They do if they consider that to be the case. And they do, lot's of
them.

The electorate isn't stupid.

Bwhahahaha (politically).

They know perfectly well that when it
comes to elections where politicians are involved, half-truths,
distortions,and promises that will never be honoured are the order of
the day.

Ok, then I'll take that back, for some of them at least. Those of us
who generally spoil our papers because we don't have much faith /
trust in 'the system' (but because of how it works, rarely will
anything really get though and if it does, we protest about it).

They expect nothing less. In the Referendum, people voted on
issues that effected them personally, such as immigration, where they
saw no solution by remaining in the EU, and it only getting worse.

So *you* think leaving the EU is going to 'fix' that do you Chris?
Assuming you are a level above the great unwashed on all this, if you
think that though is a valid and justified one, if you think it's
going to have the effect on immigration that the great unwashed think
it's going to have, then there really is no hope for any of us. ;-(

I've seen interviews where the interviewee have actually stated
(paraphrasing) that 'If we leave the EU it will not only stop
immigration but many will be sent back' and when the interviewer said
'Really?' they said 'well I hope so ...'? That is the logic many who
voted Leave were using and if it was explained to them that they were
wrong, and what the other 'costs' might be fir leaving and the NHS
wasn't going to get the £350m/w like they thought, they might well
vote differently.

They felt frustrated and impotent to do anything about it. So they
rejected the system that imposed it. Only time will tell if leaving
will improve the situation, but remaining certainly won't.

Quite, we could be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

What if this magic immigration bullet turns out to be as much of a
blank as most experts predict and as most of the promises and deals we
have been presented with so far (as you say, not really unexpected),
what do we do then? We find we still have (and potentially 'need') as
many immigrants as we first had (all be it with some form of vetting)
but we have now broken all the established links on a huge range of
subjects that are going to take *years* to restore (to their current
financial and functional efficiency) and for what? Just so we can be
'Great Britain again (all be it without Scotland or NI and other
places possibly)?

Remember, it's not the actual outcome that is an issue for me (and
many others), it was the disgusting way something so important was
allowed to be presented to a populous that were ill equipped to make a
considered decision, one that would ever be likely to achieve their
personal goals and desires, let alone represent what all the Kingdoms
or their population (not the minority who voted one way or the other)
desired.

And then there was the margin. If I was asking for an opinion on
something that could have such far reaching and potentially damaging
results as making the wrong decision to: 'Should we leave the EU', *I*
wouldn't be willing to go ahead unless at least 2/3 rd's (or whatever
number many voting systems use) wanted the same thing. 50:50 (or close
to) isn't a 'decision', it's 'indecision', and that fact seems to be
agreed by the very person who was party to starting this whole
process, Farage (when it goes in his favour of course). And please
don't quote the numbers. 4% is still only 4% and (potentially) no way
reflects the opinion of the population as a whole.

Isn't it 'more likely' that those want 'change' would go out and vote
versus those who are happy with the status quo? Especially if said
felt it would be to our detriment to leave and therefore few would
vote that way?

To understand why the outcome may *now* considered to be the wrong one
is that only *now* are many people starting to comprehend the (and not
the full) consequences (and we have only just scratched the surface).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. If you are still only interested in the ~1.3M who formed the
majority who voted to Leave, please don't waste either of our time by
replying.

T i m wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 08:16:16 +0100, Chris wrote:

snip

OK, why do you think all those people were protesting? I would be
interested to hear what you think.

Just for the S&G's, try putting yourself on the other side for just a
moment and see if you can see what they might be seeing (seriously).


They were protesting because they didn't like the result, which was
that they lost the vote.

And that's it is it? That's what / all you actually think it was
about, that they 'didn't like the result'? No wonder the whole protest
thing confuses you. ;-(


'10's of thousands' protesting is still a
small number compared with the 1.3 million majority in favour of
leaving.

Irrelevant. Only a small proportion of those who may be affected /
concerned are ever likely to get up and protest about it (anything).


If the numbers were reversed and the 'Leave' campaign had won
by a similar majority, I'd have sighed, but I would have accepted it.

Funny that Farage wasn't going to though?

If Remain had one, fewer people would have been likely to complain
because the *risk* of continuing with the status quo and especially
as it goes along with all the advice given by those who know better
would have been seen as less. I'm guessing you are suggesting were are
(were) 'only' 5th on the highest GDP list because the EU were holding
us back?


For better or for worse, it's the way we do things in the UK, whether
referendums, local elections or general elections. People accept the
result, like it or not, and don't go marching in the street claiming
it was unfair or whatever and seeking to reverse the result.

They do if they consider that to be the case. And they do, lot's of
them.

The electorate isn't stupid.

Bwhahahaha (politically).


They know perfectly well that when it
comes to elections where politicians are involved, half-truths,
distortions,and promises that will never be honoured are the order of
the day.

Ok, then I'll take that back, for some of them at least. Those of us
who generally spoil our papers because we don't have much faith /
trust in 'the system' (but because of how it works, rarely will
anything really get though and if it does, we protest about it).


They expect nothing less. In the Referendum, people voted on
issues that effected them personally, such as immigration, where they
saw no solution by remaining in the EU, and it only getting worse.

So *you* think leaving the EU is going to 'fix' that do you Chris?
Assuming you are a level above the great unwashed on all this, if you
think that though is a valid and justified one, if you think it's
going to have the effect on immigration that the great unwashed think
it's going to have, then there really is no hope for any of us. ;-(

I've seen interviews where the interviewee have actually stated
(paraphrasing) that 'If we leave the EU it will not only stop
immigration but many will be sent back' and when the interviewer said
'Really?' they said 'well I hope so ...'? That is the logic many who
voted Leave were using and if it was explained to them that they were
wrong, and what the other 'costs' might be fir leaving and the NHS
wasn't going to get the £350m/w like they thought, they might well
vote differently.


They felt frustrated and impotent to do anything about it. So they
rejected the system that imposed it. Only time will tell if leaving
will improve the situation, but remaining certainly won't.

Quite, we could be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

What if this magic immigration bullet turns out to be as much of a
blank as most experts predict and as most of the promises and deals we
have been presented with so far (as you say, not really unexpected),
what do we do then? We find we still have (and potentially 'need') as
many immigrants as we first had (all be it with some form of vetting)
but we have now broken all the established links on a huge range of
subjects that are going to take *years* to restore (to their current
financial and functional efficiency) and for what? Just so we can be
'Great Britain again (all be it without Scotland or NI and other
places possibly)?

Remember, it's not the actual outcome that is an issue for me (and
many others), it was the disgusting way something so important was
allowed to be presented to a populous that were ill equipped to make a
considered decision, one that would ever be likely to achieve their
personal goals and desires, let alone represent what all the Kingdoms
or their population (not the minority who voted one way or the other)
desired.

And then there was the margin. If I was asking for an opinion on
something that could have such far reaching and potentially damaging
results as making the wrong decision to: 'Should we leave the EU', *I*
wouldn't be willing to go ahead unless at least 2/3 rd's (or whatever
number many voting systems use) wanted the same thing. 50:50 (or close
to) isn't a 'decision', it's 'indecision', and that fact seems to be
agreed by the very person who was party to starting this whole
process, Farage (when it goes in his favour of course). And please
don't quote the numbers. 4% is still only 4% and (potentially) no way
reflects the opinion of the population as a whole.

Isn't it 'more likely' that those want 'change' would go out and vote
versus those who are happy with the status quo? Especially if said
felt it would be to our detriment to leave and therefore few would
vote that way?

To understand why the outcome may *now* considered to be the wrong one
is that only *now* are many people starting to comprehend the (and not
the full) consequences (and we have only just scratched the surface).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. If you are still only interested in the ~1.3M who formed the
majority who voted to Leave, please don't waste either of our time by
replying.


You are the one wasting time. Get back to diy.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 08:16:43 +0000 (UTC), Adrian
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 09:07:03 +0100, T i m wrote:

Did he come up with "And the accounts haven't even been audited for
years", too?

No, he didn't as it happens, however he did mention the 'big expensive
buildings that are all over the place' and I suggested they 1) had to
work somewhere, 2) Modern building were often cheaper to run than old
ones, 3) There was probably a god reason that the different roles were
in different buildings (historic or otherwise) and 4) I'm not sure
everyone 'enjoys' traipsing between buildings, no matter what they put
on their expenses? shrug

The Brussels/Strasbourg split is a historical oddity - originally, the
parliament was due to move between all the member countries, and started
with Belgium, the first alphabetically. France was next on the list, back
in those early days of half a dozen countries.

Interesting thanks. ;-)

The French got Strasbourg
written into the paperwork, and refuse to remove that...

Damn awkward Frogs. ;-)


Oh, and the other one was that 'after a few years these MEP's on
£155,000 p.a. they were often millionaires'?

Bad maths apart, sounds like simple jealousy.

Or just a gullibility to accept someone else's 'crusade'. He had
admitted he had read several books and articles on the EU but the
chances are, stuff written by another Euro Skeptic so no surprises it
would reinforce a particular (biased) view?

Oh, and an MEP's salary is €8k/mo before tax, €6250 after. So that's €75k/
yr after tax, £63k. Damn near 16yrs to become a "millionaire", always
assuming you don't actually spend any of your salary...

Quite!

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-audi...ign-eu-budget/

Interesting, thanks. So, I think I conclude from that that like any
organisation (outside 'a few' people) there will be issues, errors,
mistakes and some people 'trying it on'. And as I said elsewhere these
will generally get resolved given time.

Yep. And most of the errors actually come from the member countries
anyway, rather than the EU itself.

Understood.

As an aside (and you seem to have a good handle on all this), I think
I understand because we have reciprocal relationships with the various
EU countries re health cover, if a UK person in say Spain needs
medical help, the cost of that is borne by the UK NHS and in turn, a
Spaniard requiring medical care here is charged back to Spain?

However, I think I heard that our NHS is particularly slow at sending
out the invoices and hence we are 'owed' quite a bit of cash?

Not that it won't get resoled in time (theoretically), just that I
understand we could do with it ourselves? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 09:59:34 +0100, Capitol wrote:

snip

p.s. If you are still only interested in the ~1.3M who formed the
majority who voted to Leave, please don't waste either of our time by
replying.


You are the one wasting time.

Sorry, I was talking to the grown up's. ;-(

Get back to diy.

Only when you do (thanks).

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 10:26:27 +0100, T i m wrote:

As an aside (and you seem to have a good handle on all this), I think I
understand because we have reciprocal relationships with the various EU
countries re health cover, if a UK person in say Spain needs medical
help, the cost of that is borne by the UK NHS and in turn, a Spaniard
requiring medical care here is charged back to Spain?

Yep, that's what the EHIC card's for.

However, I think I heard that our NHS is particularly slow at sending
out the invoices and hence we are 'owed' quite a bit of cash?

When did you last get asked for any proof of anything at A&E? A british
accent's proof of nothing. You could have moved to the US and got
citizenship to make life easier over there.

The NHS could recharge "health tourists". They choose not to. Given how
loudly the NHS always shouts about funding crises, this can really only
be because it's cheaper to lose out on that potential income stream, than
to put the eligibility-checking and recharging infrastructure in place.

There may also be political implications, when it comes to "free at the
point of delivery". But one thing's for sure - the NHS will have looked
into it.